QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE: 1. POPULATION CATEGORIES 4 100,561 … · 4 100,561 48,720 1,074 0 6,023 Severity Number of sub-districts Total population People in Need IDPs Returnees In Besieged

4 100,561 48,720 1,074 0 6,023

Severity Number of sub-districts Total population People in Need IDPs Returnees In Besieged/ Militarily

encircled locationsIn Hard-to-reach

locations

000000melborp oN

000000melborp roniM

000000melborp etaredoM

0098722,1092,31melborp rojaM

00752495,81152,731melborp ereveS

227,30876072,71164,641melborp lacitirC

103,2005926,11955,311melborp cihportsataC

3. CONFLICT INCIDENTSNumber of reported conflict incidents by type (from 1 January 2015 to 31 July 2017)

HFA - Handheld fire arms; HWF - Heavy weapon fire; IED - Improvised explosive device

1. POPULATION CATEGORIESQUNEITRA GOVERNORATE:

-

300

600

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

710261025102

Airstrike HFA* HWF* IED*/Explosion

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!#*

!

!#*

!

P

Me

dit

err

an

ea

nS

ea

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Jasim

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

Ash-Shajara Dael

Mzeireb

Qatana

QatanaQatana

Sasa

Bait Jan

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

QUNEIT RA

#* Besieged locations, Sep 2017

! Military encircled locations, Sep 2017

UNDOF administered area

2. SECTOR SEVERITY RANKING BY SUB-DISTRICT

Severity ranks

No data

1 - Minor problem

2 - Moderate problem

3 - Major problem

4 - Severe problem

5 - Critical problem

6 - Catastrophic problem

To be updated

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE PROTECTION ISSUES

4. PROTECTION ISSUES

a. Occurrence of protection issues

i. Analysis coverage (Number of communities covered in the analysis and number of those communities reporting occurrence of protection issues)

HIGHLIGHTS

ii. Percentage of covered communities reporting protection issues as occurring

*For explosive hazards indicator: this % applies to communities located in sub-districts where 99% of conflict incidents in the country, have taken place since January 2015.

98%

93%

89%

67%

41%

25%

25%

25%

21%

21%

18%

18%

5%

Child labour preventing school attendance

Lack/loss of civil documents

Early marriage

Explosive hazards*

Housing/land/property issues

Child recruitment

Domestic violence

Family separation

Sexual violence

Sexual harassment

Economic exploitation

Harassment

Kidnapping/Abduction

44 44 44 42 44 44 44 44 43 43 44 44 43 43 41 39 28 18 11 11 11 9 9 8 8 20

243Covered in the analysis Reported as occurring (at least sometimes) Total number of communities in the Governorate

• 44 communities were covered in Quneitra governorate with one or more protection issues.• 98% of covered communities reported child labor preventing school attendance as occurring and 93% reported lack/loss of civil documentation as

occurring. • Child labor preventing school attendance was mentioned as a “common” issue for one or more population groups by 43% of covered communities

while lack/loss of civil documentation was mentioned as a “common” issue for one or more population groups by 45% of covered communities. • Boys are the most affected by child labor preventing school attendance, mentioned as a “common” issue by 43% of covered communities

(adolescents) and by 20% of covered communities (boys under 12). • 34% of covered communities described “children dropping out of school to work” as a coping mechanism “commonly” used by one or more population

groups and 45% mentioned early marriage as a coping mechanism “sometimes” used by one or more population groups. • 45% of covered communities identified relying on humanitarian assistance as a coping mechanism that was “sometimes” used by one or more

population groups, while accessing community services (29%) and local community support (26%) were also described as used “sometimes” by one or more population groups.

• Movement restrictions were reported as occurring in 32% of covered communities. Out of those, 64% covered communities reported checkpoints, presence of explosive hazards and rules imposed by concerned authorities (57%) among reasons, while IDPs (64%), men and boys (57%) were mentioned as the most affected groups by movement restrictions.

• Needs for protection services were identified for all population groups, in particular women and girls centers (59% covered communities reported it was needed but not present for one or more population groups) and community centers (52% covered communities reported it was needed but not present for one or more population groups).

• 59% of covered communities reported concerns with humanitarian assistance. Out of the total covered, 17 indicated that the assistance delivered was not “what the community needed” and 15 communities mentioned the request for documentation to access assistance as a concern.

• Among covered communities having reported lack/loss of civil documentation as occurring, 98% indicated “could not afford it” and 88% “government services are not present” among causes while 100% reported the inability to register birth/marriage/death and 98% mentioned “cannot register land/access transactions” among consequences.

• All types of documents were described as difficult to obtain by 85% of covered communities or more having reported lack/loss of civil documentation as occurring, in particular travel authorization document and deed/tabou that were mentioned as difficult to obtain in 100% of covered communities.

• 41% of covered communities reported housing, land and property issues as occurring. Out of those, 78% mentioned “damage of land or property” as an HLP concern happening “sometimes” while “rental disputes” were described as a “common” HLP concern by 17% of covered communities.


b. Overview of Protection issues with frequency of occurrence

i. Graphs showing percentage out of communities that were covered in the analysis, using two different aggregation options across population groups

ii. Graphs showing percentage out of communities that were covered in the analysis, by population group

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2% 0% 7% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

95% 25%18%

89% 16% 64% 23% 16% 39% 5% 93% 21% 21%

2%

75% 75%

11%

82%

33%

75% 82%

59%

95%

7%

79% 79%

Child labour preventingschool attendance

Child recruitment Domestic violence Early marriage Economic exploitation Explosive hazards Family separation Harassment Housing/land/propertyissues

Kidnapping/Abduction Lack/loss of civildocuments

Sexual harassment Sexual violence

AVERAGE FREQUENCY across population groups

0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0%

43%

0%9% 14%

5%

31%

5% 9% 9%0%

45%

7% 5%

55%

25%

14% 75%14%

36%

20%9% 32%

5%

43%

14% 16%

2%

75% 75%

11%

82%

33%

75% 82%

59%

95%

7%

79% 79%





HIGHEST FREQUENCY occurrence as per one or more population groups Very common issue Common issue Sometimes Never happens

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%7% 2%

16%2% 14% 7% 14% 7% 0% 0% 20% 7% 7%

93% 98%77%

98%86% 93% 86% 89% 98% 100%

80%93% 93%





Persons with disabilities


ii. Graphs showing percentage out of communities that were covered in the analysis, by population group- contd

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%4.5%

0.0% 0.0%0% 2%

31%

0% 0%9%

0%

45%

0% 0%7% 14%

36%

25% 11%32%

5%

43%

2% 0%

93%84%

33%

75%89%

59%

95%

7%

98% 100%

Domestic violence Economic exploitation Explosive hazards Family separation Harassment Housing/land/property issues Kidnapping/Abduction Lack/loss of civil documents Sexual harassment Sexual violence

Men Very common issue Common issueSometimes Never happens

2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7%2% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 7% 7% 2%

16%16% 55% 18% 14% 27% 0%

58% 14%19%

75% 82%

45%

80% 84%70%

100%

35%

79% 79%

Domestic violence Economic exploitation Explosive hazards Family separation Harassment Housing/land/property issues Kidnapping/Abduction Lack/loss of civil documents Sexual harassment Sexual violence

Women

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

43%

0% 5% 2% 2%12% 5% 2% 0% 0%

9%0% 0%

55%

25%18% 43% 14%

52%9% 9% 7% 0%

59%9% 2%

2%

75% 77%

55%

84%

36%

86% 89% 93% 100%

32%

91% 98%





Adolescent boys


ii. Graphs showing percentage out of communities that were covered in the analysis, by population group- contd

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7% 0%9% 11%

2% 2% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2%

75%5%

14% 75%11% 40% 9% 14%

7% 0% 63% 19% 9%

18%

95%77%

14%

86%

57%

86% 82%93% 100%

37%

79%88%





Adolescent girlsVery common issue Common issue Sometimes Never happens

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

20%

0% 7% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%

61%

5%16%

18% 14% 55% 11% 11% 0% 59% 9% 5%

18%

95%77% 82% 84%

43%

86% 89%100%

39%

91% 95%


Child recruitment Domestic violence Early marriage Economic exploitation Explosive hazards Family separation Harassment Kidnapping/Abduction Lack/loss of civildocuments


Boys

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2% 0% 7% 0% 2% 5% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0%

66% 5%16%

11% 11% 38% 11% 9% 0% 59% 9% 5%

32%

95%77%

89% 86%

57%

86% 89%100%

41%

88% 95%


Child recruitment Domestic violence Early marriage Economic exploitation Explosive hazards Family separation Harassment Kidnapping/Abduction Lack/loss of civildocuments


Girls


c. Analysis per protection issue across population groups (with frequency of occurrence)

CHILD LABOUR PREVENTING SCHOOL ATTENDANCEi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)

ii. Percentage of communities by frequency of occurrence (across population groups and per population group)

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2%

43% 43%

7%20%

2% 0%

95%

55% 55%

75%61%

66%

7%

2% 2% 2%18% 18%

32%

93%

Aggregated (averagefrequency)

Aggregated (highestfrequency)

Adolescent boys Adolescent girls Boys Girls Persons withdisabilities

Very common issue Common issue Sometimes Never happens

P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Frequency of occurrence! Never happens

! Sometimes

! Common issue

! Very common issue! Not covered in analysis


CHILD RECRUITMENTi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

25% 25% 25%

5% 5% 5% 2%

75% 75% 75%

95% 95% 95% 98%



Adolescent boys Adolescent girls Boys Girls Persons with disabilities


P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue



EARLY MARRIAGEi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0%

14%2%

11%0% 0% 0%

89%75%

43%

75%

18% 11%2%

11% 11%

55%

14%

82% 89%98%



Adolescent boys Adolescent girls Boys Girls Persons with disabilities


P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue



ECONOMIC EXPLOITATIONi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0%

16% 14% 14% 16% 14% 11% 14% 11% 14%

82% 82% 84% 82% 84% 86% 84% 86% 86%

Aggregated(average

frequency)

Aggregated(highest frequency)

Men Women Adolescent boys Adolescent girls Boys Girls Persons withdisabilities

P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue



EXPLOSIVE HAZARDSi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2%

31% 31%

0%12%

2% 2% 5% 0%

64%

36% 36%

55%

52%

40%55%

38%

7%

33% 33% 33%45%

36%

57%43%

57%

93%

Aggregated(average

frequency)




P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue


! Community in sub-district that has not reported high intensity conflict in last 2 years


FAMILY SEPARATIONi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2% 5% 0% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 0%

23% 20% 25% 18% 9% 9% 11% 11% 14%

75% 75% 75% 80% 86% 86% 86% 86% 86%

Aggregated(average

frequency)




P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue



HARASSMENTi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2% 9%

0% 2% 2% 5% 0% 2% 5%16%

9%

11% 14% 9% 14%11% 9% 7%

82% 82% 89% 84% 89% 82% 89% 89% 89%

Aggregated(average

frequency)




P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue



HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY ISSUESi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2% 9% 9% 2% 0% 0% 2%

39% 32% 32%

27%

7% 7% 0%

59% 59% 59%70%

93% 93% 98%



Men Women Adolescent boys Adolescent girls Persons with disabilities


P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue



KIDNAPPINGi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

95% 95% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Aggregated(average

frequency)




P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue



LACK/LOSS OF CIVIL DOCUMENTSi. Map of communities by frequency of occurrence across population groups (using highest frequency as per one or more population groups)


0.0% 4.5% 4.5%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0%

45% 45%

7% 9%0% 2% 0% 0%

93%

43% 43%

58% 59%63% 59% 59%

20%

7% 7% 7%

35% 32% 37% 39% 41%

80%

Aggregated(average

frequency)

Aggregated(highest

frequency)



P

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Hrak

Nawa

SheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N


! Sometimes

! Common issue



DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

SEXUAL VIOLENCE

i. Percentage of communities by frequency of occurrence (across population groups and per population group)



0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0%7%

0%7%

0% 2% 0% 2% 0%21%

14%2%

14%9% 19% 9% 9% 7%

79% 79%

98%

79%91%

79%91% 88% 93%

Aggregated(average

frequency)

Aggregated(highest

frequency)



0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0% 5% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%21%

16%0% 19% 2% 9% 5% 5% 7%

79% 79%

100%

79%

98%88%

95% 95% 93%

Aggregated(average

frequency)

Aggregated(highest

frequency)



0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7%9%

0%7%

5% 9% 7% 7% 7%

18% 14%

7%

16%18% 14% 16% 16% 16%

75% 75%

93%

75% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77%

Aggregated(average

frequency)




QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE COPING MECHANISMS

5. COPING MECHANISMS

i. Analysis coverage

Number of communities covered in the analysis and number of communities reporting use of coping mechanism (i.e. used at least “sometimes” or more)

ii. Percentage of covered communities reporting the use of coping mechanisms by frequency of occurrence

Across population groups

Graph a: Taking the highest frequency of occurrence at community level

Graph b: Taking the average frequency of occurrence at community level

38 38 37 38 38 38 38 38

6

35

13 12

29

21

14

20

0

49

Begging Children dropping out ofschool to work

Engaging in illegalactivities (i.e theft,

smuggling)

Restricting movements ofwomen and girls

Relying on humanitarianassistance

Accessing communityservices (community

centres, women centres)

Local/community support Early marriage

Covered in the analysis Reported as used (at least sometimes)Total number of communities in Governorate

45%63%

50%32%

5% 3%

0% 3%


centres, womencentres)

Local/communitysupport

Always used

Commonly used

Sometimes used

Never used

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%

37%

8%0% 0%

29%16%

55%

45%35% 32%

47%84%

8%

47%65% 68%

24%

Begging Childrendropping out ofschool to work

Early marriage Engaging inillegal activities

(i.e theft,smuggling)

Restrictingmovements of

women and girls

Relying onhumanitarianassistance

Never used

Sometimes used

Commonly used

Always used

68% 68%

29% 26%

3% 3%

0% 3%




Always used

Commonly used

Sometimes used

Never used

0% 3% 3% 0% 0%5%

3%34% 5%

0% 0%

45%13%

55%

45%

35%32%

26%

84%

8%

47%

65% 68%

24%





women and girls


Never used

Sometimes used

Commonly used

Always used

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE COPING MECHANISMS

ii. Percentage of covered communities reporting the use of coping mechanisms by frequency of occurrence -contd

By population groups

66% 66%

29% 29%

3% 3%

3% 3%




Always used

Commonly used

Sometimes used

Never used

0% 0% 3%0% 0%

47%

8% 35%

26%92%

65%

24%

Begging Engaging in illegalactivities (i.e theft,

smuggling)


Men

Never used

Sometimes used

Commonly used

Always used

47%63%

42%

32%

8% 3%

3% 3%




Always used

Commonly used

Sometimes used

Never used

0% 0% 0% 3%0% 0% 0%

26%8% 11% 32%

45%

92% 89%

68%

26%

Begging Engaging inillegal activities



women and girls


Women

Never used

Sometimes used

Commonly used

Always used

58%68%

39% 26%

3% 3%

0% 3%

Accessingcommunity services(community centres,

women centres)


Always used

Commonly used

Sometimes used

Never used

0% 3% 0% 0% 0%

3%

34%

0% 0%14%

13%

55%

37% 19%

59%

84%

8%

63%81%

27%





Boys

Never used

Sometimes used

Commonly used

Always used

47%66%

47%29%

5% 3%

0% 3%

Accessingcommunity services(community centres,

women centres)


Always used

Commonly used

Sometimes used

Never used

0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%0% 8% 5%

0% 0%14%11%

74% 45%5% 29%

49%

89%

18%

47%

95%

71%

38%

Begging Children droppingout of school to

work




women and girls


Graph d: Girls

Never used

Sometimes used

Commonly used

Always used

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

NawaSheikhMiskineTassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana

Sasa

Bait JanKisweh

Communities where coping mechanisms used are! Covered! Not covered in the analysis

BeggingChildren dropping out of school to workEarly marriageEngaging in illegal activities (i.e theft, smuggling)Restricting movements of women and girlsRelying on humanitarian assistanceAccessing community services (community centres, women centres)Local/community support

Coping mechanisms used(Top 3 reported by most % communitiesin the sub-district)

iii. Map of top three coping mechanisms used per sub-district (based on percentage of communities reporting occurrence)

NOTE: The pie charts on the maps illustrate the top three options reported in the sub-district, based on the percentage of communities reporting eachoption as occurring sometimes or more. They are NOT indicative of the frequency/severity of occurrence. In sub-districts where the pie chart showsmore than three options, it means that all displayed options were reported by the same percentage of communities. In sub-districts where the pie chartshows less than three options, it means that only displayed options were reported.

COPING MECHANISMS USED PER SUB-DISTRICT

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS

6. MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS

a.Causes of movement restrictions


Number of communities covered by the analysis and number of communities reporting causes of movement restrictions as occurring

ii. Percentage of communities reporting causes of movement restrictions (by frequency of occurrence)

iii. Percentage of communities reporting specific causes, out of those reporting occurrence of movement restrictions

44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

8 9 3 5 7 8 8 7 0

49

Activities of armedgroups

Checkpoints Curfews General violence Lack of identitydocuments

Presence of explosivehazards

Rules imposed byconcerned authorities

Screening processes

Covered in the analysis Reported as occurring (as least sometimes) Total number of communities in the Governorate

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

14% 18%7% 11% 16% 18% 18% 16%

82% 80%93% 89% 84% 82% 82% 84%

Activities of armedgroups

Checkpoints Curfews General violence Lack of identitydocuments

Presence ofexplosive hazards

Rules imposed byconcerned authorities

Screening processes


YES (movement

restrictions are reported as occurring)

14 32%

NO (movement restrictions

are not reported as occurring)

30 68%

64%

57%

57%

57%

50%

50%

36%

21%

Checkpoints

Presence of explosive hazards

Rules imposed by concerned authorities

Activities of armed groups

Lack of identity documents

Screening processes

General violence

Curfews


iv. Map of top three causes of movement restrictions per sub-district (based on percentage of communities reporting occurrence)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

NawaSheikhMiskine

Tassil

As-SanamaynMasmiyyeh

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Mseifra

Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Activities of armed groupsCheckpointsCurfews

General violenceLack of identity documentsPresence of explosive hazardsRules imposed by concerned authoritiesScreening processes

Communities where movement restrictions were! Reported! NOT reported! Not covered in analysis

CAUSES OF MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS PER SUB-DISTRICT

Causes of movementrestrictions(Top 3 reported by most% communitiesin the sub-district)

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS

b. Population groups affected by movement restrictions


Number of communities covered by the analysis and number of communities reporting population groups affected by movement restrictions (by occurrence)

ii. Percentage of communities reporting population groups affected by movement restrictions (by frequency of occurrence)

iii. Percentage of communities reporting specific affected population groups, out of those reporting occurrence of movement restrictions

44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

4 7 3 7 3 8 8 7 9 0

49

Persons withdisabilities

Girls (<18) movingalone

Girls (<18) movingwith a companion

Women movingalone

Women moving witha companion

Boys (<18) Men People without civildocumentation

IDPs

Covered in the analysis Reported as occurring (as least sometimes) Total number of communities in Syria

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 0.0%

0% 5% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%9%

11%7%

14%7%

18% 18% 16% 20%

91% 84%93%

84%93%

82% 82% 84% 80%

Persons withdisabilities

Girls (<18) movingalone

Girls (<18) movingwith a companion

Women moving alone Women moving with acompanion

Boys (<18) Men People without civildocumentation

IDPs


64%

57%

57%

50%

50%

50%

21%

21%

IDPs

Men

Boys (<18)

Women moving alone

People without civil documentation

Girls (<18) moving alone

Girls (<18) moving with a companion

Women moving with a companion


iv. Map of top three population groups affected by movement restrictions per sub-district (based on percentage of communitiesreporting occurrence)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Nawa SheikhMiskine

Tassil


Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Mseifra

Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

MenBoysGirls moving alone

Girls moving with a companionWomen moving aloneWomen moving with a companionPersons without civil documentationIDPsPersons with disabilities

Communities where movement restrictions were! Reported! NOT reported! Not covered in analysis

POPULATION GROUPS AFFECTED BY MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS PER SUB-DISTRICT

Population groups affectedby movement restrictions(Top 3 reported by most% communitiesin the sub-district)

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE PROTECTION SERVICES

7. PROTECTION SERVICES

ii. Percentage of communities reporting presence and needs of protection services across population groups

Across population groups

i. Analysis coverage (Number of communities covered by the analysis and number of communities reporting needs of protection services (i.e. “present but insufficient” or “not present but needed")

Graph a: Taking the most severe status of needs and presence

Graph b: Taking the average status of needs and presence

44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

37 3733

31 3129

2623

2119

16

60

49

Community centres Women and girlscentres

Legal services for civildocumentation

Psychosocial supportfor sexual/domesticviolence survivors

Psychosocial supportservices

Recreational activitiesProtection services forchildren

Legal services forHousing, Land and

Property issues

Explosive hazard riskeducation

Services for personswith disabilities

Care mechanisms forelderly persons

Medical treatment forsexual/domestic

violence survivors

Covered in the analysis Reported as needed Total number of communities in the Govrenorate

48%59%

39%52%

32%45% 50%

11%

34%41%

25% 23%

36%25%

9%

23%

20%

25% 20%

2%

25%25%

11% 20%

2%9%

14%

14%

11%

14% 14%

9%

2%

7%

11%7%

14%7%

39%

11%

36%

16% 16%

77%

39%27%

52% 50%



Legal services forcivil documentation


Property issues


Psychosocial supportfor survivors of sexual

violence/domesticviolence

Medical treatment forsurvivors of sexualviolence/domestic

violence

Protection servicesfor children

Recreational activities Caremechanisms/services

for elderly persons


52%59%

39%52%

34%

50% 50%

11%

34%43%

25% 25%

32%25%

9%

23%

20%

20% 20%

7%

25%

25%

11%18%

2%9%

14%

14%

9%

14% 14%

5%

2%

5%

11%7%

14%7%

39%

11%

36%

16% 16%

77%

39%27%

52% 50%





Property issues





violence

Protection services forchildren


for elderly persons


Needed but not present Present but insufficient Present and sufficient Not present and not needed

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE PROTECTION SERVICES

ii. Percentage of communities reporting presence and needs of protection services across population groups - contd

By population group

50% 39% 52% 34% 45% 43%9%

36% 25% 25%

34%

9%

23%

20%

20% 18%

2%

25%

11% 18%

2%

14%

14%

9%

14% 18%

5%

7%

11%7%

14%

39%

11%

36%20% 20%

84%

32%52% 50%

Community centres Explosive hazard riskeducation



Property issues


Psychosocial support forsurvivors of sexualviolence/domestic

violence


violence

Recreational activities Caremechanisms/services for

elderly persons

Services for persons withdisabilities

Men Needed but not present Present but insufficient Present and sufficient Not present and not needed

45% 57% 39% 52% 34% 45% 50% 11% 41% 25% 23%

36%27%

9%

23%

18%

23% 18%

7%

20%

11% 18%

5%9%

14%

14%

11%

16% 16%

2%

9%

11% 7%

14% 7%

39%

11%

36%

16% 16%

80%

30%

52% 52%





Property issues





violence


for elderly persons


Women

50% 36% 50% 32% 41% 45% 11% 34% 41% 23%

34%

11%

25%

18%

30% 25%

2%

25%25%

20%

2%

14%

14%

11%

14% 14%

2%

2%7%

7%

14%

39%

11%

39%

16% 16%

84%

39%27%

50%

Community centres Explosive hazard riskeducation



Property issues


Psychosocial support forsurvivors of sexualviolence/domestic

violence


violence


Recreational activities Services for persons withdisabilities

BoysNeeded but not present Present but insufficient Present and sufficient Not present and not needed

45% 59% 36% 50% 32% 45% 50% 11% 34% 41% 23%

36%25%

11%

25%

18%

23% 18%

7%

23%23%

18%

5%9%

14%

14%

11%

16% 16%

5%

5%9%

7%

14% 7%

39%

11%

39%

16% 16%

77%

39%27%

52%





Property issues





violence


Recreational activities Services for personswith disabilities

Girls

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

NawaSheikhMiskine

Tassil

As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

Communities where protection services are! Reported as needed! NOT reported as needed! Not covered in analysis

Community centres Women and girls centres Explosive hazard risk education Legal services for civil documentation Legal services for Housing, Land and Property issues

Psychosocial support services Psychosocial support for survivors of sexual violence/domestic violence Medical treatment for sexual/domestic violence survivors Protection services for children Recreational activities Care mechanisms for elderly persons Services for persons with disabilities

Protection services needed(Top 3 reported by most % communitiesin the sub-district)

iii. Map of top three protection services needed per sub-district (based on percentage of communities reporting need)

NOTE: The pie charts on the maps illustrate the top three options reported in the sub-district, based on the percentage of communities reporting eachoption as needed irrespective of presence. They are NOT indicative of the severity of need. In sub-districts where the pie chart shows more than threeoptions, it means that all displayed options were reported by the same percentage of communities. In sub-districts where the pie chart shows less thanthree options, it means that only displayed options were reported.

PROTECTION SERVICES NEEDED PER SUB-DISTRICT

UNDOFadministered

area

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE CONCERNS WITH HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

8. CONCERNS/PROBLEMS DURING DELIVERY OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE


a. Across population groups (For categories which required aggregation, highest frequency was adopted)

ii. Number of covered communities reporting concerns reg. the way humanitarian assistance was delivered in the last 3 monthsby frequency of occurrence

Number of communities covered by the analysis and number of communities reporting concerns regarding how humanitarian assistance was delivered in the last three months (by occurrence)

19 18 18

19 18 18

17 15

4 3 1 -0

19

Assistance given is not what thecommunity needs

Request for civil documentation toaccess assistance

Discrimination/exclusion Request of sexual favour/exploitation in exchange for

humanitarian assistance

Sexual harassment Humanitarian assistance is notfree/ Money is asked in exchange

for assistance

Covered in the analysis Reported as occurring (at least sometimes) Number of communities in the Governoratereporting concerns with humanitarian assistance

YES (concerns with humanitarian

assistance are reported as

occurring), 19 , 59%

NO (concerns with humanitarian

assistance are not reported as

occurring) 13 , 41%

1 1 1- - -

4 6

2

- - -

12

8

1

3 1 -

Assistance given is not what thecommunity needs

Request for civil documentationto access assistance

Discrimination/exclusion Request of sexual favour/exploitation in exchange for

humanitarian assistance

Sexual harassment Humanitarian assistance is notfree/ Money is asked inexchange for assistance

Very common issue Common issue Sometimes

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE CONCERNS WITH HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

ii. Number of covered communities reporting concerns reg. the way humanitarian assistance was delivered in the last 3 months by frequency of occurrence - contd

Humanitarian assistance is not free/ Money is asked in exchange for assistance

Request of sexual favour/ exploitation in exchange for humanitarian assistance

b. By population groups

Request for civil documentation to access assistance Sexual harassment

iii. Number of covered communities having reported discrimination as a concern reg. the way humanitarian assistance was delivered in the last three months identifying population groups affected by discrimination

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

Old persons

Divorced women

Women living alone

Unaccompanied girls

Widows

Unaccompanied boys

Men living alone

Girls head of household

Persons with disabilities (HA)

Boys head of household

Women head of household

- - - -- - - -- - - -

Boys Girls Men Women

1 1 1 1

6 5 6 6

7 8 8 8


- - - -- - - --

2

-

3


- - - -- - - -

1 1

-

1


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Izra

Jasim

Hrak


As-Sanamayn

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Communities where concerns with delivery of humanitarian assistance are! Reported! NOT reported! Not covered in analysis

Assistance given is not what the community needs Request for civil documentation to access assistance Humanitarian assistance is not free/ Money is asked in exchange for assistance Request of sexual favour/ exploitation in exchange for humanitarian assistance Sexual harassmentDiscrimination/exclusion

Concerns with delivery of humanitarian assistance(Top 3 reported by most % communitiesin the sub-district)

iv. Map of top three concerns with delivery of humanitarian assistance in the last three months per sub-district (based on percentage ofcommunities reporting occurrence)


CONCERNS WITH DELIVERY OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE PER SUB-DISTRICT

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE CIVIL DOCUMENTATION

9. CIVIL DOCUMENTATION

a. Reasons for not having civil documentation

b. Type of document that is not possible to be obtained in the community

c. Impact of not having civil documentation

i. Percentage of communities identifying a specific impact of not having civil documents, out of those reporting the occurrence of lack/loss of civil documentation

i. Percentage of communities identifying a specific document that was not possible to obtain in the community, out of those reporting the occurrence of lack/loss of civil documentation

i. Percentage of communities identifying a specific reason for not having civil documentation, out of those reporting the occurrence of lack/loss of civil documentation

98%

88%

83%

61%

59%

59%

51%

49%

39%

34%

20%

Could not afford it

GoS Services not available

Concerns of approaching authority

Expired document

Lost

Left behind when fleeing

Didn’t attempt to obtain it

Counselling/legal services not available

Confiscated

Never had it

Another family member has possession of it

100%

100%

90%

90%

90%

88%

88%

88%

88%

88%

88%

88%

85%

Travel authorisation document

Deed/Tabou

Approval for lease agreement

Marriage Certificate

Disability ID

Death Certificate

Divorce record

Civil record (extract)

Birth Certificate

Family Booklet

Syrian ID

Passport

Residence support document

100%

98%

59%

56%

49%

46%

37%

Cannot register birth/marriage/death

Cannot register land/access transactions

Cannot claim property

Restricted freedom of movement

Unable to access basic services

Unable to access humanitarian assistance

Arrest

YES (lack/loss of

documentation is reported as occurring)

41 , 93%

NO (lack/loss of documentation is not reported

as occurring) 3 , 7%

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

NawaSheikhMiskineTas s il

As-Sanamayn

Ghabag heb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

QatanaSasa

Bait JanKisweh

Fiq

Al-Bu tayhah

Qu neitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

NOTE: The pie charts on the maps illu s trate the top three options reported in the s u b-dis trict, based on the percentag e of commu nities reporting eachoption as occu rring sometimes or more. They are NOT indicative of the frequ ency/severity of occu rrence. In s u b-dis tricts where the pie chart s howsmore than three options, it means that all displayed options were reported by the same percentag e of commu nities. In s u b-dis tricts where the pie chartshows les s than three options, it means that only displayed options were reported.

d. Map of top three reasons for not having civil documentation, per sub-district (based on percentage of communities reporting occurrence)

Communities where lack/loss of civil documentation is! Reported! NOT reported! Not covered in analysis

Concerns of approaching au thorityGoS Services not av ailableCou ns elling /leg al serv ices not av ailableNever had it

Didn’t attempt to obtain itAnother family member has pos s es s ion of itExpired docu mentCou ld not afford itConfiscatedLeft behind when fleeingLos t

Reasons for not havingcivil documentation(Top 3 reported by most % communities in the sub-district)

REASONS FOR NOT HAVING CIVIL DOCUMENTATION PER SUB-DISTRICT


ii. Map of top three types of documents that are not possible to obtain in the community, per sub-district (based on percentage ofcommunities reporting occurrence)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Izra

Jasim

Hrak

Nawa SheikhMiskine

Tassil


Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Mseifra

Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

Birth CertificateCivil record (extract)Marriage Certificate

Divorce recordFamily BookletDeath CertificateDisability IDSyrian ID

PassportTravel authorisation documentApproval for lease agreementDeed/TabouResidence support document

Communities where lack/loss of civil documention is! Reported! NOT reported! Not covered in analysis

Types of documentsthat are not possibleto obtain (Top 3 reportedby most % communitiesin the sub-district)

TYPES OF DOCUMENTS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN PER SUB-DISTRICT

SEUSSI YTREPORP DNA DNAL ,GNISUOHETARONREVOG ARTIENUQ

10. HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY ISSUES

a.Concerns regarding Housing, land and property (HLP)

ii. Map of top three HLP concerns per sub-district (based on percentage of communities reporting occurrence)NOTE: The pie charts on the maps illustrate the top three options reported in the sub-district, based on the percentage of communities reporting each option as occurring sometimes or more. They are NOT indicative of the frequency/severity of occurrence. In sub-districts where the pie chart shows more than three options, it means that all displayed options were reported by the same percentage of communities. In sub-districts where the pie chart shows less than three options, it means that only displayed options were reported.

i. Percentage of communities, identifying specific HLP concerns, by frequency of occurrence, out of those reporting the occurrence of HLP issues.

0.0%5.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%5.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0%

11% 0% 6% 6%17% 11%

0%0% 6%

78%

33%

61%71%

67% 72%78%

41%44%

11%

61%

33% 24% 17% 11% 17%

59% 50%

Damage of landor property

Looting of privateproperty

Property isunlawfully

occupied byothers

Disputedownership

Rental disputes(landlord/tenant

problems)

No housingavailable

Lack ofdocuments

Rules andprocesses on

housing and landnot clear orchanging

Cannotaccess/lost

access housingbecause can

afford it


YES (HLP issues are reported as occurring),

18 , 41%NO (HLP

issues are not reported as occurring), 26 , 59%

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

QUNEITRA

DARA

RURALDAMASCUS

Izra

Jasim

Hrak


As-Sanamayn

Masmiyyeh

Ghabagheb

Dara

KherbetGhazala

Ash-ShajaraDael

Mzeireb

Mseifra

Qatana

Sasa

Bait Jan Kisweh

J O R D A N

L E B A N O N

Fiq

Al-Butayhah

Quneitra

KhanArnaba

Al-Khashniyyeh

Masaada

Lack of documents

Damage of land or property

Looting of private property

No housing available

Disputed ownership

Rental disputes (landlord/tenant problems)

Property is unlawfully occupied by others

Rules and processes on housing and land not clear or changing

Cannot access/lost access housing because can afford it

Housing, land and propertyconcerns (Top 3 reportedby most % communitiesin the sub-district)

Communities where HLP issues are! Reported! NOT reported! Not covered in analysis

HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY CONCERNS PER SUB-DISTRICT

Documents

QUNEITRA GOVERNORATE: 1. POPULATION CATEGORIES 4 100,561 … · 4 100,561 48,720 1,074 0 6,023 Severity Number of sub-districts Total population People in Need IDPs Returnees In Besieged