As part of its advocacy efforts towards building a people-centered and sustainable recovery from the Beirut port explosion and its endeavors to promote inclusive and equitable social justice, as well as foster trust between individuals, entities, and the Lebanese government, the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies (LCPS) partnered with Transparency International (TI) and its local chapter, Transparency International Lebanon – No Corruption, to issue “The Reform Monitor.” The topics covered by the monitor are linked to the areas of reform, recovery, and reconstruction (3RF). The monitor falls within the Building Integrity and National Accountability in Lebanon (BINA’) project, which is funded by the European Union. The views expressed in the monitor do not necessarily reflect those of the donor.

What’s the issue at hand?

On September 23, 2024, a widespread armed conflict broke out in Lebanon, primarily affecting the south, the Beqaa region, and areas surrounding Beirut. The hostilities concluded on November 27, 2024. During this period, Lebanon experienced a significant displacement crisis, with approximately 1.5 million people uprooted. Among them, 899,000 were internally displaced within Lebanon, 562,000 sought refuge in Syria, and around 39,000 fled to Iraq (UNOCHA 2024).

In response, Lebanese state institutions made efforts to provide essential aid to ensure human dignity. International aid began to flow in from donor countries, international organizations, and humanitarian entities. Local and international humanitarian organizations played a critical role in relief efforts during this crisis. Through the collection of data from open sources such as media platforms, donor websites, and embassy social media accounts, Transparency International Lebanon (TI-LB) tracked the following:

• 10,065 metric tons of in-kind aid.
• $725 million USD in financial aid.
• 1,803 aid shipments, recorded in various non-standardized units of measurement (e.g., tents, blankets, and food parcels).

Most of this aid was distributed by local and international NGOs and Lebanese public institutions. 

Structural Deficiencies in Crisis Management Frameworks

Lebanon faces a significant structural deficiency in its governmental framework for crisis management. This deficiency is particularly evident in the processes of aid reception and distribution. Despite efforts to establish a centralized crisis management mechanism, such as the Disaster Risk Management Unit (DRMU) in 2010, in partnership with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the unit has not effectively fulfilled its intended role as a central authority for coordinating responses to crises and conflicts (Prime Minister's Office, “Disaster Risk Management Unit”).

For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Lebanese government established the Ministerial Crisis Cell to serve as a central coordinating body for the health emergency. However, despite the official declaration of a public health emergency, the DRMU played no significant role in the government's crisis coordination efforts. Similarly, in response to the armed clashes in southern Lebanon in late 2023, the government enacted an emergency plan and formed the Ministerial Emergency Committee as an additional central coordinating body.

This approach led to overlapping responsibilities among various governmental entities, including the Higher Relief Committee (established to respond to national crises, disasters, and wars), the DRMU, and the Council for the South, the latter being responsible for aid distribution in southern Lebanon and Western Beqaa. These entities were established at different times to manage crises, yet they possess conflicting mandates, resulting in inefficiencies and limiting their capacity to carry out their functions effectively.

Attempts by the Ministerial Emergency Committee to harmonize operations across these entities, alongside coordination with ministries, security forces, and medical institutions, yielded limited success. Jurisdictional conflicts and overlapping mandates undermined these efforts. Notably, the creation of a unified platform for tracking and disseminating information on aid distribution, while significant, failed to achieve its objectives due to the continued publication of fragmented data by the Higher Relief Committee and the Ministry of Health on their respective platforms.

Lebanese law permits only the High Relief Committee (HRC) and the Lebanese Red Cross to import aid without paying customs duties. As such, some international aid organizations go through HRC and the Lebanese Red Cross to avoid paying duties. HRC has reportedly asked for up to 30 percent of that aid to be distributed through them. This has led some local NGOs, affiliated with influential political figures, to receive aid from HRC for distribution. To this day, no decree or legal framework has been introduced to regulate the import and distribution of humanitarian aid in a more transparent and accountable manner (Al Jadeed interview).

Transparency Gaps and Oversight Failures

The lack of effective oversight mechanisms for ensuring transparency and combating corruption remains a critical shortcoming. In an event with Transparency International Lebanon, Judge Therese Allawi, a member of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), highlighted systemic deficiencies in compliance with transparency mandates. Despite a directive from the prime minister’s office requiring the publication of aid data from receipt to distribution, most governmental entities failed to comply, with the Ministry of Health being the sole exception.

Gaps in Aid Transparency in Lebanon: A Critical Review

Traceability

Beyond the structural deficiencies inherent in Lebanon’s disaster management framework, significant technical challenges persist in the publication and standardization of aid-related data. Traceability is a fundamental pillar of transparency, as it enables the systematic tracking of aid from its initial allocation to its final delivery to beneficiaries. A key prerequisite for effective traceability is the adoption of a unified measurement system across governmental bodies, civil society organizations, and donor entities. However, in Lebanon, the absence of such a system has resulted in severe inconsistencies in aid reporting and monitoring.

The Monitoring Unit at Transparency International - Lebanon tracked aid inflows from multiple sources and found substantial discrepancies in how aid was recorded and reported. For example, approximately 10,000 metric tons of aid were documented using the metric ton as a standardized unit, and it monitored 1,802 findings about aid with more than 15 different units of measurement (such as box, meal, piece, tent). Lebanon’s unified government platform recorded aid using boxes or individual units. Simultaneously, the Higher Relief Committee employed more than ten different measurement units, including tents, boxes, blankets, and other ad hoc categorizations.

Additionally, donor organization failed to systematically publish clear data regarding the aid they provided or use a shared platform for reporting. Consequently, aid information was scattered across fragmented platforms, applying inconsistent measurement units such as metric tons, boxes, and cubic meters. The difference in units of measurement significantly hinders traceability, which is fundamental to ensuring transparency.

International Standards

Inconsistencies in measurement cited above contradict international standards for transparency in humanitarian aid and significantly undermine efforts to ensure effective aid distribution. The lack of standardized reporting increases the risk of aid mismanagement, which may result in spoilage, inefficiencies, and heightened opportunities for corruption. More critically, such irregularities hinder the ability of oversight bodies, researchers, and the public to evaluate the actual impact of aid distribution efforts.

To address these issues, Lebanon’s aid reporting mechanisms must align with established international transparency frameworks, such as the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). IATI sets globally recognized standards for the systematic and transparent publication of international aid data, emphasizing inclusivity, credibility, and accountability. The framework mandates the regular dissemination of detailed information, including funding sources, financial allocations, implemented activities, geographic locations, and targeted beneficiaries.

IATI also prioritizes financial transparency by requiring the publication of operational costs, expenditures, and revenues, while ensuring that data remains accessible and analyzable for stakeholders such as policymakers, researchers, and civil society organizations. Platforms adhering to IATI must also implement robust privacy safeguards and secure sensitive information to maintain data integrity and prevent misuse (IATI 2019).

Evaluation of Aid Data Platforms

In the context of Lebanon's recent crises, three primary platforms have been developed to disseminate aid data: The Unified Platform of the Government Emergency Committee (Monitor Countries Donations), the Higher Relief Committee website (Higher Relief Committee), the Ministry of Public Health website (MOPH website).

The Unified Platform structurally aligns more closely with IATI standards compared to the others, offering fields for uploading documents and sections dedicated to aid-related data. However, it suffers from notable deficiencies. Data fields are often incomplete, with critical information, such as recipient names and contact details, frequently omitted. For example, in TI-LB's monitoring unit, we tracked 120 tons of in-kind aid from Jordan, but we did not find any record of it.

Many documents remain unavailable, updates are irregular, and the platform does not support analyzable formats like XML. Recent changes, such as the removal of a field for identifying recipients, further erode its transparency. Additionally, the platform lacks a mechanism for submitting complaints, limiting its utility as an accountability tool.

The Ministry of Public Health platform primarily publishes data in PDF format, focusing solely on aid distribution while excluding aid information received. This limitation hinders the ability to trace aid flows comprehensively or align with international transparency standards. Furthermore, the platform is not regularly updated and does not incorporate mechanisms for lodging complaints, restricting its overall effectiveness.

The Higher Relief Committee platform predominantly relies on publishing data in JPG image format, rendering it unsuitable for analysis or tracking. It concentrates on in-kind assistance and omits critical details about cash aid. Like other platforms, it lacks mechanisms for submitting complaints or providing data in analyzable formats, further compromising its transparency.

Despite the centrality of cash aid in Lebanon’s crisis response, none of the evaluated platforms provide comprehensive data on this type of assistance. For example, following the Paris Conference on October 24, 2024, which pledged $800 million in humanitarian aid for Lebanon, no detailed information has been published regarding whether these funds were disbursed, received by the government, or used effectively. This opacity makes it nearly impossible to trace the flow of funds or to assess their impact.

Necessary Reforms

Civil society organizations have advocated for reform to address the gaps and enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency in crisis management. These reforms include establishing a unified disaster management authority to ensure a coordinated response to crises, whereby the authority is supported by corresponding bodies at the governorate level to guarantee comprehensive coverage across the country. Having clearly defined roles and responsibilities between the central authority and executive entities will help avoid jurisdictional conflicts and overlapping mandates.

Other recommended reforms entail the development of an integrated and transparent aid platform. This platform, which must comply with IATI guidelines, should include the government, local and international organizations, and donors to ensure comprehensive coordination. It should allow for public feedback and for the transparent tracking of aid from receipt to distribution. Enhancing the operational capabilities of oversight bodies such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and Central Inspection Bureau will also play a pivotal role in combating corruption, preventing mismanagement, and ensuring the integrity of aid distribution processes.

The systematic publication of detailed data on aid funding, beneficiaries, and implementation by the donor would be another important step forward. The coordination and integration into a unified aid platform will enhance accountability and prevent duplication. Improved coordination among governmental entities, international organizations, and civil society is key to addressing the fragmented disaster response framework.

Aligning aid distribution processes with global standards is critical for enhancing transparency and accountability. Lebanon should leverage international expertise and tools to improve data management systems and ensure compliance with recognized frameworks such as IATI.

Furthermore, inclusivity and accessibility must be prioritized to ensure that vulnerable groups, including women, youth, and people with disabilities, are not left behind in crisis management and aid distribution processes. Barriers to participation should be addressed by implementing measures such as accessible platforms, gender-sensitive policies, and targeted outreach to underserved populations.

Why is this important?

Lebanon’s recent armed conflict highlights critical deficiencies in its disaster management and aid distribution framework. Structural challenges, including fragmented authority and overlapping responsibilities, have hindered effective response coordination and transparency. A reform effort is, therefore, necessary to address the absence of a unified disaster management authority with a clear mandate and the lack of adherence to international transparency standards.

Structural weaknesses underscore the urgent need for comprehensive reforms in Lebanon’s crisis management and governance frameworks. An effective concentration of authority, coupled with robust transparency and accountability mechanisms, with decentralized power at the local level, is imperative for addressing current inefficiencies and enhancing the country’s resilience in managing future crises.

References

1. Prime Minister's Office. "Disaster Risk Management Unit." Last modified 2010. (http://drm.pcm.gov.lb/AboutUs/AboutUs).

2. Statements by Judge Therese Allawi. National News Agency. "جمعية الشفافية الدولية لبنان: نتائج مؤشر مدركات الفساد." Accessed January 2025. (https://nna-leb.gov.lb/ar/economy/672962).

3. Report on Disaster Response in Lebanon. Monthly Magazine. "تقرير حول مواجهة الكوارث في لبنان." Accessed January 2025. (https://monthlymagazine.com/article/5234).

4. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. "Lebanon Flash Update 47: Escalation of Hostilities in Lebanon (25 November 2024)." Accessed January 2025. (https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/lebanon/lebanon-flash-update-47-escalation-hostilities-lebanon-25-november-2024).

5. Council for the South Official Website. Accessed January 2025.  (https://www.councilforsouth.gov.lb/رئاسة-المجلس/).

6. International Conference in Support of Lebanon. Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, France. "International Conference in Support of Lebanon’s People and Sovereignty (Paris, 24 October 2024)." Accessed January 2025. (https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/lebanon/news/article/international-conference-in-support-of-lebanon-s-people).

7. IATI Standard Official Website. International Aid Transparency Initiative. "IATI Standard." Accessed January 2025. (https://iatistandard.org/en/iati-standard/).

8. Ministry of Public Health Website. Accessed January 2025. (https://www.moph.gov.lb/).

9. Higher Relief Committee Official Website. Accessed January 2025. (http://hrc-lebanon.gov.lb/).

10. Lebanon Humanitarian Aid Map Dashboard. "Lebanon DRM Dashboard." Accessed January 2025. (https://bit.ly/3NynfiV).

11. Raghida Safi. (2019, June). Investigative Report on the High Relief Commission. General Security Magazine, Issue 69. Retrieved from (https://www.general-security.gov.lb/ar/magazines/details/77)

12. https://www.aljadeed.tv/watch/72809/%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9-%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%BA%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%AB%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1#google_vignette