David J.H. Phillips, Shaddad Attili, Factors Relating to the Equitable Distribution of Water in Palestine and Israel David J.H. Phillips, Shaddad Attili, Stephen McCaffrey and John S. Murray 11 October 2004

Coverage of the Presentation Background – the Interim Agreement (Oslo II) The current inequitable distribution of water The basis for future allocations Customary international water law – basic principles Reallocation and the transition period The future management of shared water resources Conclusions

Background The current inequitable distribution of water The basis for future allocations Customary international water law – basic principles Reallocation and the transition period The future management of shared water resources Conclusions

An overview of shared water resources: Israel and Palestine share the Jordan River with three other riparian countries: Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Israel and Palestine also share four groundwater aquifer basins, three in the West Bank, and one in the Gaza Strip. The last of these is the Coastal Aquifer and lies in part under the Gaza Strip, extending along the Mediterranean coast.

Background The Declaration of Principles (1993) cited the “equitable distribution” of water as an objective. The Interim Agreement (1995) provided minor additional water volumes to Palestine, for the late 1990s. The region remains water-stressed and a fair agreement on water allocation is needed as part of the bilateral Permanent Status Agreement.

Background The current inequitable distribution of water The basis for future allocations Customary international water law – basic principles Reallocation and the transition period The future management of shared water resources Conclusions

The Present Inequitable Water Distribution 2,170 Israeli settler 1,500 Israeli settler 1,000 Palestine (3.6 million) 1,000 1,000 Total Consumption Annually (MCM) Israel (6.7 million) Per capita consumption (m3/year) 620 Palestinian Palestinian 500 500 280 140 125 Entire Population WEST BANK GAZASTRIP

North-eastern Aquifer Western Aquifer Total Article 40 , The Interim Allocation and the Additional Quantity- West Bank Palestinian “Oslo II allocation” from the aquifers in the West Bank and actual Palestinian use. All data as MCM/yr. Eastern Aquifer North-eastern Aquifer Western Aquifer Total Oslo II Article 40 64 (+ 78) 42 22 128 (+78) Only 23 MCM has been made available through the interim period. 5 MCM to Gaza? Approval for new wells (20 MCM). Current utilization 1999- 2003 from the West Bank 62 30 22 114 .

Background The current inequitable distribution of water The basis for future allocations Customary international water law – basic principles Reallocation and the transition period The future management of shared water resources Conclusions

The Basis for Future Allocations [1] The Johnston Plan is outdated and is not based on currently accepted principles. The Interim Agreement will be replaced by a new Permanent Status Agreement. The Parties are not constrained by Oslo II. A new agreement is therefore required, and this should be based on accepted principles shown to be successful elsewhere.

The Basis for Future Allocations [2] There is no viable precedent (or rationale) for unequal shares of water to two populations in the same region. International authorities have laid down minimum requirements for water, and the availability of water to Palestinians falls far short of these at present. Professor Hillel Shuval proposed equal per capita shares of water to the two populations in 1992, and again more recently. This principle of equal per capita allocations is supported.

The Basis for Future Allocations [3] Dr. Uri Shamir stated in House of Representatives hearings in the USA (May 2004) that desalination is the only solution to the future provision of fresh water to the Palestinian population. This apparently relates both to the West Bank and Gaza. The Israeli side has consistently argued that “there is no more water” and that reallocation of the existing resource is not possible. We believe that this is not acceptable, and an alternative option is proposed here.

The Israeli View in Camp David Perpetuate the current inequitable allocation and provide funding for new water to enhance Palestine’s share New Overall Water Allocation New Israel Israel Palestine Palestine

The Palestinian View (Step 1) Reallocate the existing water resources, generating equitable allocations Overall Water Allocation Israel Israel Palestine Palestine

The Palestinian View ( Step 2) Develop and allocate the “new water” - note that the end point is the same as in the Israeli approach New Overall Water Allocation New Israel Israel Palestine Palestine

Background The current inequitable distribution of water The basis for future allocations Customary international water law – basic principles Reallocation and the transition period The future management of shared water resources Conclusions

Customary International Water Law Equitable and reasonable use of shared (international) watercourses. Avoidance of “significant harm” to the party/parties sharing the resource. Prior notification of developments or activities threatening the shared resource. These are respected internationally and their relevance does not depend on the signature of treaties. Israel has recognized equitable distribution as an international principle of relevance on several occasions.

Background The current inequitable distribution of water The basis for future allocations Customary international water law – basic principles Reallocation and the transition period The future management of shared water resources Conclusions

Reallocation and the Transition Period The signature of an agreement based on equitable and reasonable use will not have immediate effect, for various reasons, e.g.: - paucity of infrastructure; - rate of return of refugees [to Palestine]; - repopulation of evacuated areas; - growth in demand in various sectors. A lengthy period will therefore be available for Israel to adjust its development of “new water” to compensate for water ceded to Palestine in the agreement.

Palestinian demand matches the water rights Equitable share for Israel The Israeli share of the total resources as at the date of signature of the Agreement is reduced, but Israel has time to develop new water to compensate for this. The total available water resource is maintained over time, as a result. Palestinian demand matches the water rights Water Allocation Date of signature of the Agreement The Palestinian share of the total resources as at the date of signature of the Agreement increases over time, to meet the volume agreed as the water rights of the Palestinians. Equitable share for Palestine The transition period Time

Background The current inequitable distribution of water The basis for future allocations Customary international water law – basic principles Reallocation and the transition period The future management of shared water resources Conclusions

The Management of Shared Resources Both Parties will wish to ensure that a Permanent Status Agreement is respected. Joint management of the shared resources is the only intelligent solution. A comprehensive monitoring system will be required, with real-time data availability at key nodes (through telemetry). The Parties should agree annual abstraction volumes from each of the shared resources, based on the principle of sustainable use. Each Party will have a responsibility for the sustainable management of all resources.

Background The current inequitable distribution of water The basis for future allocations Customary international water law – basic principles Reallocation and the transition period The future management of shared water resources Conclusions

Conclusions [1] Water stress is experienced by all countries in the region. A fair agreement on water must be included in the Permanent Status Agreement. The present water distribution is deeply inequitable and unreasonable. Equal per capita allocations of water should be the preferred starting point. The provision of “new water” from desalination to the Palestinian side is not an acceptable solution.

Conclusions [2] Customary international water law calls for the equitable and reasonable allocation of shared water resources. This can be attained without harm to Israel, because of the existence of the transition period. There is therefore great scope for a fair agreement between the Parties. Joint management of the shared water resources is inevitable if the agreement is to be effective.

This is in the interest of both Parties. Conclusions [3] The attainment of a fair agreement on water can support peace initiatives, and will assist in defusing conflict. This is in the interest of both Parties.