Water Scarcity Survey

Akkar Region

Investigating the extent and impacts of water scarcity

on Syrian refugee and Lebanese host community
populations in Akkar region

19 September 2014
Lebanon

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Water Scarcity Survey

Akkar Region
September 2014

International Rescue Committee

All rights reserved
2014
International Rescue Committee
Lebanon Country Office
Azouri Centre, Naccache Street
Achrafieh, Beirut
Cover Photo: Syrian refugees filling water containers in Wadi Khaled

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

Forward
The IRC has been working in Lebanon since 2012 to provide support to Syrian refugees and
vulnerable host community members across a range of areas, including womens protection,
childrens protection and cash assistance. In partnership with UNHCR, the IRC implements a
protection monitoring and information dissemination project in Akkar, which seeks to promote an
enhanced protection environment for refugee adults and children, especially those identified
through monitoring to be most at risk of rights violations and least able to access basic services
and assistance. Protection monitoring and information dissemination teams empower refugees
with knowledge about their rights, as well as pathways to access services. Reporting and
referral of protection concerns faced by vulnerable individuals, households and larger groups
are undertaken to facilitate effective responses by relevant actors.
As the protracted displacement of refugee populations from Syria continues, it is anticipated that
mitigating community tensions arising from shared use of, and competition for, scarce resources
will become an increasingly important priority. Indeed, across a range of communities in Akkar,
as well as Mount Lebanon Governorate and the Tripoli +5 region where the IRC also
implements protection monitoring and information dissemination projects, such tensions are
becoming progressively more common. While linked to a range of resource types and always
influenced by the specificities of the local village or town context, competition for access to
livelihoods, shelter and water are three key drivers of conflict between refugee and host
communities. While such water and other resource-related conflicts are typically manifest in
relatively low-level verbal disputes and harassment, escalation to violence has taken place
occasionally and may become more commonplace if underlying frustrations regarding access to
key resources, services and opportunities are unaddressed.
Taking into account the primacy of water as a life-preserving resource, as well as the health
implications of lack of access to potable water and water for household uses, water was chosen
as the survey topic. This choice also reflects the overarching challenges that Lebanon currently
faces with regard to water, given current inefficiencies in water storage and use coupled with the
much lower than average rainfall recorded over the last winter. Considering these issues in
tandem with the increase in demand for water due to the refugee influx, the integral importance
of water management for Lebanons future is thrown into sharp relief.
In recognition of the contextual factors outlined above, the IRC focused this rapid water scarcity
survey not only on the quality of access to water for drinking and household uses, and the
impacts of obstacles to such access, but also on the recommendations of refugee and host
populations regarding water management in their communities.
It is hoped that the findings presented in that regard will provide a useful basis for future
programming designed to support the resilience of both refugee and host communities in a
water-scarce environment.

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

Executive Summary
The findings drawn from the data gathered during the survey provide evidence that increased
water scarcity poses a number of challenges for both refugees and affected host communities:

Consistently, refugee communities were found to experience disproportionately greater

barriers to accessing water than the surrounding host community and, perhaps
unsurprisingly, social cohesion was most affected in areas where host communities
experienced the greatest exposure to impacts of water scarcity.

Health and hygiene impacts were identified both in relation to difficulties maintaining
minimum hygiene standards due to water scarcity, and perceived greater incidence of
illnesses attributed to poor water quality. Related findings demonstrated that water
scarcity contributes to domestic conflict and therefore may be considered one driver of
increased risk of violence within the household.

Affordability was identified as a key barrier to water access. Interestingly, in a minority of

locations surveyed, refugees typically paid more than host community members for
access to water. In other locations, refugees paid less for access to water but typically
expressed concern that the quality of the water they were accessing was poorer than
that used by the host community.

Recommendations from refugee and host communities regarding water management did
vary but some common themes were present, including: interest in the provision of
information and/or trainings about effective water conservation measures; the
establishment of new wells; and, the installation and/or expansion of piped water
systems.

Analysis of these findings led to the formulation of the following recommendations:

Implementation of water conservation awareness raising activities and information sessions,
targeting both the refugee and host communities and prioritizing locations where agricultural
activities are the main source of livelihoods.
Support for the meaningful participation of refugee community representatives in
municipality-level water management structures and dialogues.
Implementation of water source improvement projects, designed to improve water quality
and storage in water scarce communities.

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

Methodology
In order to ensure broad coverage of the Akkar region, and to effectively capture perspectives
from both the refugee and host communities, a series of 24 focus groups was conducted.
These focus groups took place in 12 areas across Akkar, with three villages or towns chosen in
each of the Akkar regions four main geographical areas (refer to map below).

Khat el Petrol
El Aabboudiye

El Hichi
Kouachra

Daarine

Aaidamoun
Tallet ez Zefir

Knaisse

Khirbet Daoud

Bebnine
Fnaideq
Hrar

The targeted locations in each area where chosen in order to provide a cross-section of profiles.
In each area, the first location was targeted on the basis of known community tensions
surrounding water use that were previously identified through routine protection monitoring. The
second location was targeted due to lack of any pre-existing water issues in order to provide a
reference point for comparison, and the final location was targeted based on lack of previous
investigation into water issues there.
In each of the 12 targeted areas, two focus groups were held: one with Syrian refugees and one
with Lebanese host community members. The participation of refugee and host community
representatives was organized through separate focus groups, in order to promote candor in
discussions of inter-communal tensions resulting from competition for access to water.
Previous experience indicated that, in particular, refugee community members would be less
likely to be open about difficulties encountered in interactions with host community members if
they perceived that such openness could place them at risk of retribution. All participants were
assured that, while the information collected through the focus groups would be reported, no
information or quotes would be attributed to individual participants. A total of 212 individuals
participated in the focus groups that were conducted in order to gather information for this
survey, with an average of 53 participants per area. In an effort to gain holistic and

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

representative data, individual participants were chosen/invited to participate based on their

interest in the topic, and with the goal of ensuring a representative cross-section of participants
incorporating both genders, multiple age groups and all socio-economic groups. The focus
groups were attended by both men and women, with an overall gender breakdown of 56.6%
male participants and 43.4% female participants. The charts below provide participant
breakdowns for each area:

South Akkar

Men
43%

Wadi Khaled & Akroum

Men
43%

Lebanese
42%

Women
57%

Lebanese
41%

Women
57%

Syrian
58%

Mid-Dreib

Syrian
59%

Coastal Area
Women
26%

Women
37%

Lebanese
40%

Men
63%

Lebanese
52%

Syrian
60%

Syrian
48%

Men
74%

The focus group discussions were structured around four primary areas of inquiry,
encompassing: the currently existing impacts of competition for access to water resources on
social cohesion within and between refugee and host communities; anticipated future impacts of
competition for water resources and/or limited access to water resources, including both direct
and indirect impacts; water as a financial burden, and its relationship to overall household
expenditures; and, perspectives on water management, prioritization and the incentivization of
participation in water conservation strategies. Focus group discussions generally lasted for
between 90 and 120 minutes, allowing for dialogue of 20 to 30 minutes on each area of inquiry.
Time devoted to each area of inquiry differed in accordance with the relevance and importance
attributed by to it participants; however, all areas of inquiry were covered in each focus group.
In order to facilitate participant engagement on these topics during the focus group discussions,
the IRC facilitators relied upon the key questions and follow up prompts listed below:
Inquiry Area 1: Currently existing impacts of competition for access to water resources on
social cohesion within and between refugee and host communities.
Have there been any incidents in your community related to water in the past three months?
o What was the impact of, and response to, these incidents?
o Are similar incidents expected in the future?

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

Inquiry Area 2: Anticipated future impacts of competition for water resources and/or limited
access to water resources, including direct and indirect impacts.
In which ways do you think water shortages are affecting, or would affect, your community?
o How serious and/or frequent are these effects?
o What, if anything, is being done/planned to address effects of water shortages?
Inquiry Area 3: Water as a financial burden, and its relationship to overall household
expenditures.
Can you afford to meet your water needs on a weekly basis?
o How much do you currently spend on water?
o Are you able to purchase/access sufficient water for your needs?
Inquiry Area 4: Perspectives on water management, prioritization and the incentivization of
participation in water conservation strategies.
Where do you think water usage should be prioritized in your community?
o Is this different to the current prioritization of water use? Why?
o What should be done to implement this and/or encourage water conservation?
o What should be done to improve equitable access to existing water resources?
Finally, note that data collected from focus group participants represents their perceptions of
water availability, related impacts and preferred solutions. It is not the outcome of objective
measurement of water table capacity or actual water resources. There may be instances where
community members perceptions differ from assessments made by technical experts; however,
it is the perceptions of community members that govern attitudes towards water use, and
tensions surrounding access to water, at the local level. Understanding these perceptions is
therefore central to ensuring the effective design and implementation of future programming and
policy initiatives related to water resource management. This survey provides an analytic
snapshot of those perceptions in order to support that end.

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

Findings
Findings are organized with reference to the four main areas of inquiry explored through the
focus groups. Raw data collected through the focus groups has been aggregated for analysis,
allowing for examples of positive or innovative practices to be identified and for situations of
particular concern to be also highlighted.
1. Interrelationship Between Water Scarcity and Social Cohesion
Lebanese host community perceptions of water usage by Syrian refugees
In 16.67% of the targeted locations (two locations), host community focus group participants
described Syrian refugees as squandering or wasting water, or taking more than their fair
share.
In a further 33.33% of the targeted locations (four locations), Syrian refugee
participants reported requests from host community representatives that they reduce their water
usage. Overall then, data collected from half the targeted locations indicates a perception
among the Lebanese host community that water usage by Syrian refugees is higher than can
reasonably be accommodated by existing water supply infrastructure, if not actually wasteful.
Water-related tensions between refugee and host communities
In four of the twelve targeted locations (33.33%), either the refugee community, the host
community or both indicated water-related tensions between the two communities.
Interestingly, in two locations (El Hichi and Aabboudiye) the refugee and host communities both
reported tensions, while in the remaining two locations (Aadamoun and Hrar) only the host
community reported tensions. While water-related tensions may also be an indication of more
general feelings of frustration, it is not surprising in Aadamoun and Hrar, that tensions are more
readily articulated by the host community. Host communities there are either providing water for
their Syrian neighbors or adapting to a diminished water supply in comparison with previous
years. In all locations reporting the existence of tensions currently, there is a strong perception
among the host community that Syrian refugees are managing water resources wastefully.
Lebanese residents in Akkar are used to having conserve their water usage during summer
months, they attribute Syrians lack of water management to the fact that most Syrians living in
Akkar are from the districts of Homs and Hama, where water supply meets demand and they
have not previously had to conserve or ration their water usage. In a fifth location, Tallet Ez
Zefir, there is a high level of concern among the refugee community that water-related tensions
will rise following requests from the host community that they reduce their water consumption.
In Tallet Ez Zefir, these requests to reduce water consumption were made by Lebanese
neighbours directly to Syrian households, while in Aadamoun and Khirbet Daoud requests to
reduce water consumption were made by Lebanese landlords to their Syrian tenants. The
circumstances in Tallet Ez Zefir contrast with those in Khirbet Daoud where a similar request for
a reduction in refugees water consumption was made by host community representatives
without raising concern about increased likelihood of inter-communal tensions. This contrast can
be explained with reference to the different water uses prioritized by the two villages. In Tallet
Ez Zefir, livelihoods for the majority of the host community are based on agricultural work and,

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

therefore, diminishing water supply represents not only reduced access to water for drinking and
household uses but also a more encompassing threat to income levels. In Khirbet Daoud, water
is used chiefly for domestic purposes and the ramifications of shortages are therefore more
limited.
Tensions within the host and refugee communities
There was a strong correlation between locations reporting tensions between refugee and host
communities, and those reporting tensions within the host community, refugee community or
both (75%). Of the four communities where inter-communal tensions were reported, only
Aadamoun did not also report intra-communal tensions of some kind. A total of five
communities reported intra-communal tensions.
The diagram below provides a breakdown of the types of intra-communal tensions reported:

Within
Host Community

Within
Both

Within
Refugee Community

Bebnine; Hrar

El Hichi; Knaisse

Abboudiye

Qualitative evidence from FGDs supports the inference that the presence of tensions between
the refugee and host community increases the likelihood of tensions also arising within the host
communities. This is particularly the case in locations where the perceived excessive use of
water by Syrian refugee tenants sparks tension between their Lebanese landlords and other
members of the host community who blame landlords for allowing tenants to overuse water
(specifically reported in El Hichi). The impact of this type of tension within host communities is
perhaps most clearly reflected in areas where Lebanese landlords have requested reduced
water usage by their Syrian refugee tenants (Aadamoun and Tallet Ez Zefir). In Bebnine,
despite the fact that neither community explicitly reported the existence of tensions between
Lebanese residents and refugees, refugee FGD participants indicated that host community well
owners are typically not allowing refugees to access water resources from wells they control. It
is reasonable to anticipate that this barrier to access may constitute a driver for new or
increased tensions in the future, if it remains unaddressed.
Tensions among the refugee community are closely linked to access to water for drinking and
household use. For example, in El Hichi, over 50 Syrian refugee families are relying on one well
as their primary source of water. The water available through the well is insufficient to meet the
needs of the families relying upon it. Similarly, in Abboudiye, competition for well access within
the refugee community, as well as between the refugee and host communities, is a key point of
contention. In Knaisse, refugee families are generally unable to afford to purchase sufficient
water for their household needs and a water rationing system based on the number of family
8

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

members in the household is in operation. Disputes within the refugee community occur
regarding families place in the queue for water access.
Tensions with neighboring villages
Interestingly, water-related tensions were found to also potentially arise in areas unaffected by
water scarcity concerns. Khat El Patrol was described by both the host and refugee
communities as an area free from drinking and domestic water scarcity issues, with a well for
every five families and free, abundant water of good quality. Ironically, because of the
abundance of water in the area and the ease of accessing it, water-related tensions have
emerged with neighboring communities. People living in water-scarce areas of Wadi Khaled are
travelling to Khat El Patrol to access water there, creating significant resentment amongst local
residents. There are currently no controls on people from outside Khat El Patrol accessing
water there.
2. Impacts of Lack of Safe and Sufficient Water Resources
Impacts of water scarcity
Data collected reflects three key impacts of water scarcity at the household level: (1) increased
incidence of health problems; (2) reduced capacity to maintain minimum hygiene standards;
and, (3) deterioration of domestic relationships.
In four locations, refugee communities attribute an increased incidence of health problems to
water scarcity. Reported health problems included: skin rashes (Knaisse); bowel and other
infections (Kouachra); poor child health (Aadamoun); and, scabies and lice (Aabboudiye). In all
cases, the reported health problems were attributed to an inability to maintain minimum hygiene
standards due to water scarcity. Reduced capacity to maintain minimum hygiene standards
was also specifically reported on in four locations. Generally, water scarcity had resulted in
reduction of regular showering/bathing for refugees in these areas to once per person, per week
(Hrar, Fnaideq and Aadamoun). Worryingly, in Knaisse, refugees reported having access to
sufficient water to allow for showering/bathing only once per person every two to three weeks.
The host community in Knaisse reported no household level impacts of water scarcity, reflecting
costs that are normal for the host community but unaffordable for the refugee community as the
key barrier to access in this area. As well as health impacts, lack of access to water for
household uses, especially those related to personal hygiene, were found to have significant
impacts on the deterioration of domestic relationships within the household. In Hrar, Bebnine
and Fnaideq, FGD participants all reported that frustration about water scarcity leads to
increased domestic conflict.
Impacts of poor water quality
Refugee participants in FGDs reported concerns about water quality in more than half of
surveyed locations. In contrast, host community FGD participants reported concerns about
water quality in only one location. Water quality concerns tend to rise as water scarcity
increases, because as wells begin to run dry higher levels of solids are present in the water
drawn from them. The single location where both communities held concerns was Fnaideq,

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

where a water storage tank that was being constructed as part of a municipality-funded effort to
increase water accessibility for the village was, according to the Head of Municipality and
Lebanese host community, deliberately destroyed by explosives. The destruction of the water
tank, designed to meet the water storage needs of the entire community, forced both host and
refugee residents of Fnaideq into greater reliance on the piped water provided through public
infrastructure, which is insufficient to meet their needs. As a result, both communities have
been drawing water from a local spring that is thought to be contaminated due to its proximity to
overflowing garbage containers. In the other six locations where refugees reported water
quality concerns, they are generally accessing water from sources not used by the host
community. It should also be noted that in areas where water is brought to residents by trucks,
the source of the water is typically unknown to refugees and this lack of clarity is an additional
source of concern. The concerns that arise from this type of uncertainty is best reflected in
claims raised by Syrian refugees in Bebnine, that Lebanese residents are filling water
containers from contaminated water sources and offering that water for sale to refugees. In
addition to Fnaideq, water quality concerns were reported by refugee respondents in El Hichi,
Kouachra, Bebnine, Khirbet Daoud, Aabboudiye and Hrar. Various illnesses were attributed to
poor water quality, including scabies (Hrar, Bebnine and Fnaideq), skin rashes and kidney
stones (Bebnine), chicken pox (Khirbet Daoud), and smallpox (Kouachra). Distrust and/or
dissatisfaction with public water sources is also leading refugees to spend money purchasing
drinking water in Fnaideq, Aadamoun and Aabboudiye.
3. Barriers to Accessing Safe and Sufficient Water Resources
Affordability
Information gathered about prices and affordability was self-reported by focus group
respondents and was not cross-checked with suppliers. While all focus group participants were
informed that outcomes of the assessment would not be directly linked to provision of
assistance, it is possible that some price and affordability claims may have been influenced by
the desire of some participants to access assistance in meeting their water needs. Overall, 6
out of 12 refugee communities regard water access costs as unaffordable. Costs for water
access per week not only vary significantly between locations but often also differ markedly
between host and refugee populations in the same locations. The location with the highest
reported average weekly household expenses for water access amongst the surveyed Syrian
refugee communities was Fnaideq (LBP 75,000).
In a third of the locations surveyed, the average weekly costs for accessing water reported by
refugee FGD participants were lower than those reported by host community FGD participants:
Hrar, Bebnine, Knaisse and Tallet Ez Zefir. This cost differential may contribute to the likelihood
of tensions between refugee and host communities in areas where it is combined with host
community perception that refugees are either squandering water supplies (Hrar) or using a
greater proportion of water resources than can be accommodated, as indicated through
requests for reduced water usage (Tallet Ez Zefir). Cost differential appears less likely to
contribute to tensions in areas where shortages are predominately impacting only the refugee
community (for example, in Knaisse) and in areas where the host community is able to exert

10

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

greater control over use of water resources by the refugee community (in Bebnine, host
community well owners generally do not allow Syrian refugees access to water from their wells,
in order to conserve their water).

Average Weekly
Household Water Costs

In two locations, Fnaideq and Aadamoun, refugee FGD participants reported higher weekly
costs for water than host community FGD participants. No tensions between or within the host
and refugee communities were reported in Fnaideq; however, inter-communal tensions were
reported by the host community in Aadamoun where, interestingly, an imminent increase in
water access costs for host community residents is said to be imminent. Positively, two
locations from the 12 surveyed have free access to water for both the refugee and host
communities (Darine and Khat El Patrol). In the remaining four locations (Khirbet Daoud,
Kouachra, Abboudiye and El Hichi) water costs were regarded as variable by one or both
communities, often because the host community faces unpredictable water access costs
depending on electricity access or other contingencies. Average weekly household expenses
for water access for Syrian refugees that do pay water access costs was LBP 30,722. The
graph below breaks down water access costs by community in each area:
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000

60,000
40,000
20,000
0

Refugee Community
Host Community
Dotted lines indicate average weekly household costs per community
(based on locations where costs are paid, only)
* Accurate data on average weekly costs among host community households could not be
gathered, due to reportedly large variation between individual households.
** Host community costs are expected to increase to LBP 15,000 imminently.
*** Host community cost are non-routine and linked to specific situations of electricity or water
shortage that render free water resources temporarily unavailable.

Link between electricity supply and water scarcity

As indicated above, water scarcity is exacerbated by limited or insufficient electricity supply in
some areas. Two out of the 12 surveyed areas reported concerns related to this link: Tallet Ez
Zefir and Darine. The impacts of electricity shortages vary between the different areas. In

11

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

Darine, electricity shortages limit access to water that is otherwise abundant and free. As a
result, the only appreciable impact of the limited electricity supply is an increased demand for
water storage tanks. In Tallet Ez Zefir, in contrast, electricity shortages of up to 18 hours per
day have significant impacts on water availability that are more keenly felt, especially amongst
refugees. While not specifically highlighted in other areas, interruptions to electricity supply do
have impacts on access to water across Akkar. This is reflected in recommendations received
from FGD participants in Khirbet Daoud and Knaisse that generators be provided to facilitate
pumping of water from wells during electricity shortages.
4. Perspectives on Water Management
Changed water usage and/or management
Evidence of changed water usage among refugee and/or host communities was identified in a
total of five locations. Rationing, or other deliberate efforts to reduce usage, was reported by
refugee community respondents in Tallet Ez Zefir, Knaisse and Hrar. Host community
respondents stated that they are making efforts to reduce water usage in Fnaideq, Hrar, and in
Khirbet Daoud, where they had discontinued non-essential household farming activities (for
example, small household vegetable plots) in order to conserve water. A questionable new
practice identified in response to water shortages was reported in Aadamoun, where a family
from the host community has dug a new well and is selling water drawn from it at a cost of LBP
20,000 for each tank (tanks typically have a volume of 4,000 liters). This price is in line with
prevailing market rates for water in the area.
Prioritization of water uses
Overwhelmingly, refugee communities supported prioritization of water for household use. Only
in Khat El Patrol, where water is free and abundant, did refugee community respondents
prioritize water usage at PHCs and hospitals. Host community FGD participants demonstrated
higher levels of support for prioritization of agricultural uses (Khat El Patrol, Aabboudiye, Tallet
Ez Zefir, Darine, and partial support for this usage type in Hrar), and for use by schools
(Aadamoun, Kouachra and Khirbet Daoud) and PHCs (Khirbet Daoud).
Water management recommendations
Water management recommendations are ranked below in order of frequency:
Proposed
By
8 communities
6 communities
4 communities
3 communities
2 communities

1 community

Refugee Community

Host Community

- Provide Water Storage Tanks

- Distribute Water Vouchers
- Establish New Wells
- Monitor Water Quality
- Conduct Water Saving Awareness Sessions
- Increase Generator Usage
- Distribute Additional Water Supplies
- Introduce Rationing
- Expand Existing Wells
- Install Piped Water System
-Encourage Lebanese Well-Owners to Share

12

- Establish New Wells

- Conduct Water Saving Awareness Sessions
- Provide Water Storage Tanks
- Install Piped Water System
- Provide Generator
- Implement Irrigation Projects
- Impose Additional Water Access Costs on
Refugees

Water Scarcity Survey: Akkar Region

Conclusions & Recommendations

While water scarcity and weaknesses in water infrastructure in Lebanon are challenges that predate the influx of Syrian refugees into the country, the significant increase in demand for water
linked to the crisis is throwing these challenges into ever sharper relief. At the same time, new
challenges specifically linked to the refugee influx are creating additional factors that must be
taken into account as communities seek to manage, maximize and conserve the water
resources available to them.
Chief amongst these new challenges are differences between the refugee and host
communities with regard to perceptions of responsible water usage and preferred prioritization
of water uses. Generally, Lebanese residents have had a longer experience of coping with
conditions of water shortages than the Syrian refugees now seeking shelter in their
communities. This colors the way that host communities view water usage by refugee families
and groups in informal settlements, and contributes to their perception that refugee communities
use water wastefully. These perceptions are more likely to contribute to inter-communal
tensions in locations where the host community prioritizes the use of water for agricultural
purposes, reflecting reliance on agricultural activities for livelihoods. In contrast to refugee
communities, which tend to prioritize water for domestic use, Lebanese residents in agricultural
communities view access to water as essential for maintaining their agriculturally based income
stream. Host communities in these locations are therefore more likely to be sensitive to
perceived wastefulness of refugee community members regarding water resources, and for
inter-communal tensions to increase as a result.
Perhaps most worrying, though, is that even in locations where water-related tensions have not
surfaced, refugees experience significantly reduced access to water compared to members of
the surrounding host community. This sometimes takes the form of cost barriers that lead to
reduced usage but is more likely to take the form of cost barriers that result in access being
limited to water sources that are perceived to be less safe than the water sources used by the
host community. An investigation into the veracity of the attribution of various illnesses to poor
water quality was beyond the scope of this survey; however, the level of concern about this
issue in the refugee communities surveyed was palpable.
In response to these conclusions, IRC makes the following recommendations:
Implementation of water conservation awareness raising activities and information sessions,
targeting both the refugee and host communities and prioritizing locations where agricultural
activities are the main source of livelihoods.
Support for the meaningful participation of refugee community representatives in
municipality-level water management structures and dialogues.
Implementation of water source improvement projects, designed to improve water quality
and storage in water scarce communities.

13