# Analysis of water reuse potential for irrigation in Lebanon

Eid-Sabbagh, K., Roukoz, S., Nassif, Marie-Helene, Velpuri, Naga Manohar, Mateo-Sagasta, Javier

► To cite this version:

Eid-Sabbagh, K., Roukoz, S., Nassif, Marie-Helene, Velpuri, Naga Manohar, Mateo-Sagasta, Javier. Analysis of water reuse potential for irrigation in Lebanon. International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 2022, 145p. hal-04670908

HAL Id: hal-04670908

https://hal.science/hal-04670908v1

Submitted on 13 Aug 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research Report

# Analysis of Water Reuse Potential for Irrigation in Lebanon

Karim Eid-Sabbagh, Salim Roukoz, Marie-Hélène Nassif, Naga Velpuri and Javier Mateo-Sagasta

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
## Research Reports

The publications in this series cover a wide range of subjects—from computer modeling to experience with water user associations—and vary in content from directly applicable research to more basic studies, on which applied work ultimately depends. Some research reports are narrowly focused, analytical and detailed empirical studies; others are wide-ranging and synthetic overviews of generic problems.

Although most of the reports are published by IWMI staff and their collaborators, we welcome contributions from others. Each report is reviewed internally by IWMI staff, and by external reviewers. The reports are published and distributed both in hard copy and electronically (www.iwmi.org) and where possible all data and analyses will be available as separate downloadable files. Reports may be copied freely and cited with due acknowledgment.

## About IWMI

The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is an international, research-for-development organization that works with governments, civil society and the private sector to solve water problems in developing countries and scale up solutions. Through partnership, IWMI combines research on the sustainable use of water and land resources, knowledge services and products with capacity strengthening, dialogue and policy analysis to support implementation of water management solutions for agriculture, ecosystems, climate change and inclusive economic growth. Headquartered in Colombo, Sri Lanka, IWMI is a CGIAR Research Center with offices in 13 countries and a global network of scientists operating in more than 30 countries. www.iwmi.org
IWMI Research Report 181

# Analysis of Water Reuse Potential for Irrigation in Lebanon

Karim Eid-Sabbagh, Salim Roukoz, Marie-Hélène Nassif, Naga Velpuri and Javier Mateo-Sagasta
**The authors:** Karim Eid-Sabbagh is an independent researcher based in Tyre, Lebanon; Salim Roukoz is a GIS expert at the Ministry of Agriculture and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Beirut, Lebanon; Marie-Hélène Nassif is a researcher and consultant at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Cairo, Egypt. Naga Velpuri and Javier Mateo-Sagasta are senior researchers at IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Eid-Sabbagh, K.; Roukoz, S.; Nassif, M.-H.; Velpuri, N.; Mateo-Sagasta, J. 2022. *Analysis of water reuse potential for irrigation in Lebanon*. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 145p. (IWMI Research Report 181). doi: https://doi.org/10.5337/2022.211

/ water reuse / water potential / irrigation water / analysis / wastewater treatment plants / municipal wastewater / databases / modelling / geographical information systems / water resources / water management / water budget / water balance / supply and demand / water demand / water governance / water rights / water availability / water use / water shortage / irrigation requirements / infrastructure / groundwater / water supply / wells / water quality / regulations / parameters / domestic water / agricultural land / irrigation systems / water authorities / stakeholders / non-governmental organizations / economic crises / financial situation / case studies / Lebanon /

ISSN 1026-0862
ISBN 978-92-9090-941-5

Copyright © 2022, by IWMI. All rights reserved. IWMI encourages the use of its material provided that the organization is acknowledged and kept informed in all such instances. The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IWMI.

Please send inquiries and comments to IWMI-Publications@cgiar.org

A free copy of this publication can be downloaded at www.iwmi.org/publications/iwmi-research-reports/
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the very generous assistance provided by Dr. François Molle (Institut de recherche pour le développement [IRD], France) and Dr. Ghaleb Faour (National Council for Scientific Research [CNRS], Lebanon) in reviewing this report and recommending improvements. The authors are also grateful for the active participation of Lebanese public institutions that provided data, information and insights for this study. These include the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW), Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR), Bekaa Water Establishment (BWE), North Lebanon Water Establishment (NLWE), South Lebanon Water Establishment (SLWE), Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment (BMLWE), Ministry of Environment (MoE), Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Lebanese Agricultural Research Institute (LARI), Lebanese Standards Institution (LIBNOR), Litani River Authority (LRA), Ablah Municipality, Zahleh Municipality, Yammouneh Municipality, Hammana Municipality, Aitanit Municipality, Barr Elias Municipality, Aintourine Municipality and Bater Municipality.

The support provided by the farmers who responded to questionnaires as well as several private enterprises and nongovernmental organizations that provided data and information and participated in meetings is gratefully acknowledged. These include Suez, Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation (OTV)-Veolia, Bureau Technique pour le Développement (BTD), Earth Link and Advance Resources Development (ELARD), Triple E, DIFAF, American University of Beirut (AUB), Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs (IFI), Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK), Beirut Arab University (BAU), United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Lebanon Water Project, WeWorld-Gruppo di Volontariato Civile (GVC), Agence française de développement (AFD), European Union (EU), Lebanese Water Actors Platform (LEWAP) and other organizations.

Last but not least, the authors thank Dr. Amgad Elmahdi (former Regional Representative - Middle East and North Africa [MENA] region for the International Water Management Institute [IWMI], Egypt) and Dr. Nisreen Lahham (former Regional Project Manager for the ReWater MENA project, IWMI, Egypt) for reviewing this report, and Mahen Chandrasoma (Senior Production Editor, IWMI, Sri Lanka) for coordinating the copyediting and layout of the final manuscript.

Project

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

This research study was undertaken as part of the ReWater MENA project in Lebanon, specifically output 3: National plans for expansion of wastewater treatment and reuse in three countries - Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.

Collaborators

IWMI

International Water
Management Institute

International Water Management Institute (IWMI)

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

The Lebanese Agricultural Research Institute (LARI) is the main partner of the ReWater MENA project in Lebanon. It hosted the project office, and facilitated field visits, access to data and venues for meetings when conducting this study.

Donors

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Sweden
Sverige

The ReWater MENA project was implemented with funding from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

CGIAR

RESEARCH
PROGRAM ON
Water, Land and
Ecosystems

This research was carried out as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) and supported by Funders contributing to the CGIAR Trust Fund (https://www.cgiar.org/funders/).
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
# Contents

<table><tr><td>List of Figures</td><td>vii</td></tr><tr><td>List of Tables</td><td>viii</td></tr><tr><td>List of Boxes</td><td>viii</td></tr><tr><td>Acronyms and Abbreviations</td><td>ix</td></tr><tr><td>Summary</td><td>xi</td></tr><tr><td>Introduction and Background</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Water Resources, Budgets and Balances</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Supply and Demand Balance at National Scale</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Irrigation Water Demand and Use</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total Estimated Municipal Wastewater Production</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Objectives and Structure of the Report</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Methodology</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Methodology for Identifying Governance Obstacles and Challenges</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Key Terms and Steps for Modeling of Water Reuse Potential</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Building the Wastewater Treatment Plant Database</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Data for the GIS Model</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Calculating Net Irrigation Requirement</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Determining the Command Area</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse Potential Area</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse Potential Score</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Level of Treatment/Crop Parameter</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Type of Influent Parameter</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Irrigation Parameter</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Ideal Potential and Actual Potential</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>A Guide to Interpretation</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Technical Potential for Water Reuse</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Existing and Proposed WWTP Databases</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse Potential: Modeling Results</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>WWTPs and Agricultural Lands with Higher Reuse Potential</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>Governance Barriers to Water Reuse</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Economic and Financial Crisis</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Governance and Gridlock</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Uncertain Future of Water Sector Development</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Administrative Barriers in the Water and Wastewater Sectors</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Ministry of Energy and Water</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Council for Development and Reconstruction</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Regional Water Establishments</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Litani River Authority</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Municipalities</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Challenges to Cooperation at the Local Level</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Operational Barriers at the Level of Regional Water Establishments</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Limited Financial Capacities of Water Establishments</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Limited Human Capacities of Water Establishments</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Regulating Water Quality</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Allocation of Treated Effluents and Irrigation Water Rights and Management</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>References</td><td>50</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Annex 1. Some Characteristics of Lebanese Agriculture</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 2. Database of Existing WWTPs</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 3. Database of Proposed WWTPs</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 4. Code for CMD Area Delimitation</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 5. Maps for Proposed WWTPs</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 6. Sample Water Quality Tests</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 7. Irrigation Potential and Potential Scores of Existing WWTPs</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 8. Results for Proposed WWTPs</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 9. Case Studies</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>A. Case Study: Ablah WWTP</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>B. Case Study: Zahleh WWTP</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>C. Case Study: Aintourine WWTP</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>D. Case Study: Ijbaa WWTP</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>E. Case Study: Chabriha/Sour WWTP</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>F. Case Study: Hammana WWTP</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>G. Case Study: Iaat WWTP</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>H. Case Study: Yammouneh WWTP</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 10. Questionnaire Samples</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><td>Annex 11. Selected Bibliography of Other Useful Documents</td><td>133</td></tr></table>
List of Figures

<table><tr><td>Figure 1.</td><td>The national water budget of Lebanon as per the NWSS Update of 2020.</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 2.</td><td>Precipitation in Beirut (AUB, 1876-2014) and occurrence of consecutive dry years.</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 3.</td><td>Lebanon's water balance as presented in the National Water Sector Strategy.</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 4.</td><td>A schematic representation of the modeling process.</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 5.</td><td>The command areas of existing WWTPs.</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 6.</td><td>Agricultural areas and crops in the command area of existing WWTPs.</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 7.</td><td>Net irrigation requirement in the command areas of WWTPs.</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 8.</td><td>Existing and proposed WWTPs and irrigation networks.</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 9.</td><td>Existing and proposed WWTPs and sewage network.</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 10.</td><td>Wastewater treatment plants by managing authority.</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 11.</td><td>Actual volume of wastewater treated by a managing authority.</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 12.</td><td>Modeling result: Actual potential (AP) of existing WWTPs in a base, or low-cost, scenario.</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 13.</td><td>Modeling result: Ideal potential (IP) of existing WWTPs in a base, or low-cost, scenario.</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 14.</td><td>Modeling result: Actual potential (AP) of existing WWTPs in a high-cost scenario.</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 15.</td><td>Modeling result: Ideal potential (IP) of existing WWTPs in a high-cost scenario.</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 16.</td><td>Modeling result: Ideal potential (IP) of proposed WWTPs in a base, or low-cost, scenario.</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 17.</td><td>An illustration of the administrative overlap in the wastewater sector of Lebanon.</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 18.</td><td>The collection rates of RWEs as per NWSSU 2020.</td><td>43</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Figure A5.1.</td><td>Command areas of proposed WWTPs.</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A5.2.</td><td>Net irrigation requirement for the command areas of proposed WWTPs.</td><td>74</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A5.3.</td><td>Agricultural areas in the command areas of proposed WWTPs.</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.1.</td><td>Location of the Ablah WWTP.</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.2.</td><td>Satellite view of the Ablah WWTP command area.</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.3.</td><td>Net irrigation requirement map of the Ablah WWTP.</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.4.</td><td>LULC map of the vicinity of Ablah WWTP.</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.5.</td><td>Location of the Zahleh WWTP.</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.6.</td><td>Satellite view of the Zahleh WWTP command area</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.7.</td><td>The net irrigation requirement of the Zahleh WWTP.</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.8.</td><td>LULC map of the vicinity of the Zahleh WWTP.</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.9.</td><td>The Aintourine and Ijbaa WWTPs.</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.10.</td><td>Satellite image of the Aintourine-Ijbaa WWTP area.</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.11.</td><td>Net irrigation requirement in the command areas of the Aintourine and Ijbaa WWTPs.</td><td>104</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.12.</td><td>LULC map of the vicinity of the Aintourine and Ijbaa WWTPs.</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.13.</td><td>The WWTP at Chabriha (Sour).</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.14.</td><td>Satellite image of the Chabriha (Sour) WWTP.</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.15.</td><td>Net irrigation requirement at the Chabriha (Sour) WWTP.</td><td>110</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.16.</td><td>LULC map of the vicinity of Chabriha (Sour) WWTP.</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.17.</td><td>Location map of the Hammana WWTP.</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.18.</td><td>Satellite map of the Hammana WWTP.</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.19.</td><td>Net irrigation requirement of Hammana command area.</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.20.</td><td>LULC map of the vicinity of the Hammana WWTP.</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.21.</td><td>Location map of the laat WWTP.</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.22.</td><td>Satellite map of the laat WWTP.</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.23.</td><td>Net irrigation requirement at the laat WWTP.</td><td>122</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.24.</td><td>LULC map of the vicinity of the laat WWTP.</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.25.</td><td>Location map of the Yammouneh WWTP.</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.26.</td><td>Satellite map of the Yammouneh WWTP.</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.27.</td><td>Net irrigation requirement at the Yammouneh WWTP.</td><td>128</td></tr><tr><td>Figure A9.28.</td><td>LULC map of the Yammouneh WWTP area.</td><td>129</td></tr></table>
## List of Tables

<table><tr><td>Table 1.</td><td>Water balances presented in the latest assessment of groundwater resources by Lebanon's Ministry of Energy and Water</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Table 2.</td><td>Summary of interviews and fieldwork done for assessment of water reuse potential.</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Table 3.</td><td>Quality parameters for treated wastewater based on FAO guidelines for Lebanon.</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Table 4.</td><td>Interpretation of reuse potential scores</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Table 5.</td><td>Distribution of WWTPs by managing authority and operational status.</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Table 6.</td><td>Actual volume of wastewater treated by managing authority</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Table 7.</td><td>Total wastewater (Mm³) generated, treated and discharged.</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Table 8.</td><td>Yearly and seasonal volumes (Mm³) by reuse possibility and managing authority.</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Table 9.</td><td>Summary of scores for actual and ideal reuse potential of existing WWTPs as per base and high-cost scenarios</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Table 10.</td><td>Total ideal and actual potential areas (ha) as per low-cost (base) and high-cost scenarios.</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Table 11.</td><td>Distribution of WWTPs by their actual potential score and managing authority</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Table 12.</td><td>Reuse potential of the Chabriha wastewater treatment plant</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Table 13.</td><td>Ideal and actual potential area and actual treated volume by managing authority.</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Table 14.</td><td>Actual reuse potential (AP) area and seasonal volumes as per actual reuse potential score.</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Table 15.</td><td>Ideal potential (IP) area and seasonal volume of treated wastewater as per ideal potential score.</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Table 16.</td><td>Summary analysis of the reuse potential of proposed WWTPs</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>Table 17.</td><td>Ranking of WWTPs by actual reuse potential in command area</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Table 18.</td><td>Ranking of WWTPs by actual potential score (those with reuse potential within a command area [CMD] &gt;20 ha)</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Table 19.</td><td>WWTP ranking by actual potential score</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Table 20.</td><td>Summary selection of WWTPs with high technical reuse potential</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Table 21.</td><td>Summary numbers for wastewater reuse potential and the main sites with high potential</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Table A1.</td><td>Distribution of land by size of holding</td><td>56</td></tr></table>

## List of Boxes

<table><tr><td>Box 1.</td><td>A note on terminology</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Box 2.</td><td>A note on data limitations</td><td>7</td></tr></table>
Acronyms and Abbreviations

<table><tr><td>AFD</td><td>Agence Française de Developpement</td></tr><tr><td>AP</td><td>Actual potential</td></tr><tr><td>AUB</td><td>American University of Beirut</td></tr><tr><td>BMLWE/BMTL</td><td>Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment</td></tr><tr><td>BTD</td><td>Bureau Technique pour le Développement</td></tr><tr><td>BWE</td><td>Bekaa Water Establishment</td></tr><tr><td>CDR</td><td>Council for Development and Reconstruction</td></tr><tr><td>CMD</td><td>Command area</td></tr><tr><td>DEM</td><td>Digital Elevation Model</td></tr><tr><td>ETC</td><td>Crop evapotranspiration</td></tr><tr><td>ETO</td><td>Reference evapotranspiration</td></tr><tr><td>EU</td><td>European Union</td></tr><tr><td>FAO</td><td>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations</td></tr><tr><td>GDP</td><td>Gross domestic product</td></tr><tr><td>GIS</td><td>Geographic Information System</td></tr><tr><td>GTM</td><td>Grounded Theory Methodology</td></tr><tr><td>IFI</td><td>Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs</td></tr><tr><td>IMF</td><td>International Monetary Fund</td></tr><tr><td>IP</td><td>Ideal potential</td></tr><tr><td>IPCC</td><td>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</td></tr><tr><td>KII</td><td>Key informant interview</td></tr><tr><td>LIBNOR</td><td>Lebanese Standards Institution</td></tr><tr><td>LL</td><td>Lebanese Lira</td></tr><tr><td>LRA</td><td>Litani River Authority</td></tr><tr><td>LULC</td><td>Land use and land cover</td></tr><tr><td>LWP</td><td>Lebanon Water Project</td></tr><tr><td>MENA</td><td>Middle East and North Africa</td></tr><tr><td>MEW</td><td>Ministry of Energy and Water</td></tr><tr><td>MOA</td><td>Ministry of Agriculture</td></tr><tr><td>MOE</td><td>Ministry of Environment</td></tr><tr><td>NGO</td><td>Nongovernmental Organization</td></tr><tr><td>NLA</td><td>National Learning Alliance</td></tr><tr><td>NLWE</td><td>North Lebanon Water Establishment</td></tr><tr><td>NWSS</td><td>National Water Sector Strategy</td></tr><tr><td>NWSSU</td><td>National Water Sector Strategy Update</td></tr><tr><td>O&M</td><td>Operation and maintenance</td></tr><tr><td>RCP</td><td>Representative Concentration Pathway</td></tr><tr><td>RWE</td><td>Regional Water Establishment</td></tr><tr><td>SLWE</td><td>South Lebanon Water Establishment</td></tr><tr><td>UFW</td><td>Unaccounted for water</td></tr><tr><td>UNDP</td><td>United Nations Development Programme</td></tr><tr><td>USAID</td><td>United States Agency for International Development</td></tr><tr><td>WHO</td><td>World Health Organization</td></tr><tr><td>WWTP</td><td>Wastewater treatment plant</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
Summary

The aim of this report is to contribute to knowledge
on expansion of water reuse in Lebanon. Our study
assesses the potential for water reuse at the national
level, develops a technical assessment of the quantities
of treated water available for safe reuse in irrigation,
and identifies the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
that have the highest potential for that purpose. We also
examine the governance barriers hindering this potential
from materializing in practice.

Based on the available estimates of population in Lebanon (ranging from 4.8 to 6.5 million inhabitants), the volume of municipal wastewater generated in the country is considered to vary between 275 million cubic meters (Mm³) and 328 Mm³ per year. For the purposes of this study, a database of the existing and planned WWTPs was created based on the updated National Water Sector Strategy (2020), and further developed through interviews. At the time of writing, of the 104 existing plants, 41 were 'operational' and 20 'partially operational' (subject to limitations to adequate operation), another 35 were categorized as 'built not operational', and eight were 'under construction', including those in various stages of construction or awaiting commission.

As per the database, the total volume of wastewater receiving some form of treatment amounts to 81 Mm³ per year. This is about 25-30% of the annually generated wastewater. The three largest WWTPs (Sayniq/Saida, Ghadir and Tripoli) currently provide primary-level treatment to a total of 145,000 m³/day, which adds up to 52.9 Mm³ per year. At the national scale, only 28 Mm³, or 34%, of the treated wastewater can be considered fit for reuse currently, which amounts to about 8-10% of the total municipal wastewater generated.

In our study to quantify the potential for water reuse
in Lebanon, we modeled the reuse potential area and
assigned a reuse potential score to each WWTP—be it an
existing plant or a planned one. For the purposes of our
study, the reuse potential area is linked to a given WWTP
and refers to the agricultural area potentially irrigable
by that WWTP during an irrigation season; and the reuse
potential score models the risks related to a WWTP’s
operation and the reuse opportunities it provides while

also considering the existence of industrial influents,
effluent water quality, type of crops, agricultural area and
the availability of irrigation infrastructure in the vicinity.
The modeling exercise was done using a geographic
information system platform with recent data. We worked
on two scenarios: the scenario of actual potential (AP),
in which we considered the actual volume of wastewater
treated; and the scenario of ideal potential (IP), in which
we considered the full capacity of a WWTP. On the basis of
our methodology, the aggregate reuse potential areas for
the AP and IP scenarios were found to be approximately
2,202 ha and 4,993 ha, respectively. Currently, less than
10 ha are part of an implemented reuse system (supplied
by the Ablah WWTP, which, however, has been kept on
hold due to a local conflict). Our study also found that
in an actual potential scenario, 48 WWTPs would have a
reasonably high reuse potential score, while in an ideal
potential scenario, as many as 82 would be in the same
bracket. Segregation by management type indicated
that rehabilitation of smaller and/or municipality-run
WWTPs would be a worthwhile undertaking with regard to
realizing wastewater treatment and reuse potential.

However, structural shortcomings in the wastewater
sector combined with challenges of governance and the
lack of a regulatory framework for reuse management
impede the materialization of this potential. Our review of
literature and fieldwork also revealed poor administrative
capacities in the planning, implementation and
management of existing WWTPs and future reuse systems.
The mandates of state authorities are fragmented and
often conflicting. In the current economic, financial and
political crisis in Lebanon, these barriers have become
more entrenched and tend to dramatically attenuate the
technical potential calculated. Capacities to govern the
use of treated wastewater have become greatly reduced
in all administrative bodies, as has their ability to plan
and implement projects. The collapse of revenues due to
the dramatic impoverishment of the country's population
and the collapse of the Lebanese lira reveal the failure
of market environmentalist approaches to resource
management that are focused on full cost recovery from
users. Taken together with the problems mentioned
above, this is another attenuating factor hindering the
realization of reuse potential in Lebanon.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
# Analysis of Water Reuse Potential for Irrigation in Lebanon

Karim Eid-Sabbagh, Salim Roukoz, Marie-Hélène Nassif, Naga Velpuri and Javier Mateo-Sagasta

## Introduction and Background

This section puts wastewater production and volumes in the context of Lebanon's water resources and the stated goal of the country to establish water reuse across its territories. We provide an overview of the state and knowledge of water resources and their use, and the demand and supply situation in the domestic water and agriculture sector. This will be complemented by a brief discussion of the expected effects of climate change. As water shortage is experienced throughout Lebanon during the summer irrigation season, additional supplies by way of treated wastewater would be beneficial to the agriculture sector, and potentially release more water for use in the domestic sector.

## Water Resources, Budgets and Balances

Lebanon, compared to its neighboring countries, is endowed with relatively plentiful water resources. Its mountainous geography and the nature of its geology set it apart from the more arid countries in the Middle East. The relatively ample precipitation—comprising rainfall and snow—infiltrates the karstic rock formations and is stored as groundwater, which feeds 17 perennial rivers, 23 seasonal streams and some 2,000 springs. While most of the precipitation occurs during the November-

April period, melt from the accumulated snowpack feeds aquifers well into June. As a result of this precipitation regime, water availability is lowest in the summertime when demand is highest, particularly for irrigation but also for domestic water supply.

The National Water Sector Strategy (NWSS) of 2012 (and its 2020 update) presents, at the national scale, a water balance that was established in the early 1990s for an average year (Figure 1). According to this water budget, annual precipitation in Lebanon amounts to 8.6 billion cubic meters (Bm³), of which a little more than half is lost to evapotranspiration. About 1.4 Bm³ flow into neighboring territories or seep into the sea as groundwater. Only 2.7 Bm³ remain within Lebanon's territory: 0.5 Bm³ as groundwater and 2.2 Bm³ as surface flows, implying that exploitable resources are well below this total. However, the results of a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-financed assessment of groundwater resources (MEW and UNDP 2014) as well as the findings of Bakalowicz (2009)—suggesting that the total exploitable resources may be as high as 2.6 Bm³ per year<fnref n="1" />—differ from the NWSS estimates. A comparison of results from different assessments shows considerable variance for individual components of the water balance too (Table 1). Specifically, evapotranspiration varies by a factor of 2.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** The national water budget of Lebanon as per the NWSS Update of 2020.</figcaption></figure>

Source: MEW 2020.

<footnote n="1">¹ Note that exploitability is a function of cost (infrastructure, and more importantly, energy) and technology, and thus always a subjective value.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Water balances presented in the latest assessment of groundwater resources by Lebanon's Ministry of Energy and Water.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Description</th><th rowspan="3">UNDP 1970</th><th colspan="2">UNDP 2013</th></tr><tr><th>Dry season</th><th>Wet season</th></tr><tr><th>2010-11</th><th>2012-13</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Precipitation (Mm<fnref n="3" />)</td><td>9,700<sup>a</sup></td><td>7,830</td><td>11,933</td></tr><tr><td>Evapotranspiration (Mm<fnref n="3" />)</td><td>ND<sup>b</sup></td><td>2,110</td><td>2,022</td></tr><tr><td>Deficiency in runoff (Mm<fnref n="3" />)</td><td>5,400</td><td>ND</td><td>ND</td></tr><tr><td>Surface runoff (Mm<fnref n="3" />)</td><td>1,300</td><td>2,150</td><td>3,806</td></tr><tr><td>Estimated total inflow to groundwater (Mm<fnref n="3" />)</td><td>3,000</td><td>3,570</td><td>6,105</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: MEW and UNDP 2014.

Notes: <sup>a</sup> Over an estimated surface area of Lebanon of 10,200 km<fnref n="2" />.

<sup>b</sup> ND: Not defined.

Assessment of the Lebanese water budget is further complicated by diverging analyses and findings on the effect of climate change on total precipitation. The National Water Sector Strategy Update (NWSSU) of 2020 (MEW 2020, Vol. II A 3) draws on rainfall trends (identified by the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs [IFI] [IFI 2014] of the American University of Beirut [AUB]) suggesting that there is no declining trend of precipitation.<fnref n="2" /> On the other hand, a study by Shaban (2009), based on an analysis of precipitation and snow cover area, indicates a declining trend in rainfall and snow. A study by ECODIT (2015) suggests an increase in drought occurrence (Figure 2). According to a compilation of precipitation data (1876-2014) in Beirut by AUB, “the occurrence of consecutive dry years (amounting to a drought) is increasing, as evidenced by at least five such incidents in the last 30 years, compared to only three such incidents in the 100-year period from 1876 to 1975.” The higher precipitation variability and increase in drought occurrence coincide with studies that suggest a greater variability in the seasonal north-south movement of the jet streams, the westerlies in the case of Lebanon, and the associated cloud cover and rain (Tyrlis et al. 2014). The NWSSU (MEW 2020) mentioned above goes on to show an increasing trend in temperatures, which coincides—if not in numbers, at least in trend—with the results of temperature modeling for the region. Lelieveld et al. (2016) predict an increase in mean and maximum temperatures as well as an extension of warm spells<fnref n="3" /> (for the climate change scenarios designated RCP<fnref n="4" /> 4.5 and RCP 6.0). Other studies also indicate an increase in summer temperatures across the region (Waha et al. 2017) with Lebanon seemingly less affected than Syria, Iraq or the Persian Gulf countries.

In addition to increasing evapotranspiration, several studies forecast that rising temperatures will have a negative effect on river and spring flow regimes. A modeling of runoff scenarios for the Ibrahim River (Nahr Ibrahim) conducted by Hreiche et al. (2007) predicts that peak river flow will be reached earlier, and volumes will decrease “15 days to a month earlier,” thus prolonging the summer drought period. Doummar et al. (2018) show that increasing temperatures will affect the spring discharge regimes of mountains. Reduced snowpack and rainfall variation would likely cause the recession period<fnref n="5" /> to begin up to a month earlier by 2034-2040 (in the RCP 6.0 scenario) with smaller overall flow volumes. As a result of higher intensity rainfall events (leading to greater runoff), as well as a decrease in snowpack cover, storage in the aquifers is also likely to be negatively affected. Finally, in 2010, the NWSS estimated renewable water resources per capita at around 840 m<fnref n="3" /> for 2015 compared to around 926 m<fnref n="3" /> for 2009, the former being below the scarcity threshold. It is notable, however, that these numbers remain highly imprecise.

## Supply and Demand Balance at National Scale

The water balance produced by the NWSS (MEW 2012) for a dry year (Figure 3) shows a water shortage between 2011 and 2015. After this period, hydraulic projects planned by the NWSS were expected to produce additional volumes of water to meet the increasing demand.<fnref n="6" /> Most of these projects, however, have not materialized, and only a fraction of the planned additional volume has been added across all the regional water establishments (RWEs) since 2011. The water shortage continues. The NWSSU (2020) estimates that about 100 of the 375 domestic

<footnote n="2">² Given the uncertainties regarding climate change modeling and the positive feedback mechanism on the rate of temperature rise, it seems dangerously optimistic to plan with a scenario in which average rainfall will not be altered. At the very least, a worst-case option should be considered for contingency.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Periods during which the maximum temperature ranges in the top 90 percentile for spells longer than 5 days.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ The Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is a greenhouse gas concentration (not emissions) trajectory adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is represented as watts/m². The RCPs represent different modeling scenarios of increasing numbers indicating higher temperature rises and later reversal of carbon concentration in the atmosphere.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ When the spring flow volume starts decreasing.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ The large-scale dams have not been implemented as planned. The Janneh Dam (with an estimated volume of 90 Mm³/year) is still under construction while the Bisri Dam (120 Mm³/year) has been put on hold due to popular and expert contestation. The South Lebanon Irrigation Project (known as Canal 800), which was planned to provide irrigation water to some 15,000 ha in south Lebanon, remains to be completed. Similarly, the institutional and organizational improvement goals as well as the financial and commercial goals (such as the introduction of a new tariff structure) stated in the 2012 plan were not achieved. Finally, the influx of nearly 1.5 million refugees as a result of the civil war in Syria has further increased the pressure on water resources.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Precipitation in Beirut (AUB, 1876-2014) and occurrence of consecutive dry years.</figcaption></figure>

Source: ECODIT 2015.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Lebanon's water balance as presented in the National Water Sector Strategy.</figcaption></figure>

Source: MEW 2012.

Note: MCM - Million cubic meters.
water supply schemes covering the Lebanese territory are
currently in deficit, and that an additional 65 would likely
fall into deficit by 2035, assuming current levels of water
productivity and a gross water need of 200 L/cap/day
(MEW 2020).<fnref n="7" /> The areas most affected by water shortages
are the densely populated coastal areas such as Greater
Beirut, Tripoli and Saida (as well as the South more
generally) in addition to areas in the northeastern Bekaa.

Further, different water uses are affecting groundwater
resources. As revealed in the latest National Groundwater
Assessment (MEW and UNDP 2014), coastal aquifers as well
as those in the Bekaa are under stress.<fnref n="8" /> Largely illegal or
poorly monitored (when legally regulated) abstractions are at
the root of groundwater depletion. The NWSSU (2020) states
that “the total volume extracted from wells is impossible
to assess with an acceptable margin due to the poor data
available from the RWEs, and the absence of data on private
wells” (MEW 2020). The update estimates that the 943 public
wells (managed by national administrations) considered to
be in service (out of a total of 1,449) produce about 270 Mm³/
year of groundwater. A study conducted by the International
Water Management Institute (IWMI) (Molle et al. 2017)
estimates that there are some 100,000 private wells in
the country, up from the NWSS (2012) estimate of around
44,000 (MEW 2012) and the 2014 National Groundwater
Assessment estimate of 80,000 (MEW and UNDP 2014). Of
these, only 21,800 are licensed by the MEW. These private
wells are estimated to produce a total of 430 Mm³/year, so
the sum of public and private groundwater abstractions
amounts to 700 Mm³/year. This total exceeds, by 200 Mm³/
year, the 500 Mm³/year renewable groundwater estimated
in the 2020 NWSSU. The large number of wells and the lack
of data<fnref n="9" /> about them suggest that estimates of groundwater
abstraction by the NWSS as well as its 2020 update (MEW
2012, 2020) are likely to be underestimates.

Irrigation Water Demand and Use

Irrigation is closely linked to agriculture, and all
interventions concerning irrigation directly affect farmer
livelihoods. Irrigated land is highly unevenly distributed in
Lebanon, both geographically and by size of holdings (see
Annex 1 for an overview of the socioeconomic structure
of Lebanon's agriculture sector). According to the 2020
NWSSU, some 104,000 ha, out of about 240,000 ha of
agricultural land, are irrigated.

An agricultural census conducted in the cazas (sub-districts)
of the Bekaa and the coastal plains in the year 2000 found
that close to or more than half of the agricultural area was

irrigated, and that about two-thirds of the irrigated area
used groundwater. In the cazas of Nabatieh and Marjayoun,
only 20-40% of the agricultural land was irrigated, but
more than half of the irrigated area drew groundwater. In
the mountainous regions (see Annex 1 for more details), the
proportion of irrigated land was less, but the majority of
irrigated lands depended on surface water.

The NWSSU estimates the gross demand for irrigation water at 879 Mm³/year. The bulk of this demand is in the Bekaa (595 Mm³/year), with North Lebanon needing 215 Mm³/year, Mount Lebanon 37 Mm³/year and South Lebanon 31 Mm³/year. The update goes on to identify a 25% "serious gap between irrigation water demand and irrigation water current use" (MEW 2020, p.IV B 5). Only 660 Mm³/year, equally divided between groundwater and surface water, are currently being used in agriculture, according to this estimate. According to the agricultural census of Lebanon (MoA and FAO 2012), gravity is the predominant mode of irrigation, practiced on nearly 50% of the irrigated area. Sprinkler and drip irrigation make up the rest, and occupied nearly the same share about a decade ago.<fnref n="10" /> In 2020, drip irrigation came to be more widely used but no recent data could be found in that regard. According to the NWSSU, most of the existing collective irrigation schemes experience water shortages (MEW 2020) as is evident from the frequent reports of conflict over water use and rights, competition between domestic and irrigation use in many villages, intensive drilling of wells within schemes, and the commonly observed degradation of irrigation infrastructure in the older collective schemes.

Total Estimated Municipal Wastewater
Production

At the national scale, the total available volume of
municipal wastewater is estimated at 80% of domestic
water consumption, in addition to commercial and
industrial wastewater. As per the NWSSU 2020, the
total quantity of water abstracted for municipal use and
irrigation is highly uncertain. The update states that due
to missing data and the lack of consistent measurements
over time, it is not possible to assess the volumes
used for drinking or irrigation purposes. Additionally,
population estimates greatly vary in Lebanon. While the
latest study published by the Central Administration of
Statistics (CAS and ILO 2020) estimates the population
at 4.8 million, the World Bank Open Data database puts
it at 6.9 million (World Bank 2020); in 2016, the World
Health Organization (WHO) estimated it at 6 million, and

<footnote n="7">⁷ For 2020, this would mean that a deficit of 282,000 m³/day affects 4 million people, or about two-fifths of a total population modeled at 9.1 million (in this exercise in the NWSS 2020 update, population data are said to have been taken from existing designs and studies. The basis of these studies is not clear; the deficit can be assumed to be the inability to meet peak demand for individual systems). In the 2035 scenario, 8.1 million, or two-thirds of the total population, are projected to be short of 662,500 m³/day.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ This national-scale view also serves to replace analysis of balances at the watershed scale. Clearly, all watersheds leading to the coast, as well as the two watersheds draining the Bekaa area, suffer deficits. Further, groundwater catchments and watersheds do not necessarily overlap in a geology dominated by karstic formations. See the Jeita groundwater catchment analysis produced by the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) (Steinel and Margane 2011).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ For instance, a total of “25,000 licenses for drilling private wells were issued in 2017-2018 by the Ministry of Interior without the knowledge of the Ministry of Energy and Water, and no data on the locations of these wells could be obtained” (MEW 2020, Vol. III, p. III C 8).</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The NWSS (MEW 2012) claims that 6.2% of the area is served by drip irrigation, 23.4% by sprinkler and 70.4% by gravity (open canals).</footnote>
the Lebanese consultancy firm Information International reckoned with 5.5 million (Ramadan 2019). For its water need estimate covering all supply schemes, the NWSSU (MEW 2020) considers a population of roughly 9 million inhabitants in 2020 and around 12 million in 2035.<fnref n="11" />

Current water use greatly varies by area.<fnref n="12" /> In the NWSSU, water demand is calculated on the basis of the figure 200 L/cap/day.<fnref n="13" /> As mentioned above, this number is also used to project the deficit of individual water supply schemes in 2035. The 200 L/cap/day figure includes three components:

* Domestic consumption<fnref n="14" /> 125 L/cap/day

* Non-domestic (20% of domestic consumption) 25 L/cap/day

* Physical losses (20% of total need) 50 L/cap/day

Based on this figure of 200 L/cap/day, the NWSSU estimates per capita wastewater flow (80% of the total need, excluding physical losses) at 120 L/cap/day. It further states that due to the strategic aim of generalizing water metering in order to remove illegal connections and reduce unaccounted for water (UFW), water consumption in 2035 is likely to be “significantly less” than it is today. The NWSSU then revises downward the 2012 assumption from 160 L/cap/day for the urban zone to 140 L/cap/day, suggesting that water use in 2035 may be limited to 125 L/cap/day. The 2012 NWSS assumes a water demand in the range of 160-200 L/cap/day for different scenarios but suggests that water use might be less due to supply constraints.

Based on the suggestion in the NWSSU that actual water use could be “significantly” higher than the estimates for 2035, we use in our study a figure of 150 L/cap/day for 2020 for our calculation of wastewater flow.<fnref n="15" /> For the sake of simplicity, infiltration into canals and losses

from the network are assumed to be roughly equal as components of wastewater flows, balancing each other out. In the absence of confirmed population data, we reckoned the current population to be between 5 and 6 million inhabitants, and estimated the annual volume of wastewater to be ranging between 273.75 Mm³ and 328.5 Mm³ per year:

$$5,000,000 \text{ inhabitants} * 150 \text{ L/cap/day} * 365 \text{ days} = 750,000 \text{ m}^3\text{/day} * 365 \text{ days} = 273.75 \text{ Mm}^3\text{/year}$$

$$6,000,000 \text{ inhabitants} * 150 \text{ L/cap/day} * 365 \text{ days} = 900,000 \text{ m}^3\text{/day} * 365 \text{ days} = 328.5 \text{ Mm}^3\text{/year}$$

In 2012, assuming a population of around 4.4 million, the NWSS had estimated annual wastewater generation at 310 Mm³—slightly higher than the above estimate—with 250 Mm³ coming from domestic sources and 60 Mm³ from industrial sources.

## Objectives and Structure of the Report

This study assesses the potential for water reuse in irrigation in Lebanon. Specifically, it assesses how much municipal wastewater is currently produced, collected and treated, how much is discharged into the sea and the rivers, and how much is directly used. The core of the report provides a measure of the reuse potential of wastewater treatment plants across the country. The goal is to provide a quantitative measure of this potential as well as a qualitative assessment. Our analysis of the water reuse potential is done at a national scale covering all existing and proposed WWTPs, which we documented extensively in two databases. The choice of using the term ‘water reuse’ instead of ‘wastewater reuse’ is explained in Box 1 below.

### Box 1. A Note on Terminology.

This report uses the term ‘water reuse’ rather than ‘wastewater reuse’. ‘Water reuse’ describes treated water that is used in cities and is then reused in agriculture. So, the term is technically correct and is likely to receive more public acceptance. To avoid any ambiguity, the term does not include agricultural drainage water. Moreover, ‘wastewater reuse’ is a misleading term because treated or recycled water is not wastewater anymore. Wastewater is not reused, it is only used; so there is a distinction between direct irrigation with wastewater as opposed to water reuse.

<footnote n="11">¹¹ These latter numbers are very high and result from an addition of the population numbers from all the domestic water supply schemes. As a large number of people go to their villages of origin in the summer, there is an increase in water demand in the rural systems during the summer. Concurrent water use must be well below the sum of the capacities of all urban systems.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Some studies report that domestic consumption reaches 300-400 L/cap/day in some rural areas (GVC 2016) while others report considerably lower average consumption (225 m³/year/household or about 150 L/cap/day). See also Ghanem et al. (2017).</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ MEW 2020 (p. IV B 3 and p. IV C 127 onward).</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ The water demand calculations in the NWSSU are based “on realistic water consumption for different uses, with assessment of 5.8 persons per household”. See the NWSSU (MEW 2020, p. IV C 3).</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ This assumes a domestic consumption level of 150 L/cap/day in 2020, lower than the estimates presented in NWSS 2012, an additional 20% for non-domestic use, and 20% losses in use (as per NWSSU 2020).</footnote>
We assess the reuse potential by modeling the agricultural area that can be irrigated with treated volumes, and qualify the results with an assessment of the suitability of crops, the risk due to harmful waste inflows and the effluent quality as well as the proximity of existing irrigation networks. The study also ranks WWTPs on the basis of wastewater use potential. Our analysis is supplemented with a review of the governance barriers for safe water reuse. We present eight in-depth case studies based on field trips and a series of key informant surveys. The aim of this study is to contribute to a critical and productive engagement with wastewater as a potential resource. We also identify sites at the national scale

where existing or future WWTPs show a high potential for successful implementation of water reuse projects.

The report is subdivided into four sections. The first section establishes that water shortages are prevalent in the summer months. The second presents the modeling methodology adopted to define and estimate reuse potential. The third presents a discussion of the WWTP database and the modeling results. The fourth section looks at the governance barriers and considers the enabling environment for safe water reuse. Finally, we present in an annex eight detailed case studies of reuse potential at different sites.

# Methodology

This section presents the methodology employed in this study to determine water reuse potential and assess the governance barriers to realizing that potential and the enabling environment needed to achieve it.

Our assessment of reuse potential—how much wastewater is collected, treated and discharged into water bodies—is based on two WWTP databases. These databases were constructed with the aid of available reports, the database produced for the National Water Sector Strategy Update (NWSSU) presented by the Ministry of Energy and Water in 2020, and key informant interviews (KIs). The data used were checked and validated as much as possible but cannot be considered fully representative, as explained in Box 2.

We modeled the quantitative and qualitative measures of reuse potential using a geographic information system (GIS), the programming language R, and a spreadsheet application (such as Microsoft Excel). Reuse potential was modeled in terms of the potentially irrigable area based on crop water requirement and treated water volume. This was termed the **potential area**. This potential was qualified with the help of a weighted sum score combining an assessment of (1) the suitability of existing crops in the proximity of WWTPs related to their effluent quality; (2) the type of influent as an indicator of supply quality and quantity risks due to harmful waste inflows; and (3) the proximity of irrigation schemes. This score was termed the **potential score**. Taken together, the potential area and the potential score of individual WWTPs allow a nuanced reading of the potential for implementation of treated wastewater use projects.

Our analysis of governance barriers and the enabling environment for water reuse is based on KIs, an extensive literature review and fieldwork. We use eight case studies to illustrate our analysis of reuse potential and the associated implementation and management difficulties. This presentation of our methodology starts

below with a description of the qualitative components of our methodology which served to identify governance issues and their linkages with the technical aspects of water reuse potential. This is followed by an elaboration of the methods used to assess this technical potential.

# Methodology for Identifying Governance Obstacles and Challenges

This study—specifically, our analysis of governance barriers—uses a Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) approach to produce “mid-range theories grounded in data” (Bryant and Charmaz 2007). This theoretical approach is usefully described as inductive qualitative research and as a family of methods that give primacy to observation rather than preconception. Accordingly, categories of analysis are derived from data obtained from research, and are therefore grounded. They are also iteratively refined. The categories of analysis are progressively refined with the accumulation of data. New insights from data collection are used to adapt the methodology and questionnaires and so on. The inclusion of case studies in the initial terms of reference further lent itself to the GTM approach, which allows researchers to produce useful, applicable analysis specifically with a view to practice-oriented research. GTM is also particularly suited to participatory research as applied in the framework of the ReWater MENA project’s Lebanon component (Dick 2007).

This participative research was launched with the first National Learning Alliance (NLA) meeting organized by IWMI in October 2019. The purpose of this meeting was the presentation of the goals and draft outline of this study as well as an initial exploration of the necessary conditions for water reuse in Lebanon. The participants included 38 Lebanese stakeholders and project cooperators (IWMI 2019). They were brought together in four groups to brainstorm over different opportunities and challenges of water reuse in the context of Lebanon. The results of this participatory work
formed the starting point of the Lebanon-specific qualitative aspects of this research including the identification of context-specific topics and issues.

Building on this workshop, interviewees were identified using a simple snowball sampling technique that drew both on the initial participant stakeholders at the first NLA meeting as well as stakeholders from a variety of administrative and professional entities. Interviews were semi-structured, using pre-designed questionnaires to guide the discussion but leaving open possibilities for the exploration of topics emerging from interviewee responses. Iteratively, analysis and questionnaires for subsequent interviews were adapted to include issues and topics emerging from previous rounds of analysis. As a matter of principle, interviewees were offered anonymity to allow for open discussion. With interviewees often clearly stating that aspects of the interviews were sensitive, we opted to identify interviewees only by date and location. A second NLA meeting was organized in June 2021 to present and discuss the results of the present study with the same objective of gathering

stakeholder inputs, validating the main findings pertaining to governance barriers and further documenting them.

Some 150 documents and reports<fnref n="16" /> pertaining to water and wastewater management in general and in Lebanon specifically were reviewed and assessed. Existing and available GIS data were collected and assessed including the geodatabase of WWTPs produced in the framework of the NWSSU. Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews with key informants were conducted either directly or remotely—as COVID-related restrictions forced a shift from direct fieldwork to remote research. These included water sector consultants, academics and officials from the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) and RWEs as well as the Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR) and other ministries. Field visits to 11 locations took place over 9 fieldwork days for observation of treatment processes as well as key informant surveys with facility operators, municipalities and nearby farmers (Table 2). Some sample questionnaires for KIIs and field visits are shown in Annex 10.

## Box 2. A Note on Data Limitations.

Fine-grained data on the state of water resources, supply, demand and use are limited in Lebanon. This is true of data related to wastewater too. As has been shown in the section *Introduction and Background*, data regarding wastewater production are lacking or inconsistent. We observed discrepancies with regard to the reported volumes of wastewater collected and treated in specific WWTPs. The NWSSU identifies a “severe lack of reliable data” as one of the important challenges facing adequate management.<fnref n="17" /> According to this document, the lack of time series data prevents the assessment of surface water yields on a monthly basis or the volumes used for drinking and irrigation purposes. The NWSSU makes the same assessment for groundwater too (MEW 2020).

The problem of data accuracy and availability is not restricted to the water sector. Population data in Lebanon exist only in the form of approximations as the last official census dates back to 1932.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Summary of interviews and fieldwork done for assessment of water reuse potential.</caption><thead><tr><th>Interviews</th><th>Number of interviews</th><th>Site visits</th><th>Water establishment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MEW</td><td>2 x Ministry of Energy and Water</td><td>Aintourine, Jbaa, Ehden<br>WWTPs (North Lebanon area)</td><td>North Lebanon Water<br>Establishment (NLWE)</td></tr><tr><td>RWEs</td><td>3 x BWE, 3 x NLWE, 3 x SLWE,<br>3 x BMLWE, 1 x Litani River Authority (LRA)</td><td>Joub Janine WWTP</td><td>Bekaa Water Establishment<br>(BWE)</td></tr><tr><td>CDR</td><td>2 x CDR</td><td>Yammouneh WWTP</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Academic</td><td>1 x AUB</td><td>Zahleh WWTP</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Private sector</td><td>3 x Beirut</td><td>Aitanit WWTP</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Technicians</td><td>1 x Bater, 2 x Baadarane, 1 x Jbaa,<br>2 x Hammana, 2 x Ablah, 1 x Yammouneh</td><td>Ablah WWTP<br>(Central Bekaa area)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Baadarane and Bater WWTPs<br>(Chouf-Mount Lebanon area)</td><td>Beirut and Mount Lebanon<br>Water Establishment (BMLWE)</td></tr><tr><td>Municipal officials</td><td>3 x Hammana, 1 x Addaysseh, 2 x Ehden,<br>1 x Yammouneh</td><td>Hammana WWTP<br>(Metn-Mount Lebanon area)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nongovernmental<br>organizations (NGOs)/<br>donors</td><td>1 x Agence Française de Developpement<br>(AFD), 1 x United States Agency for<br>International Development (USAID)/<br>Lebanon Water Project (LWP)</td><td>Chabriha (Sour<fnref n="18" />) WWTP</td><td>South Lebanon Water<br>Establishment (SLWE)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ See Annex 11 for a list of selected useful documents.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Thirty years after the end of the civil war, data collection and management efforts have not produced much. The infrastructure is still severely lacking, and data are used as a bargaining chip between and within institutions.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Latin name: Tyr.</footnote>
# Key Terms and Steps for Modeling of Water Reuse Potential

The potential for water reuse in irrigation depends on the quality of the treated water as well as the total volume available. Reuse potential is expressed as a composite of two individual criteria representing the quantitative and qualitative aspects of potential: (1) the **reuse potential area**, measured in hectares; and (2) the **reuse potential score**, which is calculated on a scale of 0 to 1 as a function of influent quality, taken as a proxy for reliability, effluent quality, crop type as well as proximity to an irrigation network.

For our study, reuse potential was modeled using GIS software (ArcGIS and QGIS) and a spreadsheet program (such as Microsoft Excel or LibreOffice Calc). Modeling for safe reuse was based on quality guidelines proposed for the Lebanese context by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 2010. As a result, it tends to produce a conservative estimate of the potential. Figure 4 gives a schematic representation of the modeling process. It has the following steps:

1. The creation of databases for the existing and planned WWTPs (as per NWSSU) detailing their key characteristics, including precise geolocation.

2. Delineation of the area (termed **command area**) in the proximity of WWTPs using the programming language R.

3. Estimation of the gross and net irrigation requirement within the command area, using data from FAO's Water Productivity open-access portal (WaPOR) and available land use and land cover (LULC) data in a GIS format.

4. Modeling of the **reuse potential area** based on the gross irrigation requirement within the command area and the volume of treated water from WWTPs.

5. Modeling of the **reuse potential score** based on crop types within the command area, effluent quality, proximity of irrigation schemes and influent type (categorized as domestic or mixed), to serve as a proxy for risk to reliability of supply quantity and quality.

6. Modeling of two investment scenarios differentiating the extent of the command area. This was done for comparison and validation.

a. **Base scenario**, setting the maximum distance of conveyance at 3 km including pumping to an elevation up to 20 m.

b. **High-cost scenario**, assuming a 5 km maximum distance and pumping up to 50 m elevation.

7. Two interpretations of potential were modeled, differing on the input from the database:

a. **Actual potential (AP)**, assessing the reuse potential of a WWTP in its current state of operation and considering the actual volume of treated wastewater currently produced. This gives a measure of the potential realizable at present.

b. **Ideal potential (IP)**, assessing the reuse potential of a WWTP operating at 90% of capacity, assuming that it is rehabilitated and operating as designed. This gives a measure of the potential for an increase in irrigated area in the future.

## Building the Wastewater Treatment Plant Database

The first step in the modeling process was the production of two detailed databases: One listing the existing WWTPs as per their characteristics, and the second listing the WWTPs proposed to be built by the national authorities (or other relevant stakeholders). The database of existing WWTPs included the name of each, its geographic coordinates, operational status, design capacity, actual average volume treated, treatment technology, designed level of treatment (tertiary to primary), actual level of treatment, management authority and type of influent (mixed or domestic). Given the inconsistent quality of the data available, we included a note in the database about WWTPs whose data were unclear or conflicting (see Annex 2). For the proposed plants, the database was taken entirely from the NWSSU, which drew the data—location, name and design capacity—from existing studies and plans (see Annex 3).

For the database on existing WWTPs, data were first compiled from the numerous reports on wastewater management in Lebanon, and from a preliminary version of the database produced for the NWSSU with only partial location data. We obtained the fully georeferenced database later in the research process. Additionally, communications with officials of the water establishments as well as operators, contractors and consultants served to validate some of the information (such as current operational status and management) and to identify some existing plants (17) that had not been listed in the NWSSU. Precise geolocation was drawn from reports and from the GIS database of the NWSSU, both for existing and proposed WWTPs. The location data were subsequently confirmed and corrected visually using Google Earth and GeoEye satellite imagery (resolution 0.5 m) dating from 2014.

## Data for the GIS Model

To calculate the command area of WWTPs, a **digital elevation model (DEM)** with 30 m resolution was used to extract the elevation of each WWTP based on the exact geolocation as well as the flow patterns (flow direction).
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** A schematic representation of the modeling process.</figcaption></figure>

**LULC data** based on 2012 high-resolution satellite imagery from GeoEye allowed us to differentiate crop classes as follows: fruit trees, citrus fruit trees, banana, olives and vineyards. This also subdivided field crops into field crops in medium to large fields, field crops in small fields/terraces, abandoned agricultural land and protected agriculture. This breakdown of agricultural land use conditioned the model, as will be discussed below. The LULC data used for this study are the most up-to-date data currently existing.

**A GIS database for existing irrigation schemes** as well as planned and existing canals was obtained from the MEW and used to assess whether the WWTPs were close to irrigation schemes. This database contains information on public irrigation schemes. However, irrigation schemes are modeled over large areas and this introduces some uncertainty as to the proximity of networks and canals. These data were not used for the modeling of command areas.

GIS data for groundwater could not be obtained from the relevant department in the ministry and was hence not included in the modeling either. As all surface watersheds overlap with stressed groundwater aquifers, as discussed above (see section *Introduction and Background*), it was assumed that concrete demand for additional water resources exists at all locations. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that some areas, specifically in South Lebanon and northeastern Bekaa, have considerably scarcer accessible water resources.

## Calculating Net Irrigation Requirement

Based on LULC data, the net irrigation requirement was calculated as follows:<fnref n="19" />

* The computation and estimation of the net irrigation requirement was based on the spring/summer season, extending from March to

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ While the precision of such a number is always contestable, the importance here is to create a coherent and comparable set of results to be able to differentiate and grade the potentials of individual WWTPs.</footnote>
September (220 days), of a typical climatic year (in terms of the rainfall regime).

* The typical year considered was 2018. Monthly maps of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and rain (R) corresponding to that period were obtained from WaPOR, the open-access FAO portal providing remotely-sensed derived data.

* Then the data were aggregated using GIS software to obtain the seasonal maps of ETo and R for a typical irrigation season.

* Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was computed using GIS by multiplying the layer of ETo by average crop coefficients corresponding to the considered categories of crops.

* Corrections were made to account for differences in the seasonal length of different crops.

* Finally, the net irrigation requirement was mapped by subtracting the layer of ETc from the layer of R (assuming that on average the effective rain is 70% of total R).

## Determining the Command Area

The command area of each WWTP was modeled using the programming language R (see Annex 4 for the logical steps and code). The model allows for pumping uphill from the WWTP and assumes that distribution happens by gravity from the highest possible point. The command area includes all the points included in a lateral buffer that follows the flow path from the WWTP location or at a chosen elevation from the WWTP and excludes all the points above that elevation.

Two command area scenarios were modeled: The **base scenario** command area was modeled with a buffer radius of 3 km and a stream buffer of 750 m, assuming that pumping is possible to a maximum of 20 m; and the **high-cost scenario** command area was modeled with a 5 km buffer and a stream buffer of 1 km, assuming pumping to a maximum of 50 m. The buffer radius (3 km or 5 km) represents the maximum length of conveyor pipe or canal. The stream buffer (750 m or 1 km) is parallel to the natural flow path. It serves to model the gravity water flow and the maximum pumping distance from a stream.

The low- and high-cost scenarios accord to different expected levels of investment. In terms of the reuse potential area, the base scenario represents the lower cost alternative with a shorter conveyor requiring fewer manholes and less pumping. The higher cost scenario reflects a potentially higher investment cost. The 3 km command area was chosen as the base scenario since in the present context of economic disintegration in Lebanon, it is unlikely that water establishments or municipalities will have the funds for investment or the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs over the short or

medium term. The ongoing devaluation of the Lebanese lira further suggests that over the medium-term farmers will not be able to offset the high energy cost (linked to the US dollar) with income from production on the local market.<fnref n="20" />

The command areas linked to existing WWTPs are shown in Figure 5. In further steps, agricultural areas in the proximity of each plant were computed based on these command areas and LULC data, resulting in the following outputs:

* total agricultural area;

* total area of fruit trees (excluding olive trees);

* total area of field crops (Figure 6); and

* average net irrigation requirement in the command area of each WWTP (Figure 7).

The command areas of proposed WWTPs, their agricultural areas and net irrigation requirements are outlined in Annex 5 (Figures A5.1, A5.2 and A5.3).

## Reuse Potential Area

The reuse potential area is calculated for an irrigation season by dividing the volume produced by a WWTP by the average gross irrigation requirement of the agricultural land cover within the command area. For our study, this was done for both base and high-cost scenarios. Irrigation efficiency was estimated at 55%.

## Reuse Potential Score

As not all potentially irrigable areas will have the same suitability for treated wastewater use, we developed a score to qualify and rank the identified potential areas. The reuse potential score is calculated from the weighted sum of three parameters.

The first and most important parameter, level of treatment/crop, assesses the suitability of crops in relation to the level of treatment taken as proxy for effluent quality in accordance with reuse guidelines currently used as reference in Lebanon (FAO 2010). The second parameter, influent type, assesses the risk to the continuity of treatment associated with the highly variable quality of WWTP influent, which includes industrial effluents, i.e., mixed-type influent.<fnref n="21" /> Domestic influent is considered much more stable, thereby posing less risk to the operational continuity of the WWTP. The third parameter, irrigation scheme, ranks the presence or absence of an irrigation scheme which, in case of presence, represents a lower investment need and greater ease of implementation. In the following equation, each parameter (score) was given a coefficient representing its relative importance in the model.

<footnote n="20">²⁰ In the context of hyperinflation, and given the already tremendous food import dependency, policies advocating export-oriented agricultural production will increase food insecurity in the country.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ The difficulties that industrial inflows create were brought up on a number of occasions by our interviewees. See the next section *Type of Influent Parameter*. The literature also points to these problems.</footnote>
$$ \text{Potential score} = 0.6 * \text{Score "Lvl Treatment/Crop"} + 0.15 * \text{Score "Irrigation"} + 0.25 * \text{Score "Influent Type"} $$

The weighting of the different parameters was based on a simple point allocation method drawing on inputs from KIIs, the literature, and the subjective assessment of the research team (Odu 2019; Hadipour et al. 2016). More complex weighting approaches were deemed unnecessary as this multi-criteria model is very simple. The score serves to compare WWTPs, and as long as the ranking criteria remain within the conditions defined below, no substantial differentiation in the relative ranking of WWTPs appears. The section *A Guide to Interpretation* below explains how to read the scores.

The level of treatment parameter has a weight greater than the sum of the weights of the other two. The relatively higher weight assigned to the influent type parameter compared to the irrigation scheme parameter reflects the centrality of the treatment process, its effective management and the relative risk associated with critical interruption due to disruptive wastewater loads in the case of mixed rather than domestic wastewater (hence the relatively higher importance of rigorous monitoring). Thus, in the sociotechnical assemblage that defines safe water reuse, the treatment process is modeled as systematically more central and more vulnerable.

Conversely, the relatively lower weight given to the irrigation scheme parameter (Score "irrigation") reflects the possibility of creating new irrigation schemes adapted to the requirements. Irrigation schemes, specifically open-channel gravity schemes, make up a larger (if not the entire) part of the schemes recorded in the MEW database. Technically and financially, these would be easier to repair and maintain, and appear to be less vulnerable to failure. Finally, as the database covers only publicly managed/registered schemes, the lower weight also reflects the remaining uncertainty associated with this parameter (see section *Total Estimated Municipal Wastewater Production*).

The resulting potential score ranges from 1 = highest potential to 0 = no potential.

## Level of Treatment/Crop Parameter

There are no official and legally binding water reuse standards in Lebanon. So, the water quality parameters for our modeling exercise were defined on the basis of the treated wastewater typology included in the "Proposition for Lebanese Wastewater Reuse Guidelines" produced by FAO in 2010 (Table 3).

In these proposed standards, crop categories are defined as follows:

### Category I

- Fruit trees and crops eaten cooked (the FAO guidelines have no provision for crops irrigated with treated wastewater that are eaten raw)

Water treatment recommendation: Secondary treatment + filtration + disinfection

### Category II

- Fruit trees

Water treatment recommendation: Secondary treatment + filtration + disinfection, or secondary treatment + either storage or well-designed series of maturation ponds or filtration percolation

### Category III

- Cereals and oleaginous seeds, fiber and seed crops

- Crops for the canning industry, industrial crops

- Fruit trees (except sprinkler-irrigated plantations)

- Plant nurseries, ornamental nurseries, etc.

Water treatment recommendation: Secondary treatment + a few days' storage or oxidation.<fnref n="22" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Quality parameters for treated wastewater based on FAO guidelines for Lebanon.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Parameter</th><th colspan="3">Category</th></tr><tr><th>I</th><th>II</th><th>III</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BOD<sub>5</sub> (mg/L)</td><td>25</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>COD (mg/L)</td><td>125</td><td>250</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>TSS (mg/L)</td><td>60</td><td>200</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>pH</td><td>6-9</td><td>6-9</td><td>6-9</td></tr><tr><td>Cl<sub>2</sub> residual</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>N-NO<sub>3</sub> (mg/L)</td><td colspan="3">Depending on use and application technique (see FAO 2010)</td></tr><tr><td>Fecal coliforms (in 100 ml)</td><td>&lt;200</td><td>&lt;1,000</td><td>None required</td></tr><tr><td>Helminth ova (in 1 L)</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: FAO 2010.

Notes: BOD – Biochemical oxygen demand; COD – Chemical oxygen demand; TSS – Total suspended solids; NO<sub>3</sub> – Nitrate; Cl<sub>2</sub> – Chlorine.

<footnote n="22">²² For reasons of brevity, this list mentions only agricultural crop-related points. Public parks and recreational areas have been omitted.</footnote>
Most of the quality test data obtained within the framework of our study reported influent and effluent measures only for a single date. Only one very limited time series of effluent quality tests could be obtained for a newly operational plant (Tebnine WWTP). So, it was not possible to establish reliable evidence of an effluent quality trend. The tests that were made available (see Annex 6 for samples) indicated that most of the operational plants with tertiary treatment facilities meet the water quality criteria for Category I crops. However, some of these tests were found to exceed total and fecal coliform requirements by small margins. The WWTPs classified as operating with secondary treatment facilities meet—or are capable of meeting—Category II, or at least Category III, standards proposed in the FAO guidelines. The level of treatment classification “secondary” was assigned to WWTPs where treatment information could not be verified with enough certainty. It was also assumed that with relatively minimal investment, the treatment process of these plants can be improved to meet or approach the above requirements.<fnref n="23" /> The FAO standards are strict compared to several other national and international standards; they allow irrigation with treated water only for crops eaten cooked, while other standards do allow it for crops that are eaten raw, for example, those in which the edible part is under the surface, or depending on the combination of vegetable and irrigation technique.<fnref n="24" /> For the purpose of modeling, it was assumed that agricultural areas designated as “open field crops” in the LULC data contain a sufficient

extent of crops that are irrigable with treated water meeting Category I standards. Accordingly, the potential of WWTPs classified as operating with tertiary treatment was modeled considering all agricultural areas within their command area. This modeling choice, on account of the available data, represents a softening of the FAO guidelines, appropriate to the regulatory context that is still in the process of being defined. Tertiary treatment plants were assigned a higher reuse potential score (1) if more than half of the reuse potential area can be used to irrigate “fruit trees” within the command area and a slightly lower score (0.90) if less than half of the potential area serves “fruit trees” to account for the reduced risk associated with fruit trees.

For modeling the reuse potential of WWTPs operating with secondary treatment, only agricultural areas growing fruit trees (such as oranges and bananas) as well as vineyards and abandoned agricultural lands were considered. Plants with secondary treatment were assigned the same score as the lower-tier tertiary treatment plants (0.90) when the ratio of “fruit trees” to “potential area” was larger or equal to 70%; a score of 0.5 was assigned when the ratio of “fruit trees” to “potential area” was smaller than 70% and larger than or equal to 30%; and a score of 0.25 was assigned when the ratio of “fruit trees” to “potential area” was less than 30%. Plants operating with only primary treatment processes were modeled as having no reuse potential. The scores modeling is detailed below:

Logical expression “level of treatment/crop” score - Score “Lvl Tr/A”:

<table><tr><td>IF “tertiary” AND IF ratio of area of “fruit trees”/potential area > = 50%,</td><td>Score = 1</td></tr><tr><td>IF “tertiary” AND IF ratio of area of “fruit trees”/potential area < 50%,</td><td>Score = 0.90</td></tr><tr><td>IF “secondary” AND IF ratio of area of “fruit trees”/potential area > = 70%,</td><td>Score = 0.90</td></tr><tr><td>IF “secondary” AND IF ratio of area of “fruit trees”/potential area < 70% AND > = 30%,</td><td>Score = 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>IF “secondary” AND IF ratio of area of “fruit trees”/potential area < 30% AND > = 0,</td><td>Score = 0.25</td></tr><tr><td>IF “secondary” AND IF ratio of area of “fruit trees”/potential area = 0</td><td>Score = 0</td></tr><tr><td>IF “primary”</td><td>Score = 0</td></tr></table>

## Type of Influent Parameter

The modeling of influent quality implies taking into consideration the management of WWTPs, not only in the regulatory context but also in terms of the administrative ability to enforce regulation. Given the structural problems of the wastewater sector (see section Governance Barriers to Water Reuse), it was deemed appropriate in the Lebanese context—where discharge of industrial wastewater harmful to the treatment process remains a recurrent problem—to include a parameter representing the risk to WWTP operation. The influent quality affects water reuse in two ways: (1) Municipal wastewater can contain a variety of

toxic substances, heavy metals among them. Specifically, where industrial wastewater enters the municipal wastewater collection network, the risk of negative effects on plant health and human health is elevated and needs to be monitored; and (2) certain types of industrial wastewater can affect plant operation over a longer time period, especially when operational capacity is weak. A toxic shock can render the wastewater useless for irrigation for days or even weeks, reducing the reliability of reuse schemes and imposing additional costs and risks upon farmers. The following description by an engineer responsible for wastewater treatment in the SLWE illustrates the problem:

<footnote n="23">²³ Interview, SLWE, March 25, 2020. An engineer responsible for wastewater treatment conducted an assessment of rehabilitation requirements of WWTPs in his area of responsibility. According to him, most of the smaller WWTPs require relatively minor investment (ranging from a few thousand US Dollars to USD 20,000) to improve treatment operations.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ This observation relies on the results of discussions conducted in the framework of the IWMI and Lebanese Standards Institution (LIBNOR) consultative process around the design of national standards. See also Alcalde-Sanz and Gawlik (2017).</footnote>
> "In Nabatiyeh (Charqiye WWTP), for example, the COD (chemical oxygen demand) went up to around 5,000. I don't know what entered the system. Sometimes the pH drops. We get filamentous bacteria in large quantities. It kills the other bacteria and stops the settling process as they don't flock, they remain suspended. We get black water that comes out. So we stop the station, chlorinate to kill the bacteria and then we start over. We bring a new seed of bacteria and rebuild the bacteria. Sometimes there is blood coming, or other substances with low pH. In the industrial zones, you don't know what goes in the plant. Sometimes, we get the waste (rennet) coming from the cow and animal farms that make labneh (strained yoghurt)."<fnref n="25" />

For our modeling purposes, and based on interviews with experts as well as available reports, wastewater influent was categorized as mixed for the large urban agglomerations and industrial zones. Where information about the type of influent was available for smaller rural plants, this was incorporated in the database. For the majority of rural plants, the influent was considered the domestic type. Domestic influent was given a higher score compared to mixed influent as follows:

Logical expression "Influent Type" score:

IF "domestic", Score = 1

IF "mixed", Score = 0

It is worth mentioning here that an increased inflow of heavy metals seems to occur regularly at the beginning of the rainy season. The first rains wash away dust, car exhaust, car tire particulates, oil and other potentially toxic substances that would have accumulated on the roads and paved surfaces over the dry summer months. In many cases across the country, storm and wastewater networks are combined, and the quality of the infrastructure is often subject to infiltration, all of which will carry considerable amounts of toxic wastewater into treatment plants.<fnref n="26" />

## Irrigation Parameter

It was assumed that the presence of irrigation schemes in the relative proximity of WWTPs would make reuse projects less costly since treated water could be injected into existing infrastructure, thereby increasing reuse potential. Therefore, WWTPs having irrigation schemes

within their command area were rated higher than those without (see Figure 8).

Logical expression for irrigation scheme score:

IF "irrigation scheme", Score = 1

IF "no irrigation scheme", Score = 0

## Ideal Potential and Actual Potential

It is useful to distinguish between potential at current capacity and operational status and potential at possible operating capacity and improved status. For the existing WWTPs, we modeled two reuse potentials in order to differentiate between the immediately available scenario and a future scenario in which good development policy has led to a more efficient use of resources and treatment capacity, leading to larger wastewater volumes. Each of these two scenarios were modeled for a lower cost scenario (3 km buffer for command area delineation) and a higher cost scenario (5 km buffer for command area delineation).

**Ideal Potential (IP)** is based on the design capacity of plants and the designed level of treatment. It represents an idealized future scenario, wherein existing plants are rehabilitated and operating at 90% capacity.

The **Actual Potential (AP)** scenario models the present state of WWTPs. It considers the actual volume treated, the current operational status of a plant and the actual level of treatment. For WWTPs whose actual volume treated was unknown, it was assumed to be equal to 31%, which represents the average ratio of design capacity and actual volume treated for all operational WWTPs whose actual volumes were known.

In the AP scenario, the following factors were applied to the "level of treatment/crop" parameter for plants characterized as:

- "Operational" = 1, wherein the potential score remains the same when a WWTP operates well.

- "Under construction" = 0.7, when WWTPs in various stages of construction have funding secured and can thus be expected to start operating in the short- to medium-term future.

- "Partially operational" = 0.5, reflecting the associated risk with a variety of factors such as inefficient treatment processes, flow interruptions, probable investment needs for WWTPs, etc.

- "Built not operational" = 0.

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Interview, SLWE, January 30, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Interview, CDR, June 20, 2020.</footnote>
## A Guide to Interpretation

With all the parameters now elaborated, Table 4 explains a few reference scores to help with the interpretation of

results presented in the next section. The actual potential scores modify these according to the operational status of WWTPs.

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Interpretation of reuse potential scores.</caption><thead><tr><td>Potential score</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>The WWTP in question is reported as operating tertiary treatment, has an irrigation scheme in relative proximity, and the influent is domestic, thus less risky to WWTP operation.</td></tr><tr><td>0.94-0.7</td><td>This includes WWTPs with a high ratio of fruit tree area to reuse potential area with one or more secondary parameter scoring.</td></tr><tr><td>0.69-0.54</td><td>Includes WWTPs with tertiary treatment without secondary parameter scoring or scoring on irrigation, as well as WWTPs with operating secondary treatment with a mid-range ratio of fruit tree area to potential area and at least domestic-type influent, thus less risky to the treatment process.</td></tr><tr><td>0.53-0.0</td><td>Includes WWTPs operating secondary treatment with mid to low ratio of fruit tree area to potential area.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Technical Potential for Water Reuse

In this section, we present the results of our modeling of the technical potential for using treated wastewater in Lebanon. Building on the databases of existing and proposed WWTPs (as per NWSSU), we modeled the reuse technical potential of 104 existing plants—including those in the process of being built—and 164 proposed plants (Figure 9).

### Existing and Proposed WWTP Databases

Of the 104 existing plants, 61 were considered either “operational” (41) or “partially operational” (20)—the latter term denoting WWTPs operating their treatment process only partially or being subject to limitations on full operation. There were 35 WWTPs categorized as “built, not operational”; these represented projects that might have been operational at some point but had fallen into varying states of disrepair and were thus receiving no

volumes, or were receiving wastewater but rendering no treatment. Finally, 8 WWTPs were considered as “under construction”; these included projects at various stages of construction and those awaiting commission.

The majority of WWTPs are under the administrative responsibility of municipalities (62). For an additional 8 plants, we were not able to confirm with certainty that they were managed by municipalities (Table 5).<fnref n="27" /> Of these 70 municipally run plants, 34 were either “operational” or “partially operational” while 33 were not operational. Regional water establishments (RWEs) manage 17 WWTPs. The North Lebanon Water Establishment (NLWE), however, does not manage any of the WWTPs in its territory (Figure 10). In contrast, the Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment (BMLWE) manages 10 operational plants. The Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR) currently manages 17 WWTPs, of which six are under construction. Among them, most of the operational plants are in the NLWE area.

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Nevertheless, they were included in the municipality category.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. The command areas of existing WWTPs.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6. Agricultural areas and crops in the command area of existing WWTPs.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7. Net irrigation requirement in the command areas of WWTPs.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Existing and proposed WWTPs and irrigation networks.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9. Existing and proposed WWTPs and sewage network.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10. Wastewater treatment plants by managing authority.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 5.** Distribution of WWTPs by managing authority and operational status.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Managing public authority</th><th rowspan="2">Built, not operational</th><th colspan="4">Operational status</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>Operational</th><th>Partially operational</th><th>Under construction</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BMLWE</td><td></td><td>10%</td><td>10%</td><td></td><td></td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>BWE</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td></td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>CDR</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td></td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Municipalities</td><td>32%</td><td>33%</td><td>19%</td><td>20%</td><td>13%</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>SLWE</td><td></td><td>3%</td><td>3%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Union of Municipalities of Lake Qaraoun</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>34%</td><td>35%</td><td>40%</td><td>41%</td><td>19%</td><td>8%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The largest volume of wastewater is treated by CDR-managed plants (Table 6). Of the total volume of 222,366 m³/day that are actually treated, 40% goes through WWTPs managed by contractors hired by CDR, 28% by WWTPs

under the management of BMLWE, and 25% by WWTPs managed by the SLWE. Finally, 5% of the volume is treated by BWE plants and only about 2% of the actually treated wastewater passes through municipal WWTPs (Figure 11).

<table><caption>**Table 6.** Actual volume of wastewater treated by managing authority.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Managing authority</th><th rowspan="2">Built, not operational</th><th colspan="4">Actual volume treated (m³/day)</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>Operational</th><th>Partially operational</th><th>Under construction</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BMLWE</td><td></td><td>61,735</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>61,735</td></tr><tr><td>BWE</td><td>50</td><td>6,000</td><td>5,000</td><td></td><td></td><td>11,050</td></tr><tr><td>CDR</td><td>0</td><td>33,740</td><td>37,200</td><td>17,000</td><td></td><td>87,940</td></tr><tr><td>Municipalities</td><td>100</td><td>4,430</td><td>541</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>5,071</td></tr><tr><td>SLWE</td><td></td><td>370</td><td>55,000</td><td></td><td></td><td>55,370</td></tr><tr><td>Union of Municipalities of Lake Qaraoun</td><td></td><td>1,200</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1,200</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>150</td><td>107,475</td><td>97,741</td><td>17,000</td><td></td><td>222,366</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11.** Actual volume of wastewater treated by a managing authority.</figcaption></figure>
Table 7 gives a breakdown of the volume of treated water in relation to the total volume of municipal wastewater generated. The total volume of wastewater actually receiving some form of treatment amounts to 81.2 Mm³ per year. This is 25-30% of the wastewater generated yearly. The three largest WWTPs in Lebanon (Sayniq/Saida 55,000 m³/day, Ghadir 60,000 m³/day and Tripoli 30,000 m³/day) currently only treat, at a primary level, a total of 145,000 m³/day or 52.9 Mm³ per year, and account for 86% of the treated water discharged into the sea. Currently, only 34% of

the treated wastewater can be considered for use in irrigation, which is about 8-10% of the (estimated) total wastewater generated. Calculated for the irrigation season, this amounts to about 16.6 Mm³/year of actually treated wastewater which are currently available for reuse in irrigation.

In the absence of any accounting of indirect reuse—due to the lack of water use and water production data—it remains impossible to estimate the volumes that can be added to the existing water use.

<table><caption>**Table 7.** Total wastewater (Mm³) generated, treated and discharged.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Annual</th><th>Seasonal</th><th>% of total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total municipal wastewater generated</td><td>273.7-328.5</td><td>164.2-198.2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Total treated water produced</td><td>81.2</td><td>48.9</td><td>25-30%</td></tr><tr><td>Total treated water discharged into the sea</td><td>60.2</td><td>36.3</td><td>18-22%</td></tr><tr><td>Total treated water discharged into inland water bodies</td><td>20.9</td><td>12.6</td><td>6.3-7.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Total put to direct reuse (2020)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Total indirect reuse</td><td colspan="3">Indirect reuse, widespread as water from rivers is persistently used for irrigation, cannot be quantified because of a lack of water use and water production data.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 8 presents the treatment capacity of the existing and operational plants, as well as the present production of treated wastewater according to the authorities that currently manage them. The third column of the table shows the volume of treated wastewater produced per season at 90% of design capacity for a scenario in which WWTPs are assumed to have been rehabilitated and operating at 90% capacity (a scenario in which wastewater network coverage has increased, existing networks have been rehabilitated and under-construction networks have been completed). The fourth column of the table shows the current generation of treated volume per season as reported and presented in the database. The fifth column shows volumes for a seasonal scenario where all existing non-operational plants have been rehabilitated and restored to operate at current utilization levels. Under the assumption that currently non-operational plants can be rehabilitated and operated at an average utilization level of 31% of designed volume, at least an additional 5 Mm³ of treated wastewater could potentially be mobilized for use. If WWTPs operated at 90% of current design

capacity, as much as 48.6 Mm³ could potentially be mobilized.

These numbers further suggest that considerable quantities would be available for groundwater recharge outside of the irrigation season. This is an option that should certainly be explored wherever the effluent quality is appropriate and the quantities are interesting. However, reuse for groundwater recharge falls outside of the scope of this report.

The 164 WWTPs being planned for expansion of treatment capacity, proposed in the NWSSU, would add another 182 Mm³ (at 90% of designed capacity utilization) per year or about 110 Mm³ per season, if implemented in totality.

Following this summary analysis of water volumes for reuse, the next section takes up the question of technical reuse potential for a more nuanced understanding of the technical potential to use wastewater for irrigation in Lebanon.
<table><caption>**Table 8.** Yearly and seasonal volumes (Mm³) by reuse possibility and managing authority.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Managing authority</th><th rowspan="2">Qualitative assessment of reuse possibility<sup>a</sup></th><th colspan="3">Seasonal</th><th colspan="3">Annual</th></tr><tr><th>Total volume at 90% of average capacity</th><th>Total average volume treated (all plants)</th><th>Total actual volume treated (only operational)</th><th>Total volume at 90% of average capacity</th><th>Total actual volume treated (all plants)</th><th>Total actual volume treated (only operational)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">BMLWE</td><td>Reuse not possible</td><td>27.3</td><td>11.9</td><td>11.9</td><td>50.4</td><td>21.9</td><td>21.9</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse possible</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>2.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>BWE</td><td>Reuse possible</td><td>6.9</td><td>2.2</td><td>1.7</td><td>12.7</td><td>4.0</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">CDR</td><td>Reuse not possible</td><td>30.4</td><td>7.1</td><td>3.5</td><td>56.0</td><td>13.0</td><td>11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse possible</td><td>32.1</td><td>15.6</td><td>12.5</td><td>59.2</td><td>28.7</td><td>21.1</td></tr><tr><td>Municipalities</td><td>Reuse possible</td><td>6.6</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.4</td><td>12.2</td><td>4.8</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">SLWE</td><td>Reuse not possible</td><td>12.9</td><td>10.9</td><td>5.4</td><td>23.7</td><td>20.1</td><td>20.1</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse possible</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Union of Municipalities of Lake Qaraoun</td><td>Reuse possible</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>Reuse not possible</td><td>70.6</td><td>29.8</td><td>20.9</td><td>130.1</td><td>55.0</td><td>52.9</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Reuse possible</strong></td><td><strong>48.6</strong></td><td><strong>21.3</strong></td><td><strong>16.5</strong></td><td><strong>89.6</strong></td><td><strong>39.2</strong></td><td><strong>28.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Grand total</td><td></td><td>119.2</td><td>51.1</td><td>37.4</td><td>219.7</td><td>94.2</td><td>81.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: <sup>a</sup> Reuse possibility over the next decade.

## Reuse Potential: Modeling Results

Annexes 7 and 8 show in tabular form the results of our modeling exercise for existing and proposed WWTPs, respectively. Graphic representations of the results for four scenarios<fnref n="28" /> for existing WWTPs and one scenario for proposed WWTPs are shown in Figures 12 to 16. For the proposed plants, we modeled only for the ideal potential (IP) in a low-cost scenario (with a 3 km buffer for command area delineation), and omitted the influent factor as it was assumed that, notwithstanding the current political and economic crisis in Lebanon, the new networks will be separate from the storm water networks and not connected to industrial establishments and therefore secure from the risk of industrial influent. Table 9 shows the distribution of scores of existing WWTPs over six scoring levels in each of the four scenarios. Table 10 shows the total reuse potential areas (both ideal and actual) in the low-cost and high-cost scenarios.

It can be seen that about 80% of the WWTPs have a high score in terms of the ideal potential (IP) in a low-cost (base) scenario. This increases to 90% in the high-cost scenario.

The high number of WWTPs (39%) with a zero actual potential (AP) score reflects the high number of non-operational plants. However, 36 WWTPs have a high reuse potential score (between 0.7 and 1) in terms of actual potential (AP) in the base scenario. Of those, five are under the responsibility of CDR, 13 are under some form of municipal management and the remaining are in the hands of the RWEs (Table 11).

In Table 10, the total irrigation potential per season, expressed in ha, represents the total area irrigable by wastewater from plants operating at 90% of design capacity—regardless of the existence of agricultural areas within their command areas—in accordance with the gross

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Ideal reuse potential [IP] and actual reuse potential [AP] in low-cost (base) as well as high-cost scenarios.</footnote>
irrigation requirement associated with the command area. It includes the high volumes produced by WWTPs serving the large urban agglomerations on the coast, which do not have equivalent agricultural areas associated with them. The next column showing the total potential area in the command area is a better indicator of the ideal potential (IP) as it

shows the irrigable agricultural area within the command area, which is in relative proximity of the plant. The fact that this, the irrigation potential in the command area in a base (low-cost) scenario increases by almost 900 ha for the high-cost scenario reflects the additional potential that can be mobilized when the larger plants operate closer to capacity.

<table><caption>**Table 9.** Summary of scores for actual and ideal reuse potential of existing WWTPs as per base and high-cost scenarios.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Score</th><th colspan="2">Base scenario</th><th colspan="2">High-cost scenario</th></tr><tr><th>Ideal potential (IP)</th><th>Actual potential (AP)</th><th>Ideal potential (IP)</th><th>Actual potential (AP)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>9</td><td>23</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>0.94-0.7</td><td>64</td><td>27</td><td>69</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>0.69-0.54</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>8</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>0.53-0.37</td><td>6</td><td>12</td><td>1</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>0.3-0.15</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>41</td><td>2</td><td>39</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 10.** Total ideal and actual potential areas (ha) as per low-cost (base) and high-cost scenarios.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Total irrigation potential per season (IP<sup>a</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Base scenario</th><th colspan="4">High-cost scenario</th></tr><tr><th>Total potential area in command area (IP)</th><th>Total irrigation potential per season (AP<sup>b</sup>)</th><th>Total irrigation potential per season (IP)</th><th>Total irrigation potential per season (IP)</th><th>Total potential area in command area (IP)</th><th>Total irrigation potential per season (AP)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9,902.1</td><td>4,993.4</td><td>2,202.6</td><td>10,405.4</td><td>5,857.4</td><td>2,340.1</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> IP: Ideal potential.

<sup>b</sup> AP: Actual potential.

<table><caption>**Table 11.** Distribution of WWTPs by their actual potential score and managing authority.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="10">Reuse potential score</th></tr><tr><th>0</th><th>0.23</th><th>0.38</th><th>0.4</th><th>0.45</th><th>0.52</th><th>0.53</th><th>0.55</th><th>0.57</th><th>0.61</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Managing authority</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.94</td><td>1</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>BMLWE<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>BWE<sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>CDR<sup>c</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Municipalities</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SLWE<sup>d</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Union of Municipalities of Lake Qaraoun</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>16</td><td>9</td><td>104</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="10">Reuse potential score</th></tr><tr><th>0.67</th><th>0.69</th><th>0.7</th><th>0.78</th><th>0.79</th><th>0.82</th><th>0.85</th><th>0.94</th><td>1</td><td>Total</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Managing authority</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BMLWE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>BWE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>CDR</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Municipalities</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SLWE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Union of Municipalities of Lake Qaraoun</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>16</td><td>9</td><td>104</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> BMLWE = Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment. <sup>b</sup> BWE = Bekaa Water Establishment.

<sup>c</sup> CDR = Council for Development and Reconstruction. <sup>d</sup> SLWE = South Lebanon Water Establishment.
As shown in Table 12, the WWTP at Sour (Chabriha, #24 in Annex 8), for example, has an irrigation potential of 691 ha, of which 542.5 ha would fall in the command area in an ideal potential (IP), low-cost scenario, suggesting that this plant could irrigate more agricultural area than the command area. However, the actual potential of this WWTP is 326 ha in the low-cost scenario with no significant increase in the higher cost scenario where the actual potential is 329 ha. The variation is due to the change in average net irrigation requirement of the enlarged command area. The difference in the Chabriha WWTP's reuse potential score between the ideal potential scenario (0.75) and the actual potential scenario (0.57) derives from the fact that the plant had not yet started operations (at the time of writing) and was still bypassing

wastewater collected from a highly urbanized area to the sea outfall.

The Zahleh and laat WWTPs in the Bekaa are two other plants where the ideal potential area increases from the base to higher cost scenarios but remains largely unchanged when modeled against actual treated volumes. For the large majority of plants, the potential area does not vary in a meaningful way but only as a result of the above-mentioned variation in average net irrigation requirement. In all cases, analysis of the different scenarios for existing plants and the single scenario for proposed plants indicates that many small WWTPs are interesting sites for reuse and should not be neglected in a search for high-impact single projects.

<table><caption>**Table 12.** Reuse potential of the Chabriha wastewater treatment plant.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">#</th><th rowspan="2">WWTP</th><th colspan="5">Base scenario</th></tr><tr><th>Irrigation potential per season (ha) (IP<sup>a</sup>)</th><th>Reuse potential in command area (IP)</th><th>Reuse potential score (IP)</th><th>Reuse potential area (ha) (AP<sup>b</sup>)</th><th>Reuse potential score (AP)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>24</td><td>Chabriha</td><td>691</td><td>543</td><td>0.75</td><td>326</td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">#</th><th rowspan="2">WWTP</th><th colspan="5">High-cost scenario</th></tr><tr><th>Irrigation potential per season (ha) (IP)</th><th>Reuse potential in command area (IP)</th><th>Reuse potential score (IP)</th><th>Reuse potential area (ha) (AP)</th><th>Reuse potential score (AP)</th></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Chabriha</td><td>697</td><td>697</td><td>0.75</td><td>329</td><td>0.57</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> IP = Ideal potential.

<sup>b</sup> AP = Actual potential.

Table 13 shows the distribution of the reuse potential areas of WWTPs (in both the ideal and actual scenarios) by managing authority alongside the actually treated volumes and design capacities. It shows that a lot of potential area is associated with the CDR, though it also shows that large volumes of wastewater do not translate into potential. The results also show that the reuse

potential area in the command area of municipal plants could be raised by 400% through rehabilitation and proper operation of plants. There is also much potential to unlock in the SLWE where the IP area and AP area differ by a factor of 8.5. The possible increases of reuse potential area are considerably smaller for the other administrative bodies but still range around a factor of 3.

<table><caption>**Table 13.** Ideal and actual potential area and actual treated volume by managing authority.</caption><thead><tr><th>Managing authority</th><th>Ideal potential area (ha) (IP<sup>a</sup>)</th><th>Potential area in command area (3 km) (IP)</th><th>Current design capacity (m<sup>3</sup>/day)</th><th>Actual potential area (ha) (AP<sup>b</sup>)</th><th>Actual volume treated (m<sup>3</sup>/day)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BMLWE<sup>c</sup></td><td>172.9</td><td>172.9</td><td>142,275</td><td>59</td><td>61,735</td></tr><tr><td>BWE<sup>d</sup></td><td>690</td><td>690</td><td>34,800</td><td>234.4</td><td>11,050</td></tr><tr><td>CDR<sup>e</sup></td><td>6,527</td><td>2,883.1</td><td>313,310</td><td>1,639.3</td><td>87,940</td></tr><tr><td>Municipalities</td><td>911.4</td><td>865.7</td><td>22,197</td><td>202.7</td><td>5,072</td></tr><tr><td>SLWE<sup>f</sup></td><td>1,464.9</td><td>297.7</td><td>69,575</td><td>34.5</td><td>55,370</td></tr><tr><td>Union of Municipalities of Lake Qaraoun</td><td>136</td><td>84</td><td>5,000</td><td>32.6</td><td>1,200</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>9,902.2</td><td>4,993.4</td><td>587,157</td><td>2,202.5</td><td>222,367</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> IP = Ideal potential scenario; <sup>b</sup> AP = Actual potential scenario; <sup>c</sup> BMLWE = Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment; <sup>d</sup> BWE = Bekaa Water Establishment; <sup>e</sup> CDR = Council for Development and Reconstruction; <sup>f</sup> SLWE = South Lebanon Water Establishment.
Tables 14 and 15 compare the reuse potential scores and reuse potential areas for the actual (AP) and ideal potential (IP) scenarios, respectively. Just above half of the actual potential area has a reuse potential score higher than 0.6. This proportion increases in the ideal potential case where about two-thirds of the potential area has a score higher than 0.6. This again highlights the gains that would accrue from rehabilitation and improved management of WWTPs.

Our analysis of the reuse potential of proposed WWTPs (summarized in Table 16) shows that only around 40%

of the potential area (in an IP low-cost scenario) is associated with WWTPs scoring higher than 0.6. It also shows that a number of large plants are located in areas with little to no agricultural area available, as can be seen from the difference between the total reuse potential area and the potential within the command area. The difference accumulates from WWTPs with low reuse potential scores with almost 10,000 ha of the potential area associated with plants with a score lower than 0.6. The difference between the potential area falling within the command area and the total potential area is much lower for WWTPs with scores higher than 0.6.

<table><caption>**Table 14.** Actual reuse potential (AP) area and seasonal volumes as per actual reuse potential score.</caption><thead><tr><th>Potential score (AP)</th><th>Actual potential area (ha)</th><th>Actual volume treated per season (m³)</th><th>Total volume (m³) per season at design capacity (90% average)</th><th>Number of WWTPs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>2.8</td><td>20,325,044</td><td>70,915,482</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>0.225</td><td>95.5</td><td>495,000</td><td>4,752,000</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0.378</td><td>289.5</td><td>1,933,470</td><td>8,910,000</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0.4</td><td>127.9</td><td>530,608</td><td>1,359,072</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>0.45</td><td>138.9</td><td>1,752,696</td><td>5,623,200</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>0.52</td><td>6.4</td><td>21,062</td><td>143,550</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>0.528</td><td>65.4</td><td>429,660</td><td>1,980,000</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0.55</td><td>6.5</td><td>40,511</td><td>142,560</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>0.57</td><td>326.3</td><td>2,356,200</td><td>7,128,000</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0.61</td><td>41.4</td><td>214,830</td><td>990,000</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0.67</td><td>115.8</td><td>477,378</td><td>1,355,706</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>0.69</td><td>668.8</td><td>5,940,000</td><td>9,088,200</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>0.7</td><td>38.1</td><td>247,253</td><td>507,870</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>0.778</td><td>28.6</td><td>181,231</td><td>835,164</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>0.79</td><td>13.5</td><td>106,920</td><td>152,460</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>0.82</td><td>12</td><td>77,339</td><td>356,400</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0.85</td><td>11.2</td><td>650,470</td><td>776,160</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>0.94</td><td>161.9</td><td>1,257,874</td><td>3,396,690</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>52.1</td><td>369,270</td><td>744,480</td><td>9</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>Total</td><td>2,202.6</td><td>37,406,816</td><td>119,156,994</td><td>104</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>**Table 15.** Ideal potential (IP) area and seasonal volume of treated wastewater as per ideal potential score.</caption><thead><tr><th>Potential score (IP)</th><th>Ideal potential area (ha) (IP)</th><th>Reuse potential in command area (3 km) (IP)</th><th>Total volume (m³) per season at design capacity (90% avg)</th><th>No. of WWTPs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>14.8</td><td>14.8</td><td>27,473,886</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>0.3</td><td>1,360.1</td><td>218.6</td><td>12,870,000</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0.4</td><td>225.3</td><td>189.3</td><td>1,200,672</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>0.54</td><td>933.9</td><td>933.9</td><td>8,910,000</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>0.55</td><td>465.8</td><td>348.9</td><td>3,152,160</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>0.69</td><td>5,016.5</td><td>1,674</td><td>44,871,750</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>0.7</td><td>98.7</td><td>87.7</td><td>796,950</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>0.75</td><td>691</td><td>542.5</td><td>10,771,200</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>0.79</td><td>173.3</td><td>171.9</td><td>1,284,426</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>0.85</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>917,730</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>0.94</td><td>723.4</td><td>612.4</td><td>5,789,520</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>143.4</td><td>143.4</td><td>1,118,700</td><td>11</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>Total</td><td>9,902.2</td><td>4,993.4</td><td>119,156,994</td><td>104</td></tr></tfoot></table>
<table><caption>**Table 16.** Summary analysis of the reuse potential of proposed WWTPs.</caption><thead><tr><th>Score</th><th>Reuse potential area (ha) (IP<sup>a</sup>)</th><th>Reuse potential in command area (3 km) (IP)</th><th>Total volume (m<sup>3</sup>) per season at design capacity (90% avg)</th><th>No. of WWTPs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.00</td><td>2,564.4</td><td>152.4</td><td>19,963,944</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>0.18</td><td>1,787.8</td><td>512.2</td><td>12,246,300</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>0.35</td><td>167.3</td><td>167.1</td><td>944,460</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>0.48</td><td>5,985.6</td><td>2,156.2</td><td>50,076,972</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>0.63</td><td>1,409.1</td><td>715.4</td><td>27,663,570</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>0.65</td><td>331</td><td>306.3</td><td>2,234,430</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>0.70</td><td>18.5</td><td>18.5</td><td>64,435,338</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>0.93</td><td>1,824.2</td><td>1,690.6</td><td>14,610,420</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>1.00</td><td>85.6</td><td>85.5</td><td>933,372</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Total result</td><td>14,173.5</td><td>5,804.2</td><td>193,108,806</td><td>164</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: <sup>a</sup> IP = Ideal potential scenario.

## WWTPs and Agricultural Lands with Higher Reuse Potential

Tables 17 to 20 rank wastewater treatment plants by different measures of potential. We use these model results to produce a list of 16 WWTPs with the highest actual potential by reading the reuse potential areas and reuse potential scores together.

Table 17 lists the 16 highest ranked WWTPs by actual potential area, that is, reuse potential area calculated on the basis of the current volume of treated water produced. As the table shows, some WWTPs, such as Majdel Anjar, on account of being under construction, and laat, on account of the level of treatment and operational status, have very low actual potential scores. Other plants such as Charqiye, Jbeil and Bcharre have only small reuse potential areas within the command area, meaning that water would have to be transported farther to irrigate the potential area. Annex 7 shows the results for the high-cost scenario.

Table 17 serves to identify projects with large impact while placing less emphasis on the ease of implementation. The Chabriha (Sour) plant, for example, has a high reuse potential area but low reuse potential score on account of not having been in operation at the time of the research. It also faces obstacles to reuse implementation that are of a bureaucratic nature (see below), which are not accounted for in the technical modeling.

Table 18 ranks WWTPs by their actual reuse potential score but excludes WWTPs whose potential area within the command area is smaller than 20 ha. This measure combines the promise of easier implementation with the promise of a future increase from additional wastewater

volumes; it helps in identifying potentially easier-to-implement projects with relatively high local impact.

For comparison, Table 19 shows a selection based only on reuse potential scores. The reuse potential areas in these cases are considerably smaller. Such a selection might be useful to NGOs or local associations interested in supporting or funding small feasible projects on a limited budget.

Drawing from the above discussion, we propose the selection of 16 WWTPs listed in Table 20 as those most promising for a substantial mobilization of the reuse potential.

The above summary of our results shows the usefulness of such a modeling exercise. The maps shown in Figures 12 to 16, in combination with the tables of results given in Annexes 7 and 8, provide a good tool for further exploration, prioritization and selection. The case studies presented in Annex 9 present further details, combining maps and a combination of qualitative and quantitative information about WWTPs and their surroundings. The case studies include Zahleh, Chabriha, Aintourine, Ijbaa, Ablah and Hammana from the list in Table 20, as well as Yammouneh and laat as illustrations of some of the obstacles potentially faced at the local level.

Finally, without an understanding of the policy context—which at the current historical juncture is still rapidly deteriorating—technical potential by itself gives a misleading picture of the reuse potential in Lebanon. The next chapter will situate technical potential in context to give a better understanding of the possibility for water reuse to materialize more or less systematically across the Lebanese territory.
<table><caption>**Table 17. Ranking of WWTPs by actual reuse potential in command area.**</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>WWTP</th><th>Irrigation potential per season (ha) (IP<sup>a</sup>)</th><th>Potential in command area (IP)</th><th>Potential score (IP)</th><th>Irrigation potential per season (ha) (AP<sup>b</sup>)</th><th>Potential score (AP)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>100</td><td>Zahleh</td><td>738.1</td><td>738.1</td><td>0.69</td><td>527.2</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Chabriha</td><td>691</td><td>542.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>326.3</td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>Majdel Anjar/El Marj</td><td>933.9</td><td>933.9</td><td>0.54</td><td>289.5</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Charqiye</td><td>308.7</td><td>8.2</td><td>0.69</td><td>141.6</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Joub Janine</td><td>231.5</td><td>231.5</td><td>0.69</td><td>138.9</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Iaat</td><td>458.5</td><td>458.5</td><td>0.69</td><td>95.5</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Aintourine</td><td>91.9</td><td>91.9</td><td>0.79</td><td>91.9</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Ijbaa</td><td>86.8</td><td>86.8</td><td>0.94</td><td>86.8</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Jbeil</td><td>211</td><td>14.2</td><td>0.69</td><td>65.4</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Bcharre</td><td>133.5</td><td>16.6</td><td>0.55</td><td>41.4</td><td>0.61</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Aitanit/Machghara</td><td>136</td><td>84</td><td>0.94</td><td>32.6</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Ainbal</td><td>121.2</td><td>86</td><td>0.4</td><td>30.3</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Ablah</td><td>44.1</td><td>44.1</td><td>0.94</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>Tebnine</td><td>77.1</td><td>51.3</td><td>0.94</td><td>23.9</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>79</td><td>Nabaa El Safa &amp; Aain Zhalta</td><td>71.1</td><td>71.1</td><td>0.94</td><td>22</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Fourzol</td><td>21.3</td><td>21.3</td><td>0.94</td><td>21.3</td><td>0.94</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> IP = Ideal potential scenario.

<sup>b</sup> AP = Actual potential scenario.

<table><caption>**Table 18. Ranking of WWTPs by actual potential score (those with reuse potential within a command area [CMD] >20 ha).**</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>WWTP</th><th>Irrigation potential per season (ha) (IP<sup>a</sup>)</th><th>Potential in command area (IP)</th><th>Potential score (IP)</th><th>Irrigation potential per season (ha) AP<sup>b</sup></th><th>Potential score (AP)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15</td><td>Bater</td><td>25.4</td><td>25.4</td><td>1</td><td>15.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Aitanit/Machghara</td><td>136</td><td>84</td><td>0.94</td><td>32.6</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>Tebnine</td><td>77.1</td><td>51.3</td><td>0.94</td><td>23.9</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Ablah</td><td>44.1</td><td>44.1</td><td>0.94</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>El Jdeide</td><td>43.4</td><td>43.4</td><td>0.94</td><td>3.9</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Aammatour</td><td>31.7</td><td>31.7</td><td>0.94</td><td>9.7</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Fourzol</td><td>21.3</td><td>21.3</td><td>0.94</td><td>21.3</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>82</td><td>Qbaiyat Aakkar El Gharbie</td><td>39.4</td><td>39.4</td><td>0.7</td><td>12.2</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Hebbariyeh</td><td>36</td><td>36</td><td>0.85</td><td>11.2</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Barouk</td><td>38.6</td><td>38.6</td><td>1</td><td>12</td><td>0.82</td></tr><tr><td>79</td><td>Nabaa El Safa &amp; Aain Zhalta</td><td>71.1</td><td>71.1</td><td>0.94</td><td>22</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Hammana</td><td>31.1</td><td>31.1</td><td>0.7</td><td>19.5</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Gharifeh</td><td>60</td><td>60</td><td>0.55</td><td>18.6</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>Zahleh</td><td>738.1</td><td>738.1</td><td>0.69</td><td>527.2</td><td>0.69</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> IP = Ideal potential scenario.

<sup>b</sup> AP = Actual potential scenario.
<table><caption>**Table 19.** WWTP ranking by actual potential score.</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>WWTP</th><th>Irrigation potential (ha) per season (IP<sup>a</sup>)</th><th>Potential (ha) in command area (IP)</th><th>Potential score (IP)</th><th>Irrigation potential (ha) per season (AP<sup>b</sup>)</th><th>Potential score (AP)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15</td><td>Bater</td><td>25.4</td><td>25.4</td><td>1</td><td>15.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Saghbine</td><td>14</td><td>14</td><td>1</td><td>2.5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Baadarane</td><td>12.9</td><td>12.9</td><td>1</td><td>7.1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Maasser Ech-Chouf</td><td>11.6</td><td>11.6</td><td>1</td><td>2.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>101</td><td>Zaoutar Ech-Charqiye</td><td>10.9</td><td>10.9</td><td>1</td><td>3.9</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>Mristi</td><td>7.7</td><td>7.7</td><td>1</td><td>3.1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>Jbaa Ech-Chouf</td><td>7.4</td><td>7.4</td><td>1</td><td>5.8</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Deir Mimas</td><td>6.8</td><td>6.8</td><td>1</td><td>6.8</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Bourj Rahal</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>4.8</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Aitanit/Machghara</td><td>136</td><td>84</td><td>0.94</td><td>32.6</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>Tebnine</td><td>77.1</td><td>51.3</td><td>0.94</td><td>23.9</td><td>0.94</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> IP = Ideal potential scenario.

<sup>b</sup> AP = Actual potential scenario.

<table><caption>**Table 20.** Summary selection of WWTPs with high technical reuse potential.</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>WWTP</th><th>Irrigation potential (ha) per season (IP<sup>a</sup>)</th><th>Potential (ha) in command area (IP)</th><th>Potential score (IP)</th><th>Irrigation potential (ha) per season (AP<sup>b</sup>)</th><th>Potential score (AP)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>100</td><td>Zahleh</td><td>738.1</td><td>738.1</td><td>0.69</td><td>527.2</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Chabriha</td><td>691</td><td>542.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>326.3</td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Joub Janine</td><td>231.5</td><td>231.5</td><td>0.69</td><td>138.9</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Aintourine</td><td>91.9</td><td>91.9</td><td>0.79</td><td>91.9</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Ijbaa</td><td>86.8</td><td>86.8</td><td>0.94</td><td>86.8</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Aitanit/Machghara</td><td>136</td><td>84</td><td>0.94</td><td>32.6</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Ablah</td><td>44.1</td><td>44.1</td><td>0.94</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>Tebnine</td><td>77.1</td><td>51.3</td><td>0.94</td><td>23.9</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>79</td><td>Nabaa El Safa &amp; Aain Zhalta</td><td>71.1</td><td>71.1</td><td>0.94</td><td>22</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Fourzol</td><td>21.3</td><td>21.3</td><td>0.94</td><td>21.3</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Bater</td><td>25.4</td><td>25.4</td><td>1</td><td>15.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Aammatour</td><td>31.7</td><td>31.7</td><td>0.94</td><td>9.7</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>82</td><td>Qbaiyat Aakkar El Gharbie</td><td>39.4</td><td>39.4</td><td>0.7</td><td>12.2</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Hebbariyeh</td><td>36</td><td>36</td><td>0.85</td><td>11.2</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Barouk</td><td>38.6</td><td>38.6</td><td>1</td><td>12</td><td>0.82</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Hammana</td><td>31.1</td><td>31.1</td><td>0.7</td><td>19.5</td><td>0.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> IP = Ideal potential scenario.

<sup>b</sup> AP = Actual potential scenario.
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12.** Modeling result: Actual potential (AP) of existing WWTPs in a base, or low-cost, scenario.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 13.** Modeling result: Ideal potential (IP) of existing WWTPs in a base, or low-cost, scenario.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14.** Modeling result: Actual potential (AP) of existing WWTPs in a high-cost scenario.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15.** Modeling result: Ideal potential (IP) of existing WWTPs in a high-cost scenario.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16.** Modeling result: Ideal potential (IP) of proposed WWTPs in a base, or low-cost, scenario.</figcaption></figure>
# Governance Barriers to Water Reuse

Further to the technical aspects discussed in the preceding sections of this report, this section focuses on the governance barriers to water reuse in Lebanon with a highlight thrown on the institutional framework of wastewater management. The impact of the ongoing financial crisis on the administration of the water sector is also considered (but should not be understood as the main cause of the dysfunctionalities of the sector). This section is structured to move from the highest level of governance to the local level.

For the subject of this study, the state of the water and wastewater sector administration is considered the primary determinant of safe water reuse. Sustainability and reliability of the WWTPs' effluent quantity and quality are the determining factors for safe reuse projects. They are a function of the administrative and legal contexts alongside technical capabilities, which is why reuse potential can only make sense when read in the socioeconomic context. In the current context in Lebanon, even if formal regulatory frameworks for quality standards and water reuse governance were enacted, it seems doubtful that the present administration would in the near future be able to provide adequate wastewater treatment, monitoring and enforcement. The structural impediments seem to be daunting.

As a matter of fact, the water sector in Lebanon has long been dysfunctional. Despite massive international funding and assistance and adoption of legal and institutional reforms, successive governmental and international reports and strategies still identify the same sectoral weaknesses and requirements (see, for example, Lyonnaise des Eaux-Dumez 1994; MEW 2012, 2020; World Bank 2010). The recent National Water Sector Strategy Update is testimony of how persistent the ailments of the sector are. Below is an abbreviated list of the chronic issues of the sector as presented in the NWSSU:<fnref n="29" />

* A severe lack of funding affects all aspects of resource management.

* Sector efficiency is low, as can be seen, for example, from the very high levels of UFW, which hover around 50% on average.

* The MEW and the RWEs lack engineering and management staff, technicians to supervise, plan, operate and maintain services. Additionally, mismatches between staff qualifications and their assigned responsibilities and tasks are common.

* Sector organization is still hampered by incoherent distribution of institutional responsibilities and an incomplete legal

framework relating to water reuse standards.<fnref n="30" /> Institutional overlap and competition cause a lack of coordination and communication, leading to a dilution of responsibilities in the different segments of services management.

* The RWEs do not have the organizational capacity to manage wastewater and irrigation though mandated by Law 221/2000. Their current organizational charts do not even include these services.

* The RWEs are still not in a position to act with full autonomy. The MEW is still involved in the supervision of the RWEs—which affects even routine daily operations—rather than monitoring, as intended by reforms and the law.

* Lack of technical, management and monitoring capacities across the water sector administration is at the root of data deficiencies, incomplete or incoherent consumer data, lack of physical data on groundwater, flow, water production, etc.

This short summary already introduces the main obstacles affecting the public management of water, wastewater and irrigation and, consequently, any policy of safe water reuse in irrigation. A quick look at the track record illustrates how this translates in the wastewater sector. The 2012 National Water Sector Strategy set out new goals for the wastewater sector. The same goals were reiterated in the National Wastewater Strategy (2012) that was produced in parallel,<fnref n="31" /> and are worth quoting here in detail for their overly optimistic vision considering the structural dysfunctionalities of the sector:

* Increase the present wastewater collection (60%) and treatment (8%) to 80% collection and treatment by 2015, and 95% collection and treatment by 2020.

* Pre-treatment of all industrial wastewater by 2020.

* Increase of treated effluent from zero in 2010 to 20% of treated wastewater by 2015, and 50% by 2020.

* Secondary treatment and reuse of all inland wastewater by 2020, and secondary treatment by 2020 of coastal wastewater where reuse is economically justified.

* Full recovery of all O&M costs by 2020 following the 'polluter pays' principle and full recovery for BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) projects.

By 2020, none of these goals were achieved. As shown in the analysis of the WWTP databases in the section

<footnote n="29">²⁹ For an extensive list, see the NWSSU 2020 Vol. I, pages 1-23 (MEW 2020). See also MEW 2012 and UNESCUA 2007.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ A revision of the water law passed in 2018 awaits ratification in parliament and subsequent elaboration of implementation decrees. The NWSSU optimistically expected this to take place in the summer of 2020 but given the current political crisis this process is likely to be delayed for an unknown period of time.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ The fact that a separate wastewater strategy was produced was interpreted by the director of a bilateral development agency as being related only to the politics of appearance and competition between different factions in the ministry and judged as unnecessary. See Eid-Sabbagh 2015 (p. 120).</footnote>
*Technical Potential for Water Reuse* above, only 8-10% of wastewater receives some form of secondary treatment in Lebanon. Only one organized reuse project has been established in Ablah. It produced some 1,000-1,500 m³/day, but is currently hampered by litigation issues (see case study of Ablah in Annex 9A).

The persistence of these issues points to their **structural character**, and casts doubt on a short-term, sustainable and broad-based materialization of the technical potential for water reuse identified in the first part of this report, all the more so when considering the financial and economic crisis currently ravaging the country. Any strategy or policy for planned water reuse in irrigation will have to take account of the developing crisis.<fnref n="32" />

## Economic and Financial Crisis

The postwar economic order in Lebanon has seen a dramatic collapse, beginning in 2019. The policy of exchange rate stabilization that was put in place in the early 1990s was predicated upon balancing ballooning debt in the Lebanese lira (LL) with ever larger USD reserves to maintain the currency at LL 1,507 to the USD. The needed currency reserves were engineered with a high interest rate policy for USD deposits and T-Bills to encourage Lebanese banks to deposit their USDs with the central bank.<fnref n="33" /> By mid-2019, the market exchange rate had already started to depart from the LL 1,507 peg. The crisis expressed itself in a flareup of popular protests in October 2019. This was followed by a rapid deterioration of the LL exchange rate in 2020. In early March of 2020, a new government defaulted on USD denominated claims.<fnref n="34" /> At the time of writing this report, it was estimated that about 70% of the Lebanese population had sunk into poverty as compared to about 25-30% before the crisis. On the open market, the Lebanese lira has fallen to LL 23,000 to the USD and is expected to fall further in the coming months.<fnref n="35" /> As of July 2021, no economic rescue plan had been articulated and the fear of continued hyperinflation caused by the total exhaustion of currency reserves loomed large.

In 2019, the total state debt was estimated at about USD 86 billion with the debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio at around 156%. Before the ammonium nitrate explosion at the Beirut harbor on August 4, 2020, the IMF estimated that the Lebanese GDP would shrink by about 12% after having suffered a 6.5% contraction in the latter

half of 2019. The harbor explosion is estimated to have caused losses between USD 5 billion and USD 15 billion, further amplifying the economic crisis. Government revenues decreased by around 28% (Hadchiti 2020) by June 2020, and so did expenditure because of a reduced fuel bill for electricity generation<fnref n="36" /> as well as the government's refusal to service the foreign debt due in March 2020.

As will be illustrated below, the financial crisis has had a tremendous impact on the water and wastewater administrations, and further weakened their capacity for planning, funding and managing their services. For instance, as a consequence of the end of government subsidies on fuel, employees of different Lebanese ministries and water authorities were only coming to their offices one day per week, being unable to cover their transportation expenses with their devalued salaries (Elnashra.com 2021).

## Governance and Gridlock

The structural problems of the water sector are rooted in the Lebanese political landscape at large. The reconfiguration of political power in the postwar era (starting 1990) led to a structural need for political consensus between the three positions at the head of the state, and favored perpetual gridlock in legislative processes (Leenders 2012; Picard 2002). The law-making process in general was severely hampered by this and, accordingly, state budget laws and sector reforms including in the water and wastewater domains.

In this context, the Water Law (Code de l'Eau) took until 2018 to be passed after a first draft had been presented in 2005 and reviewed and rewritten on a number of occasions since then. Even today the law requires amendments, according to the advisor to the minister of water and energy, and awaits the articulation of implementation decrees.<fnref n="37" /> This severely hampers the needed institutional building effort (see below for the case of RWEs) but also the implementation of international donors' funds, which are often conditioned by these reforms. Moreover, foreign loans for project funding are often delayed as a result of the gridlock since they need to be approved by law. This delays infrastructure building in the wastewater sector where most plants are financed by foreign loans or grants.<fnref n="38" /> Institutional improvement and project implementation are thus dependent on the

<footnote n="32">³² The NWSSU only briefly mentions the economic crisis and its effects on RWE fee collection rates but does not address its implication for planning any further.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ A financial arrangement likened to a Ponzi scheme (Chaker 2020a, 2020b). See also Halabi and Boswall (2019).</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Lazard, the consulting company tasked with providing technical assistance to manage debt restructuring, estimated that total losses in the financial system amounted to around USD 50 billion, which included the losses of Lebanese banks, their deposits at the central bank (Banque du Liban), losses of the central bank, and state obligations. This assessment was opposed by the governor of the Banque du Liban and a parliamentary finance committee, which claimed that no losses had occurred. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), solicited by the Lebanese government to provide technical assistance on debt restructuring, sided with the government's and Lazard's position in this disagreement with the governor of the central bank and the parliamentary committee. As a result of this impasse, the IMF paused consultations over emergency support loans.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ The official rate is maintained at LL 1,515 by the central bank in an effort to avoid bankruptcies in the banking system, while banks pay out their customers' USD claims at a rate of LL 3,900 to the USD. A new rate of LL 12,000 to the USD is applied to some withdrawals.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Beirut had only three hours of state electricity a day for a long period in May-June, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Interview with an official at the MEW.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Grants are provided mostly in the case of smaller plants.</footnote>
presence of an operational government, but the latter is
often paralyzed.

The economic collapse and the state's structural inability
to address it over the past year and a half suggest that
recovery will take years. It is also very unlikely that foreign
funding will return to pre-crisis levels anytime soon as
funders and foreign government officials have insisted on
reforms being carried out as a precondition for action on
their part.

Uncertain Future of Water Sector
Development

Donors' dissatisfaction with project outcomes and the
delay of funder-demanded market environmentalist<fnref n="39" />
reforms have led donors to take a more active role in
project planning, capacity development aimed at further
commercialization of establishments,<fnref n="40" /> and a more
prominent role in project supervision. In recent years,
funders and Lebanese institutions have adapted to the
Lebanese reality, and projects are now designed to
include networks associated with WWTPs to avoid a
repetition of earlier experiences that saw plants built
without the necessary collection networks in place.

Similarly, donors now budget for project supervision, and
include other soft aspects as capacity building and
"social engineering", or awareness building, to prepare
populations for coming projects. This results in
considerably higher project costs and loan agreements,
and allows for more influence of international
development actors on policies and project management.
The current crisis and the inability of the Lebanese state
to implement the reforms demanded by donors do not
bode well for a timely implementation of existing plans.
Our interviewees suggested that in the foreseeable future,
only those projects with funding agreements already in
place and ratified by parliament will see implementation.
For example, the first phase of the Bourj Hammoud WWTP
is secured with some USD 20 million and will provide
pretreatment. The second phase will have to wait until
funding can be secured.

A WWTP in the northern Bekaa serving the town of Aarsal
is also expected to profit from a grant. As a representative
of Agence Française de Developpement (AFD) explained:

"This is a grant. We are trying to have around 38 million euros grant funding from the AFD and a grant funding from the EU (European Union).

But we are going to have a good component of
social engineering to raise awareness not only
in Aarsal but also in the villages of the valley.
The CDR is finalizing a study on a wastewater
treatment plant in Fekha for 10+1 villages in
Bekaa. We are talking about collecting sewage
from Nabi Othman, Ras Baalbeck, Fekha, el
Ain, Jdeideh, etc. We were supposed to take
this on and start building it together with the
Aarsal component but this is a loan and we
know the country cannot take on more loans,
so this is delayed. We are not even doing a
feasibility study. We are just waiting for the
CDR to finish and then we are going to discuss
with the authorities what to do."<fnref n="41" />

Donors are also trying to adapt to the implementation
difficulties that the financial crisis has produced. Whether
or not these arrangements proposed by AFD are actually
feasible and the impact on Lebanese institutions in terms
of loss of agency remains to be seen:

"As with the financial crisis, in terms of access to liquidity and finances in the banks, we expect that impact would be solved by AFD guaranteeing that payments be paid directly to the contractors and consultants from France. We're changing all our legal agreements to allow this. We know that many small and large companies are not able to pay their employees, so if the solution is to have fresh money come directly from outside Lebanon then let it be."<fnref n="42" />

With this in mind, it can reasonably be expected that
water reuse projects will require foreign donor funding
on a project basis, supervised and implemented with the
donors closely involved. The projects in Ablah and Fourzol
are two such examples, and a project in Roum involving
reed-bed filters and encouraging reuse is another.<fnref n="43" />
These dynamics focusing on smaller municipal-scale
plants can be expected to continue and intensify, since
implementation is likely less complex.

Administrative Barriers in the Water
and Wastewater Sectors

The discussion above already pointed to the most
prominent features of water sector management. But
before turning to the specific problems that affect
wastewater management and safe water reuse, a brief

<footnote n="39">³⁹ "Market environmentalism: A mode of resource regulation which aims to deploy markets as the solution to environmental problems. Market environmentalism offers hope of a virtuous fusion of economic growth, efficiency, and environmental conservation: through establishing private property rights, employing markets as allocation mechanisms, and incorporating environmental externalities through pricing, proponents of market environmentalism assert that environmental goods will be more efficiently allocated if treated as economic goods—thereby simultaneously addressing concerns over environmental degradation and inefficient use of resources" (quoted from Bakker 2007).</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Commercialization: The incorporation of market institutions and models in resource management organizations. See Bakker (2014).</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Interview, AFD, April 16, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Interview, AFD, April 16, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ Interview, Lebanon Water Project (LWP), April 4, 2020.</footnote>
introduction to the administrative structure of the water sector is required. Numerous reports give fairly detailed descriptions of the water sector governance framework. We will refer interested readers to these studies and reports for more detailed information and analysis. Our intent here is solely to orient the reader and provide a quick overview of the water sector and its stakeholders (Pluschke 2016; Machayekhi et al. 2014; EIB 2009).

The sector suffers from considerable overlap and lack of clarity in the distribution of responsibilities. Similar responsibilities have been assigned to different ministries and administrative bodies. These dynamics are structural: As we discussed above, they are considerably rooted in the distribution of power and the competition around administrative competencies and resources that derives from it. Figure 17 shows a summary of different responsibilities in the wastewater sector.

Studies have reported coordination to be lacking also (mainly) at the higher levels and found relationships to be horizontal and competitive rather than hierarchical—for example, between the MEW, the CDR and the LRA (Nassif 2019). The process of project and loan approval was described as follows by a CDR

official, highlighting the difficulties in coordination and cooperation:

> "The problem here in Lebanon with regard to wastewater treatment is that there are multiple bosses in charge. Coordination is a very broad term; now we can't execute any projects unless there is formal approval from the ministry, the council of ministers and parliament. You can't get a loan approved otherwise. Here you have three different departments/ managements that are aware of the project and all its details. Then there is a problem with coordination on the executional level." <fnref n="44" />

## Ministry of Energy and Water

The Water Sector Reform Law 221/2000 and its amendments (Law 241/2000 and Law 337/2001) redefined the institutional framework of the water sector in Lebanon. In an attempt to decentralize, 22 water offices were integrated into four regional water establishments (RWEs) which were supposed to be under the tutelage

<table><caption>**Figure 17.** An illustration of the administrative overlap in the wastewater sector of Lebanon.</caption><thead><tr><th>Role</th><th>CDR</th><th>MoEW</th><th>MoF</th><th>MoE</th><th>MoA (irrigation)</th><th>MoPH (drinking water)</th><th>Municipalities</th><th>WE</th><th>WB</th><th>Donors</th><th>NGOs</th><th>Research</th><th>Media</th><th>Water Users</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Funding</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Cost recovery?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Policy & Strategy</td><td>X<br>Master Plan</td><td>X<br>National</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X<br>Regional</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Planning</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Contracting/ Constructing</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Development & Implementation</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Operation & Maintenance</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tariff/Tax Collection</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X<br>Propose tariffs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Legislation, rules and regulation</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X<br>Lobby</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Services & interactions with water users</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Monitoring & Evaluation</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Pluschke 2016.

Notes: MoEW = Ministry of Energy and Water; MoF = Ministry of Finance; MoE = Ministry of Environment; MoA = Ministry of Agriculture; MoPH = Ministry of Public Health; WE = Water Establishments; WB = World Bank.

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Interview, CDR, June 20, 2020.</footnote>
of the MEW but enjoy greater liberty of action than the water offices absorbed. In parallel, the law redefined the MEW's tasks. The MEW is responsible for the study, planning and management of water resources in their totality, including quantitative and qualitative protection and the elaboration of all necessary legal texts. However, the restructuring of the ministry and its departments with necessary capacity building remained elusive. Until today, application decrees finalizing the implementation of Law 221 have not been passed.

The MEW's role in the wastewater sector (and the water sector more generally) has been overshadowed by the Council for Development and Reconstruction, which has been the driving force planning and implementing wastewater management at the national scale over the last decades.<fnref n="45" />

> "Since 2012, actually, the Ministry (has been) taking over in leading planning while it was the CDR before. Normally, the CDR has to implement (the) plans of the Ministry but (it) took the initiative of planning in the water sector. This is changing now." <fnref n="46" />

## Council for Development and Reconstruction

The Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR), created in 1977, was turned into a super ministry after the end of the civil war (1990) and was given tremendous independence in spending and planning with regard to most public infrastructure (drinking water and irrigation networks, WWTPs and sewage networks, roads and others). The CDR is directly accountable to the Office of the Prime Minister. Its budget is largely discretionary and not subject to government budget oversight (Eid-Sabbagh 2015; Riachi 2013). Until very recently, it was the sole institution endowed with the power to negotiate and implement projects funded through foreign loans. Most WWTPs have been financed and implemented through CDR as funding has almost exclusively been of foreign origin. The council manages WWTPs by outsourcing them to a contracting entity as local administrations do not have the expertise to operate them. Since contracts are between CDR and the contractors, such as Veolia, the latter have an obligation to communicate and coordinate with the CDR but not the RWEs. In some cases, communication with the RWEs takes place but is wholly a function of courtesy; the contractors remain answerable to CDR. Like all other ministries today, it does not seem to

have the staff to provide a level of follow-up that matches the scale of its projects across sectors.

## Regional Water Establishments

The four regional water establishments were created by Law 221/2000. The existing 21 public water offices and 209 local water committees (community managed) were regrouped into the North Lebanon Water Establishment (NLWE), the Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment (BMLWE), the South Lebanon Water Establishment (SLWE) and the Bekaa Water Establishment (BWE). The RWEs were tasked with conducting studies, and implementing, exploiting, maintaining and renewing water projects to distribute domestic and irrigation water supply. They are also responsible for collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater. The establishments are further tasked with water quality control in the domestic, irrigation and wastewater systems. All of their activities have to follow the water and wastewater master plans. The RWEs do not have the mandate to set tariffs independently but may recommend the tariff structure and rates to the MEW. They are subject to periodic audits (MEW) and their "administrative activities are subject to the government's administrative regulator (central inspectorate)" (ECODIT 2015, p.67).

Financial autonomy was a guiding principle in the creation of the RWEs. The ultimate goal was that these administrations cover their O&M expenses from their own revenues, which are mostly dependent on fees levied on residential units. The contradiction inherent in their mandate, stipulating that financial sustainability should stem from user fees while taking into account the social conditions in the country, is one of the reasons that have prevented the RWEs from being financially autonomous. This has become obvious with the financial and economic crises.

## Litani River Authority

The Litani River Authority (LRA) kept its competencies in implementing and managing irrigation projects at the level of the Litani Project. Consequently, irrigation remained under the responsibility of the LRA in South Bekaa<fnref n="47" /> and South Lebanon while the BWE and SLWE are strictly responsible for domestic water and wastewater management.<fnref n="48" />

The LRA has irrigation responsibilities in Bekaa, south of the Damascus road, and in the South. Accordingly,

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ It was the CDR that commissioned the 1982 and 1994 wastewater master plans.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ Interview, MEW, April 9, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ The border of the LRA territory is south of the Damascus road, the limit of the long-planned Litani Project where 23,000 ha were expected to be implemented in South and Central Bekaa (see Nassif 2019 for a detailed analysis of the planning process and its local geopolitics).</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ See Nassif 2019. Established in 1954, the LRA is one of the oldest water administrations in Lebanon. Its tasks were (1) to plan and operate all water-related infrastructure schemes associated with the Litani River; (2) measure all flows from rivers and springs in the country; and (3) operation and implementation of hydroelectric plants. As described above, the Law 221/2000 preserved LRA's mandate of implementation and management of the Litani Project. It also kept the LRA's responsibility of water monitoring. Throughout the postwar period, other responsibilities were assigned to the LRA, such as groundwater and water quality monitoring at the level of the Litani River Basin. See the same work for a detailed historical analysis of the legal and de facto role of the LRA.</footnote>
it should be involved in questions of water reuse for
irrigation in these areas. Yet, experience suggests that the
current Director General is not open to the idea, having
reneged on agreements for cooperation on the design of
reuse systems, taking advantage of the existing irrigation
infrastructure under the responsibility of the LRA. A
similar attitude was reported in relation to groundwater
recharge projects.<fnref n="49" /> This opposition to cooperation is in all
likelihood rooted in competition over water planning and
management with the SLWE and BWE but also rooted in
broader partisan competition (Nassif 2019, p.428-442). In
any case, these dynamics will need to be understood by
any party attempting to engage the LRA in a reuse project
on its territory—specifically, for projects with a large
potential area such as in Joub Janine and Chabriha (Sour).

Municipalities

Municipalities remain important actors in the wastewater
sector. According to Law 118 of 1877, municipal councils
have the authority to implement water supply and
wastewater projects. Specifically, Law 347/2001,
amending the reform Law 221/2000, states that the latter
(Law 221) does not in any way diminish the responsibilities
and competencies of the municipalities as enshrined in
the municipal law and the law on municipal taxes. Legally,
the municipalities levy a local residential tax related to
the rental value of properties as well as the maintenance
of sidewalks and sewer networks. They retain their
responsibility (as enshrined in Law 118) to manage
wastewater networks within municipal boundaries, and as
some have argued, their mandate to protect public health
can be interpreted to include wastewater treatment
(Machayekhi et al. 2014).

Furthermore, municipalities are involved in project
implementation since they are in charge of issuing
construction permits within their respective localities,
which gives them effective veto power over any
infrastructure project.<fnref n="50" /> Additionally, municipalities are
directly involved in the management of local domestic
and irrigation networks, through historical water rights
legalized by the Lebanese state. Municipalities still play
a key role in implementing, operating and maintaining
water, wastewater, and irrigation systems. Although Law
221 gives the priority of water and irrigation management
to the RWEs, hundreds of municipalities still largely
operate their local systems, or at least contribute to
O&M activities to compensate for the insufficient service
provided by the RWEs.<fnref n="51" />

Challenges to Cooperation at the Local Level

At the regional and local levels of the administration of
water and wastewater, cooperation, coordination and
consultation remain underdeveloped, if not absent.
The NWSSU recognizes that the lack of cooperation and
consultation by the CDR and the RWEs with municipalities
has negatively affected the infrastructure production
process at the local level. The municipalities' proximity
to citizens and their legal ability to deny construction
permits within municipal boundaries gives them
considerable weight and negotiating power and has
often led to delays in project implementation. While their
involvement in the infrastructure production process is
reported to be evolving, wastewater management still
suffers from their historical exclusion from planning and
implementation.

Both at the CDR and the MEW there seems to be
reluctance to engage with the municipalities substantively.
Yet, it is understood that all projects need municipality
approval. The MEW sees the role of the municipalities
as subordinate. The view is that municipalities should
be alert to the quality of project implementation, avoid
political interference and report infringements, but it
seems inconceivable that they should have a participatory
role in planning and design. Much rather, municipalities
seem to be seen and treated as opposition and as a source
of problems. The view is that environmental and social
impact assessments are the space where municipalities
and other stakeholders can input their perspectives. And
the initiative for coordination is expected from the side of
the municipalities:

"They should take initiatives if they have something to say. They can reach out to the Ministry and other responsible parties. You have to have the will to coordinate. It is not for the Ministry to contact municipalities. Often, municipalities create problems out of ego. Also, they are not technically capable of giving their opinion on the design." <fnref n="52" />

At the project design stage, the main reason for the
blocking of projects is found in the acquisition of real
estate. In some cases, private actors refuse or resist
land expropriation; often enough, clientelistic relations
are mobilized to support such opposition, be it in price
negotiations or an outright refusal to allow expropriation.
In other cases, municipalities, invoking the NIMBY ('not

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Interview, AUB, June 24, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ So has been the case in numerous municipalities such as Bourj Hammoud, Jeita, etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ See Nassif (2019) concerning the existing role of municipalities in the Bekaa.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² Interview, MEW, April 9, 2020.</footnote>
in my backyard”) principle, refuse the implantation of WWTPs for fear of environmental and social nuisances. Private opposition is often resolved through negotiations or by searching for an alternative site. Project bottlenecks at the level of municipalities have proven to be more difficult to resolve, and have held up projects for years.<fnref n="53" />

In addition to the potential benefits to project implementation, municipalities are in many cases well placed to address questions of irrigation management or mediate on questions of water rights. In Bater, for example, the municipality has a crucial role in organizing the annual election of the irrigation network manager. This is rooted in an understanding of the importance of that position for social peace. In Ablah, the municipality manages both the treatment plant and the reuse scheme (though that has been temporarily interrupted due to litigation). This is done by a competent engineer from the region who was involved in the design of the WWTP and who was later recruited by the municipality. As a matter of fact, the engagement of local experts and engineers recruited by municipalities (or part of the municipal council) was observed in many towns such as Hammana, Zahleh and Zgharta/Ehden. There is much to be said for a close and substantive participatory engagement with municipalities even where they lack technical and financial capacity. In many cases, they do have an ability to mobilize and negotiate between competing social groups. It is an ability that can make them valuable partners.

The critique of a failed municipal WWTP project of the early 2000s, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by international NGOs, is often mobilized as an argument against small, municipality-run WWTPs. This appears to be misplaced, as reported in a Ministry of Environment (MoE) report of 2004 (MoE 2004, p. IV-V). While it is true that the majority of constructed WWTPs failed to be sustainably operated,<fnref n="54" /> the responsibility is mistakenly linked to the proposed decentralized management model. The poor project structure proposed by donors and implementing NGOs as well as poor supervision and follow-up are identified alongside the financial and technical weakness of the public sector. For example, the grants allowed only for investment without including funds for operation, thus condemning the plants from the outset to suffer from municipal budget difficulties, and quickly rendering them unusable because of lack of cleaning and maintenance. Additionally, given the failure to include provisions for operations in project design, neither contractor nor NGO had any incentive to produce robust designs including quality execution, training, etc. Further, deficient plants and the ecological nuisances produced

a popular demand for closure. Eight of these plants were built in communities without municipal status, thus without staff and budget. The MoE list of failures closes by observing that “the use of treated wastewater for irrigation is at present impossible, again due to the poor quality of the effluent. The failure of this project is found not in municipalities but rather in incoherent project planning by donor and NGOs.” The report makes clear that it is crucially important that process selection, plant design and management plans be developed in an integrated manner at the beginning of the project cycle. “These initial choices must respect the real possibilities of the beneficiary municipalities and include long-term realistic commitments by these municipalities regarding operation” and that all involved contracts regarding training and funding must be assured before construction (MoE 2004, p. IV – V).

In fact, a follow-up project, also funded by USAID, shows that small, municipality-run plants can also be successful (Social Impact 2013). This project was run in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities. USAID, as a US government agency and following US government policy, chose not to work with the MEW because the minister at the time was associated with Hezbollah. Accordingly, it addressed municipalities directly rather than, as intended by the new reform law, the regional water establishments. While this approach was counter to the water reform efforts, it did produce operating plants in Ablah, Aitanit and Fourzol. Having integrated lessons learned from the earlier project, the three plants in the Bekaa were planned, designed and executed with O&M in mind.

A total of 35 small plants (at or below 2,000 m³/day design capacity), not all managed by municipalities, have been reported operating in Lebanon. Of these, 9 are operated by BMLWE, 2 by SLWE, 3 by CDR, and the remaining 21 by municipalities. These represent 85% of plants categorized as “operational” in the database. In the light of these numbers, it would be hard to argue that a strategy of smaller decentralized plants is inoperable. Much to the contrary, given the failure of so many large-scale projects, the argument could easily be reversed.

The arguments about plant size are also intertwined with arguments about treatment technology and associated O&M costs. They juxtapose more complex and energy-intensive technologies with more space-consuming, low-energy and low-maintenance technologies. Seen in the context of wastewater sector development in Lebanon, the argument about economies of scale mobilized in support of large and

<footnote n="53">⁵³ In Chekka, after years of negotiations, the WWTP was eventually positioned on the border of two municipalities. In Keserwan, on multiple occasions, municipalities refused to have WWTPs built within their area. The Bourj Hammoud plant has been held up for more than a decade because of resistance from the municipality. None of this is to imply that municipal concerns are not legitimate; quite the contrary. Bourj Hammoud, for example, already receives a large quantity of the solid waste from Greater Beirut, and suffers from air pollution from two highways, to name only a couple of issues the municipality is struggling with. It explains the fear of another potentially problematic project.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ Of the 42 WWTPs constructed, only 26 were operating. Of these only 6 were actually providing treatment; the remainder were either unfinished or abandoned at the time of writing this report.</footnote>
centralized treatment systems fail to convince at
the strategic level. Measuring investment (including
expropriation cost and interest on debt) versus level of
treatment and actual volume treated since construction
started on these large projects is not unlikely to skew
the argument in favor of smaller plants.

As indicated by our analysis, smaller plants on average show higher reuse potential scores while the larger plants show lower scores. It is conceivable that a more decentralized approach to wastewater planning could increase the total volumes potentially reusable for irrigation, specifically with regard to the coastal WWTPs which serve large areas and drain into the Mediterranean.

The wastewater treatment project currently underway for Wadi Qanoubin, funded by AFD, is likely to provide interesting insights into a decentralized approach to treatment. The project consists of 23 treatment plants serving small communities (usually at the municipal level). The majority of the WWTPs will use reed-bed technologies. Importantly, the planning approach has been reported to have involved, from the onset, a large number of stakeholders at all levels: the CDR, the NLWE and the municipalities.<fnref n="55" /> It seems essential that a critical and rigorous study of the technical, institutional, economic and social outcomes of this project be produced and published to inform a development of substantive cooperation mechanisms and processes. More so, because in their current form, water establishments seem a long way from being able to contribute substantially to direct safe water reuse for irrigation.

## Operational Barriers at the Level of Regional Water Establishments

Legally charged with wastewater treatment, the RWEs are a key link in wastewater management and, accordingly, any future reuse. The weak development of the sector and the low efficiency of wastewater treatment is in part a reflection of the weaknesses of RWEs. Reuse potential is a function of RWE capabilities to manage wastewater and potential reuse schemes where they have been assigned irrigation competencies.<fnref n="56" />

The RWEs lack dedicated wastewater and irrigation services. With the exception of SLWE, which has a small wastewater unit, they have neither wastewater nor irrigation services included in their organizational chart. The procedures to establish such services are complex, and would require the approval of the Council of Ministers. The NWSSU observes that the organizational charts are

outdated and require updating as well as a simplification of procedures for the RWEs to be able to adapt their internal organization to changing needs. It provides a number of recommendations to that end, but for the time being the absence of these services remains an important obstacle to the implementation of reuse planning more generally and reuse management more specifically.

## Limited Financial Capacities of Water Establishments

The more fundamental reason for the weakness of RWEs lies in their limited financial capacities. The water and wastewater sectors have been underfunded since the 1990s. Left largely to their own devices, water establishments have been struggling to increase their revenues since then. It was hoped, following the dominant market logic, that O&M could be financed via revenues from fees. The director of BMLWE expressed this clearly on the occasion of a public discussion on the effects of the crisis on the water sector:

> "The establishments, especially in water, live only on fee collection ... all our operations depend on the collection of fees." <fnref n="57" />

The collection rate had been low even before the crisis, as shown by the latest figures (Figure 18).<fnref n="58" /> The wastewater fees have been talked about for a while but are still not implemented nor collected systematically or coherently. The tariff structure discussed in the NWSSU has been rendered obsolete by the economic and financial meltdown.

Collection rates have dropped significantly during the current crisis. The director of BMLWE talked about a reduction of 25% in 2019. In the Bekaa, the collection rate had dropped to 35% of its annual average by February 2020, according to its director. The number for SLWE was 50%, while the director of NLWE also saw important reductions in collection, and expected the impact to be even worse in the second half of the year. It is unlikely that collection rates will recover quickly with poverty rates increasing as rapidly as they are.

The lack of funds has directly affected wastewater operations. The largest cost factor in WWTP operations is electricity and diesel for the generators, where necessary. Before the crisis, the RWEs had already been highly indebted to electricity suppliers.<fnref n="59" /> The costs of WWTP operation are the main reason why the RWEs are reluctant to accept responsibility for them. Examples of difficulties abound: The two plants serving Ehden, Aintourine and

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Interview, AFD, April 16, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ In the south and the southern Bekaa, it is the LRA that is charged with irrigation management.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ Interview, AUB researcher, April 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ Interview, AUB researcher, April 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ BMLWE stands out as it also is the RWE serving the highest population, estimated at about 2 million.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 18.** The collection rates of RWEs as per NWSSU 2020.</figcaption></figure>

surrounding villages were reported to have a contract for USD 1.2 million financed by CDR. The Tripoli plant follows the same pattern. The plant in Yammouneh was reported to be non-operational for a number of reasons, among them, operational costs. The Zahleh plant has a sludge problem because the cost of dewatering is too high. The same is true for the plant in Joub Janine. Plants in Sour and Tebnine were also threatened with closure because of sludge disposal problems and associated cost (Khalil 2021).

This explanation given by an AFD representative illustrated the depth of the crisis:

> "My first priority right now is how to save the existing water pumping stations and wastewater treatment plants. Because if water establishments fail...if they are not able to collect money because people are not paying—Bekaa is 0% collection—this can last 3 months.... For the Bekaa and the south mainly. ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) is providing fuel, generators. Same for UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) .... If you can't run the station, then it's unsustainable. How will they actually pay their salaries?... It took 5 years of constant work to raise the collection of tariffs nationwide to 50 or 60%. Since the October revolution, in the Bekaa for example, the collection rate was 20% in December, 50% in January, 10% in March, 0% now! So how are we going to get

> this back with all the current financial and economic crises is unknown."<fnref n="60" />

In addition to collapsing revenues, budgetary regulations have further affected the RWEs' capacity to act. According to the financial regulations in place, the RWEs have the authority to independently engage in expenses above LL 50 million requiring only the approval of the director general of the RWE, and LL 200 million by the board of the RWE without consulting the regulatory authority at MEW. This is true where the budgets have received approval from MEW; where that is not the case, their ability to spend is more curtailed. Expenditure up to LL 10 million can be handled internally by the RWE through the director and/or the board, while material expenses above LL 10 million require a formal request to and approval by MEW, and the observance of proper tendering procedures (including 3 offers, qualifications, etc.).<fnref n="61" />

Due to the present crisis and the coinciding price inflation related to imported materials, the sums anchored in legal decrees effectively reduce the RWEs' ability to act. As of April 2021, MEW approval would have to be sought for expenses lower than USD 1,000 in practice. Even in regularized budgetary conditions, the LL 200 million limit on independent spending is now equivalent to less than USD 20,000. One outcome of the crisis then is the RWEs' increased dependence on MEW; a second is their reduced ability to react in a timely manner to breakages in the infrastructure, be they of a mechanical or civil engineering nature.<fnref n="62" />

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ Interview, AFD, April 16, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ Interview, BWE, March 10, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² Projects that were ongoing or planned have suffered from the crisis too. Ongoing projects were halted as the cost of imported material was rapidly exceeding the contract values notated in LL. In the SLWE, rehabilitation plans for small municipal WWTPs were shelved. The longer the crisis continues the more the RWEs and the existing infrastructure will degrade further, affecting their ability to provide services. It needs to be mentioned here that what is true for the RWEs is also true for municipalities. In summer 2021, Ablah WWTP stopped operating for several weeks. It continues to be only partially operational because of power cuts.</footnote>
## Limited Human Capacities of Water Establishments

As a result of the falling revenues, the RWEs had to cut work hours and reduce staff. Contractual workers and day laborers were the first to suffer the consequences.<fnref n="63" /> The staff reduction was a dramatic development for RWEs, which were already understaffed across all departments. Before the crisis, only a quarter of the positions defined in the RWEs' organizational charts and by decree were filled by permanent staff (20% for NLWE, 37% for BMLWE, 23% for BWE, and 12% for SLWE).<fnref n="64" /> Part of the shortfall has historically been made up through hiring temporary staff and through contracting. The total number of positions covered through permanent and temporary staff excluding contract staff amounted to 50% on average. The shortfall, as shown by the fact that temporary staff were and are employed, is not only a product of the permanent employment freeze but also of the lack of funding, now exacerbated.

Another problem related to staffing is the mismatch between the qualifications and responsibilities of the employees. Understaffing, and the resultant need to first address operational tasks, leaves management and strategic tasks with too little attention, affecting the development of the RWEs (MEW 2020, p. II C.32). Another related dynamic is the inability of RWEs to compete for talent with the private sector which offers better employment conditions and salaries. This now exacerbated salary difference has already led to expert staff leaving the RWEs.<fnref n="65" />

This loss of expertise coupled with the loss of financial power due to sinking revenues and the concomitant reduction in purchasing power due to inflation foreshadows a deterioration of wastewater infrastructure and, by extension, a reduction of water reuse potential.

## Regulating Water Quality

Pollution control and monitoring are responsibilities legally shared between the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and other institutions. These mandates overlap with the MEW's responsibilities to monitor and regulate water and wastewater quality. The MoE has no executive power and no capacity to enforce its regulations while the MEW's ability is limited too. The environmental law 444/2002, which introduced the 'polluter pays' principle, also included a provision for the creation of an 'environmental police' in charge of monitoring and enforcement. The new 'Code de l'Eau' (Water Law) also plans for a 'water

police' (police de l'eau). Neither authority has come to be. Similarly, the 'High Council of Water' and the 'High Council of the Environment' have been the object of plans and laws but to-date neither exists. The water law of 2018 was to a large part held up over parliamentary disagreements regarding the presidency of the water council. Should both councils be created, the regulatory overlap and competition between institutions would gain a new layer. It is in this context of regulatory confusion and obfuscation that the discussion of water and wastewater quality needs to be understood.

Of particular relevance to the water reuse discussion is the (in)ability of the RWEs, MEW and MoE to administer a systematic wastewater quality monitoring and testing program. For example, the current testing regime is uneven. Different WWTPs, RWEs, municipalities or the CDR test water according to different quality standards and according to different capacities. An attempt at unifying the standards is underway under the auspices of LIBNOR (the Lebanese Standards Institution) and the IWMI ReWater MENA project. It would represent an important step toward systematic and reliable quality monitoring. As it stands, monitoring remains disjointed and effluent quality targets are derived from different sources.

In addition to these institutional gaps and overlaps, there is the problem of logistical capacities. The larger plants have labs integrated on-site (e.g. Zahleh), and some are connected to donor-funded regional labs operated by the RWEs (the case of BWE). On the other hand, many of the smaller plants (whether municipal or state-managed) often lack full testing capacities. Many municipalities do take the initiative to increase their testing capacities, mostly supported by NGOs which regularly fund the expensive testing material and chemicals (for example, the Ablah and Fourzol plants). Others have their tests done at external labs (Hammana, Araya and Bourj Rahal). In the Chouf, the effluents of 10 small WWTPs operated by BMLWE are tested by one dedicated lab run by one technician in Baadarane. An officer responsible for the WWTP component of a USAID project describes the problems faced by small plants in relation to reuse as follows:

> "So if you need to use this water you need to make sure that the WWTP is working properly, so you need to train people and make sure the water quality is acceptable.... Small WWTPs are not automated, so they depend on the skills of the operator. There is no preventative maintenance, no testing,

<footnote n="63">⁶³ For example, an engineer hired as a wastewater expert at BWE on a contractual basis had his salary halved. At SLWE, an engineer responsible for wastewater left for greener pastures in a USAID-funded project with a far superior salary.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ This is also a result of the employment freeze maintained by the Civil Service Board on behalf of successive governments to rein in government spending and the spiralling debt.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ The development agencies play a role in these dynamics. For example, the engineer responsible for wastewater at SLWE left only recently, due to the financial crisis, to work with the company (Chemonics) contracted by USAID for the management of a technical assistance project in the sector. The loss to the wastewater management department, small and understaffed as it is, can hardly be overstated; the experience and extensive knowledge of local plants and problems built over the almost two years that the engineer had been in charge will not be easy to replace in the current economic conditions.</footnote>
no emergency response plan; in the case of flooding, all this wastewater would go into the natural stream. Those are small things but they have an impact on the quality of water or the effluent you are getting, which is important for irrigation.”<fnref n="66" />

For example, in the Chouf, in Ablah, Fourzol or Aitanit, testing has been reported to occur monthly, and is dependent on the ability and experience of the process engineers. Not all parameters required by FAO are included because of the lack of capacities. The fact that in many places industrial wastewater is not separated from domestic wastewater poses problems for plant operation and treatment reliability. Testing for heavy metals is recommended only once a year by FAO; it is not clear whether the FAO proposal took into consideration the possibility that industrial wastewater is present in numerous areas. Yet, the problem of mixed systems seemed considerable for this engineer responsible for wastewater treatment at an RWE:

"Another problem (is) the combined systems.... We are having a lot of trouble here at the water treatment stations regarding the incoming water. The butchers, for example, the blood, feathers, internal organs... then you also get little pieces of plastic that the plastic factories produce. Those ones give us a lot of trouble here because they are too small and they pass through screens and they get all the way to the clarifiers. After that, we get our staff to go remove them. There is also paint, oils and all that too... We have a big problem with monitoring the networks."<fnref n="67" />

In addition, infiltration of rainwater into combined systems, including stormwater drains, leads to large fluctuations in quantity and quality.<fnref n="68" /> Specifically, at the beginning of the rainy season, these waters are highly contaminated with heavy metals, oils and other debris that would have accumulated over the dry summer months and gets washed off with the first rains. Whether or not this affects reuse in irrigation will depend on the need for continued irrigation after the first rains.<fnref n="69" /> While the pollution loads are highest in the first rains, debris accumulates over the winter in some plants (at least when regular maintenance does not happen) and can affect

operations. Such basic issues as flow measurements are also problematic, especially for the smaller plants, preventing continuous monitoring. A number of operators and engineers pointed to the difficulties of assessing flow volumes. This is the account of one of them:

"I don't have any flow meters to measure the 'in' and 'out' water flows. Here is what I do to know the volume of water being treated; I know that the pump I have has the capacity to pump out 35 m³ an hour. So I just calculate the volume of water based on how long the motor has been running.... Now I know my motor has the capability to pump up that much water because at some point, I had a tank and I tested my motor to see what it is capable of. With that said, the proper way to measure would be to use a flow meter. We are planning to install flow meters at the 3 stations being renovated right now. I do want to point out though that some of the flow meters I have seen before don't seem to be too accurate in my opinion."<fnref n="70" />

Volumetric data at a number of municipal-scale plants were ambiguous, with two or three different values presented in different reports and by different interviewees. But even in the larger plants, actual flow volumes and treated volumes are not always clear. For the Tripoli plant, for example, the numbers obtained were ambiguous, ranging from 3,000 m³ to 30,000 m³, depending on the sources and their interpretation of operational status. This inability to easily produce reliable data affects our calculations of potential, introducing a source of uncertainty. It also affects reuse project planning. A systematic and reliable monitoring of average and peak flow volumes, specifically during the irrigation season, is essential to adequately design reuse system infrastructure and plan water distribution to agricultural plots.

What can be seen from this brief discussion is the sensitivity of wastewater treatment systems to the management of plants and the O&M context. Maintaining effluent quality, and the monitoring and testing needed to guarantee it, will depend on the ability of RWEs and individual municipalities to employ diligent and trained staff for operations and in on-site labs. In turn, this will affect downstream potential for reuse in irrigation according to standards.

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ Interview, LWP, April 16, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Interview, SLWE, January 30, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ Interview, Ehden municipality, May 27, 2020; Interview, SLWE, January 30, 2020; Interview, CDR, June 20, 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ The systems, including storm water drainage, are affected by the large volumes entering the WWTPs. The risk of washing out the bacteria in constructed wetlands, lagoons and other similar technologies leads operators to open the bypasses for such flows in order to protect WWTP operations. This though is of little consequence for reuse as such instances happen almost exclusively in the rainy season.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ Interview, operator, Chouf, June 1, 2020.</footnote>
Allocation of Treated Effluents and
Irrigation Water Rights and Management

Water reuse articulates complex questions of decision-
making on water allocation and planning as well as
reuse system management. While regional water
planning and irrigation management are legally in the
hands of the RWEs since 2000, they are still far from
implementing those duties. In practice, most irrigation
systems in Lebanon are operated by local committees,
where historical water rights and local arrangements
largely prevail.<fnref n="71" /> With their poor financial and technical
resources, the RWEs have poor or no authority over
and knowledge of the management of surface water
and groundwater-based systems and do not monitor
irrigation water use. Groundwater use is supposed to
be mapped and regulated by MEW, but as seen above,
tens of thousands of wells remain undeclared and
regulated. The weak governmental knowledge and
agency on irrigation management represents a serious
barrier to integrated planning of treated effluent use.
On the other hand, if community-based distribution
mechanisms exist, water allocation conflicts are also
widespread and increasing with the reduction of water
availability. Treated effluents are desirable for farmers
but they represent yet another source of conflict in the
absence of water allocation rules.

The Zahleh case study illustrates this well. Different
water sources and irrigation systems co-exist within the
reuse command area of the Zahleh WWTP, and function
independently of the Bekaa Water Establishment. The
Berdaouni, Litani and Ghozayel rivers are managed
through different infrastructure and according to different
forms of formal (legalized) and informal water rights
(Annex 9B). The Berdaouni spring is used through an
open-canal collective network supplying most of Zahleh's
agricultural lands, which are located mostly upstream
of the WWTP. The system has historically been managed
by two farmer committees according to an ancient
system involving the Zahleh municipality, the Mohafaza
(regional administration) and farmers.<fnref n="72" /> Water allocation
occurs proportionate to land size according to old water
rights (23% of the flow to the Maalaqa branch, 47% to
Haouchlel Oumara and the remainder goes to the El
Madina El Sinayia branch and eventually flows into the
Litani). A large proportion of land located at the tail-
end of the network is irrigated by groundwater (since
the 1970s-1980s) through large private networks in the
summer when surface water does not cover the water
requirement of all lands.

Lands irrigated from the Litani and Ghozayel rivers are
located downstream of the WWTP, at the level of Barr
Elias village. Water was distributed by gravity until the
1970s when farmers started to use private pumps to
irrigate lands not having access to water by gravity. The
use of pumps increased the extent of lands drawing
on these two sources, and gave rise to new land- and
water-use arrangements, which can be described as
informal water rights. Yet, when conflicts arise (in cases
of water shortage), farmers benefiting from old water
rights claim priority over those who do not. Conflicts over
water allocation from the Litani and the Ghozayel are
frequent in summer, especially during years of drought.
Recently, authorities forbade the use of the Litani due
to a threatening level of pollution, and users stopped
irrigating their land, especially because groundwater was
not readily available (Nassif 2016). In this context, the
treated effluent from the Zahleh WWTP represents a vital
source both to downstream farmers (in Barr Elias) and
upstream farmers (Zahleh), where some large landowners
are already pumping it from the Litani to reduce their
energy costs. While conveying water by gravity to Barr
Elias would be less costly and have a higher economic
impact, the Zahleh municipality claims exclusivity to the
use of the treated effluent. The argument is that sewage
is produced and treated in Zahleh and its residents are
paying for it while Barr Elias units are not connected to the
WWTP. The issue juxtaposes the interests of some of the
largest individual agricultural landowners in Lebanon with
those of less endowed farmers or tenant farmers (IWMI
Forthcoming).

Complex water rights and distribution dynamics can
also be observed in the case of the Yammouneh WWTP
(Annex 9H). There, the BWE is in charge of managing a
large open-canal network implemented during the French
mandate that crosses over several villages in North
Bekaa. However, the historically developed local power of
clans and families, the relative absence of the state, and
production patterns centered around cannabis affect the
distribution and control of water resources. As in Zahleh,
water rights registered during the French mandate still
codetermine distribution patterns. Upstream villages
such as Yammouneh and Dar al Waasa claim priority over
water resources—even where community and sectarian
compositions have changed over the last century. The
BWE performs its charge of water distribution through
water guards who organize irrigation schedules for
farmers.<fnref n="73" /> According to a BWE employee, there are 15
employees hired by the water establishment for this
purpose. The guards are drawn from the local population

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ Water was legally established as property of the state under the French mandate in 1925, but community and individual rights to irrigation water use were maintained and formalized. These water rights allocated spring flows to one or different village based on geography and sociopolitical relations, and sometimes to specific landowners. Water rights are generally linked to landownership and appear on property titles. Today, these water allocation rules are still in place and serve as reference for communities. But other socio-technical arrangements have also emerged with the proliferation of individual and collective wells and groundwater networks. See Nassif (2016, 2019) for an extensive study on the history of irrigation rights and examples from the Bekaa.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² Irrigation is organized in water turns, and farmers pay the water guard a flat-rate fee per dunum (a measure of land, 1 dunum = 1,000 m² = 0.1 hectare). These “fees” include organization of the water turns and operating the canal gates accordingly. The municipality contributes to the cost of maintenance of primary and secondary canals and farmers usually pay for the clearing of tertiary channels to their plots.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ The Yammouneh water is divided into two main canals. Water allocation is as follows: 30% of the water should theoretically go to Chlifa, Deir El Wessaa, Btedhi, Abou Slaybi and Mrah El Sayed; 70% goes to Flewa, Boudai, Saideh and Chmistar.</footnote>