The
special features of this field makes it possible to consider its
components and regional indicators in more detail than in the other
fields. The replies of households to the Population and Housing Survey
questionnaire with respect to each of the three relevant questions is
reviewed below in terms of the percentage of households living in the
concerned mohafazat. The three tables which follow provide a picture of
the state of public utilities related to water and sewerage services in
the six mohafazats of Lebanon.
|
1. Question No. 17: is the
dwelling connected to a water network?
The
replies to this question came as shown in the following table.
|
Table
77. Access of households to a water network
(Percent of resident households in the mohafazat) |
| Mohafazat |
Dwelling
connected to the public water network |
Dwelling
connected to both the public water network and to an artesian well |
Dwelling
connected to a private network or to an artesian well only |
Dwelling
not connected to any water network |
Total |
| Beirut |
87.6 |
8.9 |
2.7 |
0.8 |
100 |
| Mount Lebanon |
83.5 |
4.1 |
9.7 |
2.6 |
100 |
| North Lebanon |
68.3 |
9.4 |
13.2 |
9.1 |
100 |
| South Lebanon |
71.6 |
4.0 |
19.5 |
4.9 |
100 |
| Bekaa |
76.0 |
7.7 |
7.9 |
8.4 |
100 |
| Nabatieh |
82.9 |
3.3 |
7.3 |
6.5 |
100 |
| All Lebanon |
79.3 |
6.2 |
9.8 |
4.7 |
100 |
|
According to Table 77, cases of
extreme deprivation with respect to connection to a public or private
water network account for 4.7 percent of households at the national
level; the highest rates of deprivation being in the Mohafazat of the
North (9 percent) followed by the Mohafazat of Bekaa, and the lowest in
Beirut (0.8 percent) and Mount Lebanon (2.6 percent). It is also worth
noting that more significant disparities are observed between urban and
rural areas that have a higher percentage of dwellings not connected to
a water network. This problem is particularly felt in the following
kadas: Akkar, Hermel, Batroun, Bent-Jbeil, Baalbeck, Hasbayya and
Rachayya, with the proportion of dwellings not connected to a water
network varying between (10.4 percent (Rachayya) and 20.9 percent
(Akkar).
|
2. Question No. 18: What is
the principal source of potable water?
|
The replies to this question were
as shown in Table 78 below.
|
Table
78. Principal source of potable water
(Percent of resident households in the mohafazat) |
| Mohafazat |
Water from
the public network not sterilized |
Water from
the public network sterilized |
Spring
water |
Bottled or
mineral water |
Other |
Total |
| Beirut |
71.2 |
17.7 |
0.7 |
6.8 |
3.7 |
100 |
| Mount Lebanon |
51.8 |
12.0 |
11.0 |
9.0 |
16.3 |
100 |
| North Lebanon |
64.1 |
8.2 |
19.0 |
2.3 |
6.4 |
100 |
| South Lebanon |
66.1 |
22.2 |
4.3 |
0.8 |
6.6 |
100 |
| Bekaa |
65.4 |
12.7 |
12.9 |
0.6 |
8.3 |
100 |
| Nabatieh |
63.0 |
10.5 |
3.5 |
0.8 |
22.2 |
100 |
| All Lebanon |
60.6 |
13.0 |
10.2 |
5.1 |
11.1 |
100 |
|
The proportion of households
classified below the threshold with respect to the source of potable
water reaches 21.3 percent of which 10.2 percent obtain potable water
from springs, and 11.1 percent from other low-cost sources (fixed or
mobile water tanks, etc.). The Mohafazat of Mount Lebanon ranks first
(27.3 percent of households falling below the threshold). This is due
mainly to the condition of this facility in the southern suburb of
Beirut where random urban expansion has not been accompanied by the
provision of water networks connected to houses (the percentage of
resident households below the threshold reaches 46.4 percent in the Kada
of Baabda, which includes the southern suburb).
The Mohafazat of Nabatieh ranks second with respect to deprivation which
affects 25.5 percent of resident households, most of which (22.2
percent) obtain their water from unspecified sources. While the overall
rate of deprivation is virtually the same as in Nabatieh, the main
source of potable water in the Mohafazat of the North (25.4 percent) is
spring water (19 percent). The situation is similar in the rest of the
mohafazats, with each having its own natural characteristics
(availability of springs, distances between villages...), or for
security reasons (in the border strip and adjacent villages).
|
3. Question No. 19: sewerage
facilities
|
The replies to this question were
as shown in Table 79 below.
|
Table
79. Sewerage facilities
(Percent of resident households in the mohafazat) |
| Mohafazat |
Public
sewers network |
Open
sewers |
Septic
tank |
Other |
Not
available |
Total |
| Beirut |
98.9 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
100 |
| Mount Lebanon |
65.6 |
0.6 |
33.1 |
0.6 |
0.2 |
100 |
| North Lebanon |
54.2 |
3.2 |
38.9 |
1.5 |
2.2 |
100 |
| South Lebanon |
44.5 |
0.3 |
54.4 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
100 |
| Bekaa |
38.1 |
1.5 |
58.0 |
0.1 |
2.4 |
100 |
| Nabatieh |
19.5 |
1.0 |
79.3 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
100 |
| All Lebanon |
60.2 |
1.2 |
37.2 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
100 |
|
| The proportion of households that
lack access to sewerage services at the acceptable threshold level
constitute 2.5 percent only of total households. Deprivation is
concentrated in rural kadas as El-Minieh (18.4 percent), Hermel (18
percent), Bcharry (15 percent) and Akkar (10.9 percent). The main
disparities, however, are to be found between the cities and the country
side. The cities are provided with sewers networks to the extent of 98.9
percent in Beirut and 95.9 percent in Tripoli. In marked contrast, rural
areas and newly developed urban areas still rely heavily on septic tanks
(98 percent in Rachayya and Bent-Jbeil, 95.6 percent in Jbeil, and 58.5
percent in Kesrouan, which experienced extensive urbanization during the
war years). |
