Since the eruption of the Syrian conflict in 2011, Lebanon has hosted around 1.2 million refugees, mostly in the peripheral and most vulnerable areas of the country. Local authorities have been at the forefront of the refugee crisis, juggling available means to maintain a basic level of services while managing economic, social and environmental challenges. The gridlock of Lebanon’s central government continues to place the burden of service delivery onto local authorities, both municipalities and unions of municipalities. They must now provide for the needs of twice as many inhabitants while drawing on the same, largely insufficient, resources they had before the refugee influx. As such, the international donor community has sought to provide additional resources through programme funding and in-kind support to local authorities.
This report provides an empirical snapshot of the landscape of local governance in Lebanon from the perspective of unions of municipalities.Based on a capacity mapping and survey of 86 percent of Lebanon’s municipal unions, it also highlights entry points for national and international actors to support local authorities and host communities to address the repercussions of the Syrian conflict, including the enormous socio-economic burden that the refugee crisis has placed on local communities. Approximately 85 percent of Syrian refugees reside within Lebanese communities, both urban and rural, placing a strain on job markets and the provision of essential services.
Municipal unions were established to spearhead collective projects, programmes and investments that address the development and planning needs of their territories. In practice, unions struggle to realise this mandate. For example, two-thirds of unions have not yet developed an urban masterplan, although most of them have said they were committed to a strategic vision or some form of planning.This can be partly attributed to unions’ lack of resources and in-house expertise, but also the lack of guidance from the line ministries and national governmental agencies, as well as bureaucratic hurdles. As a result, unions tend to over-rely on uncoordinated aid money to hire external experts and consultants to perform adhoc planning functions.