A policy framework for trans-boundary wastewater issues along the Green Line, the Israeli-Palestinian border

Abstract

This paper surveys the current scope of wastewater facilities in Palestinian communities and discusses the immense challenges to achieving sustainable wastewater treatment facilities. Current Israeli water policy hinders effective regional solutions to trans-boundary wastewater issues. This paper proposes a less confrontational approach to solve common problems. The better management of bi-national wastewater resources could establish sustainable trans-boundary sanitation facilities. This would bring a range of benefits to health, the environment, and socio-economic life.

Full text

Page 1

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1723008


PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Al-Sáed, Rashed]
On: 9 December 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 930925383]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Environmental StudiesInternational Journal of Environmental Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713642046
A policy framework for trans-boundary wastewater issues along the GreenA policy framework for trans-boundary wastewater issues along the Green
Line, the Israeli-Palestinian borderLine, the Israeli-Palestinian border
Rashed Al-Sa‵eda
a Institute of Environmental and Water Studies, Birzeit University, Birzeit, Palestine
Online publication date: 08 December 2010
To cite this ArticleTo cite this Article Al-Sa‵ed, Rashed(2010) 'A policy framework for trans-boundary wastewater issues along the Green
Line, the Israeli-Palestinian border', International Journal of Environmental Studies, 67: 6, 937 — 954
To link to this Article: DOI: To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00207233.2010.528887
URL: URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2010.528887
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Page 2

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1723008
International Journal of Environmental Studies,
Vol. 67, No. 6, December 2010, 937–954
International Journal of Environmental Studies
ISSN 0020-7233 print: ISSN 1029-0400 online © 2010 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00207233.2010.528887
A policy framework for trans-boundary
wastewater issues along the Green Line, the
Israeli–Palestinian border
RASHED AL-SA`ED*
Institute of Environmental and Water Studies, Birzeit University, PO Box 14, Birzeit, Palestine
Taylor and FrancisGENV_A_528887.sgm
(Received 30 September 2010)
10.1080/00207233.2010.528887International Journal of Environmental Studies0020-7233 (print)/1029-0400 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis000 0000002010 RashedAl-Saedrsaed@birzeit.edu
The annual discharges of municipal wastewater across the Green Line (the Israeli–Palestinian border)
are causing a bi-national conflict with political, environmental, and economic dimensions. This paper
surveys the current scope of wastewater facilities in Palestinian communities and discusses the
immense challenges to achieving sustainable wastewater treatment facilities. Current Israeli water
policy hinders effective regional solutions to trans-boundary wastewater issues. This paper proposes
a less confrontational approach to solve common problems. The better management of bi-national
wastewater resources could establish sustainable trans-boundary sanitation facilities. This would
bring a range of benefits to health, the environment, and socio-economic life.
Keywords: Policy framework; Cost sharing; Effluent reuse; Global environmental issues, Green Line;
Regional wastewater treatment; Transboundary wastewater
1. Introduction
Trans-boundary water resources include not only freshwater flows, but also return flows (e.g.
wastewater), where changes in water quality along any flow pattern affect both the costs and
the potential use within the various socio-economic sectors. Sustainable management of all
water resources is essential and thus there is a need to develop a policy framework for trans-
boundary wastewater and water issues. Several technical and non-technical factors appear to
be behind unsustainable Palestinian wastewater treatment facilities. The related research
questions are: what are the major constraints behind advancing Palestinian wastewater infra-
structures; and how can we devise a policy framework for trans-boundary wastewater issues
in a conflict-ridden region; can there be sustainable bi-national wastewater facilities? This
paper uses a Palestinian–Israeli case on transboundary wastewater management along the
‘Green Line’, the border of the West Bank of Palestine with Israel, to explore these questions.
The increased population growth rate and rapid expansion of industrial and commercial
sites (exacerbated by periodic annual drought periods) have widened the gap between water
supply–demand balance in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), where treated
*Email: rsaed@birzeit.edu
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 3

938
R. Al-Sa`ed
wastewater as a non-conventional water source could help bridge the imbalance. Since Israel
began the occupation in 1967, the Palestinian people have had limited access to their land and
water resources and are dependent on Israel’s prior permissions and foreign donations to
establish their water and wastewater treatment facilities. A recent study by the World Bank
[1] revealed that about 35% of the Palestinian population has access to adequate sanitation
services. The use of cesspits and the discharge of raw sewage over land and into wadis
(seasonal dry streams) and the delay in project implementation contribute to serious public
health and environmental risks, reduce availability of limited water resources as aquifers are
polluted by wastewater, and reduce effective treated effluent use in agricultural irrigation [2–
4]. At present, the OPT has eight large urban wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) includ-
ing almost 300 onsite treatment plants. These serve mainly urban communities covering an
approximately 1.5 million population equivalent (PE), where the current total population of
the OPT is slightly more than three million. Al-Sa [ b p r i m e ]`ed [5,6] and Al-Sa[ b p r i m e ]`ed and Mubarak [7]
reported that the current urban and onsite WWTPs (aerated lagoons, hybrid aerobic-trickling
filter and constructed wetlands) are unsustainable and overloaded with aging infrastructures.
Technical and political constraints have hampered the use of treated effluent for agricultural
irrigation. The current practices of wastewater management have potential impacts on public
health, and the environment (soil, surface water and groundwater); see figure 1.
Decision-makers must confront questions of water and urban development in a context of
conflict; for that is how things are. The challenge is how to provide sustainable wastewater
treatment and reuse of treated wastewater in a sustainable way. This becomes more and more
complex, controversial and costly. Yet Palestinian officials must strive to meet expectations
for socio-economic improvement and cope with the rapid expansion of Palestinian urban
Figure 1.Major impacts of ineffective management of transboundary wastewater in Palestine.
Figure 1.Major impacts of ineffective management of transboundary wastewater in Palestine.
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 4

Trans-boundary wastewater cooperation
939
communities. There is limited access to available water resources, and they are overexploited
mainly by Israel. Thus, irrespective of the question of water resources mismanagement, the
use of reclaimed water, brackish and sea water desalination are core strategic water issues. In
addition, trans-boundary management of urban wastewater discharges through viable mecha-
nisms such as recharge and recovery and regional co-operation on major infrastructure needs
will become increasingly important. There is an obvious need for a policy framework for
trans-boundary wastewater (and water) issues.
Like water, trans-boundary wastewater ignores political borders, and competition over the
limited water resources including raw sewage/treated effluent has increased the risk of
conflict between Israel and the OPT. Indeed the competition increases the political tension.
Therefore, to understand the main challenges to developing a policy framework for adequate
wastewater management in the OPT, this study explores the case of Palestinian trans-bound-
ary urban wastewater discharges from the West Bank across the Green Line (into Israel). The
study area covers Palestinian urban communities that are situated upstream and are character-
ised by acute settings of asymmetry and political variability [8–11].
The study begins by considering the current status of wastewater management in Palestin-
ian urban communities. Next, we analyse past and current Israeli water policies, as barriers to
sustainable wastewater facilities in Palestine. We discuss the Tulkarem-Emek Hefer regional
sanitation initiative as an example of costs and benefits sharing. We discuss the polluter pays
principle (PPP), used by Israel as a political offset tool to solve the cost-sharing issues.
Finally, we offer conclusions and recommendations pertinent to effective joint co-operation
through a regional policy framework for future interventions at the defined Israeli–Palestinian
borders of the future.
2. Current status of wastewater management in Palestinian urban and rural
communities
Most of the existing wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in Palestine do not function very
well, with effluent quality exceeding the prescribed national effluent standards. This may
simply be due to overloading, but it can often be the result of the various factors associated
with improper physical design, faulty construction and insufficient system maintenance [5–7].
Table 1 summarises the historical development of wastewater management (sewerage
collection and treatment) under various eras, that is, during the Israeli occupation (1967–
1995) and under the rule of the Palestinian Authority (PA, 1995 to present). The development
of wastewater treatment facilities in Israel for the period 1948–2008 is in contrast. It is clear
that wastewater management in the OPT was fully neglected during the Israeli occupation
period (1967–1995), where only 20% of the total population were served centrally by sewer
networks and only 5% of collected sewage received physical and partial biological treatment.
All current sewage facilities, except Al-Bireh sewage works, were erected during the
Israeli occupation (1967–1995) and under the auspices of the ‘Civil Administration Depart-
ment’. Regrettably, this has neglected the improvement of quality and access to wastewater
infrastructure, has not brought cost recovery and efficiency into their operation and has not
promoted any building capacity programs for wastewater services in line with water practices
and policies as practised in Israel. A recent World Bank (WB) report explores Israel’s neglect
to provide access to safe sanitation services and the adverse impacts associated with this
decision [1]. The negative impacts on surface water bodies and annual degradation in ground-
water quality were also documented recently by Cohen et al. [9] and Hareuveni [10].
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 5

940
R. Al-Sa`ed
During periods of peace and stability, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was able to erect
only one urban sewage works in Al-Bireh city, with pre-conditions that the nearby Israeli
settlements must be connected to the sewage treatment facility. In this regard, the PA
applied three main strategies to promote wide sanitation services coverage and enhance the
performance of current wastewater treatment facilities to comply with national prescribed
effluent quality standards: viz. a) new erection, b) retrofitting and c) upgrading WWT
schemes. Table 2 illustrates the efforts made by the PWA to plan, upgrade and rehabilitate
the existing WTPs for municipal wastewater treatment in Palestine. The emphasis generally
was on integrated pollution control in the upgrading schemes, in which all aspects such as
effluent quality standard, sludge disposal, level of technology, ease of upgrading, odour
control, land availability, maintenance, cost-effective and other non-financial factors have
been considered.
Table 2 shows that 40% (1.5 million) of the total urban population in the OPT have access
to central sewer networks, but only 48% of the total annual collected wastewater is being
partially treated (secondary treatment) in owned Palestinian sewage works, whereas more
than 30% of the annually collected sewage is being treated within Israel. Under the Status
column in the table, it is obvious that the current sewage works are either overloaded or under
the ‘waiting game’ for Israeli final approval.
3. Management of trans-boundary wastewater discharges
3.1. Wastewater management in urban communities along the Israeli–Palestinian ‘border’
In arid and semi-arid regions, wastewater is a key component of the water cycle that can be
treated and reused for a variety of non-potable uses. Treated effluent (water) can be used to
water parks, for agricultural purposes, to revitalise heavily polluted streams. In general, this
approach conserves the limited quantities of drinkable water available; potable water is not
wasted on tasks for which the treated/reclaimed effluent is useful and adequate.
Table 1. Historical development of sanitation service coverage under various regimes (Israeli occupation period
and under the Palestinian Authority rulea
Responsible party Population servedYears Service (%) per year
Within Israel (1948–2008)
Sewerage networks
Centralized WWTPs
Within OPT-WB (1967–1995)
Sewerage networks
Centralised WWTPs
Legal and administrative bodies
Mekorot (Israeli Water Company):
Palestinian Authority (1995–2008)
Sewerage networks
Centralized WWTPs
Legal and administrative bodies
Palestinian Water Authority (PWA):
95%
90%
60
60
1.6
1.5
20%
5%
28
28
0.7
0.2
Established 1937Israeli Water Law 1957
20% 13
13
1.5
5.8 46% (+33% in Israel)
Established 1995Palestinian Water Law 2002
aIt should be noted that the Palestinian Authority does not have the complete freedom to implement development projects as needed.
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 6

Trans-boundary wastewater cooperation
941
Table 2.
Palestinian management efforts to improve wastewater (WW) treatment facilitiesx
District
Capita (#)
Served (%)
Capita (#)
WW (m3/d)
Treatment system
Year
Status
Activity type
Al-Bireh
50,000
85.8
42,900
4719
Extended aeration
2000
Operational
Upgraded 2008
Ramallah
35,000
74.6
26,110
2872
Aerated Lagoons
1973
Overloaded
Upgraded 2003
Nablus
150,000
82.9
124,350
14,300
Extended aeration
2000
Tendering 09
New WWTP/2020
Hebron
257,000
82.1
210,997
24,265
Conventional ASSb
2001
Pending
Regional WWTP
Tulkarm
93,000
68.3
63,519
6352
Aerated Lagoons
1975
Pending
Upgraded 2000
Salfit
25,000
65.6
16,400
1394
Planned ASSb
2000
Pending
No funding
Qalqilia
20,000
70.5
14,100
1199
No WWTP
2000
Pending
Regional WWTP
Jenin
52,000
66.5
34,580
3458
Aerated Lagoons
1972
Pending
Upgraded 1994
Beit Lahia
299,000
68.5
204,845
16,341
Aerated Lagoons
1979
Overloaded
Upgraded 2008
Gaza city
545,000
79.0
430,550
48,243
Parallel TFsc/EAd
1977
Overloaded
Upgraded /86/98
Rafah
184,000
95.3
175,335
20,000
Aerated Lagoons
1978
Overloaded
Upgraded 2009
Bethlehem
84,000
91.2
76,608
8810
No WWTP
2001
Non
No funding
Jerusalema
115,000
80.8
92,920
10,686
No WWTP
2001
Non
No funding
Khan Yunis
120,000
75
90,000
10,350
No WWTP
2000
Non
No funding
Total PE
1,710,000
1,513,214
175,580
aJerusalem East; bASS: activated sludge system; cTFs: trickling filters; dEA: extended aeration system.
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 7

942
R. Al-Sa`ed
Figure 2 presents a general view of three locations of small trans-boundary wadis (small
streams), that receive wastewater discharges and which cross the Green Line. About 20% of
the total population served by central sewer networks reside in Palestinian urban communi-
ties having trans-boundary wastewater discharge into Israel. Most of the 15 major rivers
Figure 2.Location of Palestinian WWTPs and receiving surface water bodies.
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 8

Trans-boundary wastewater cooperation
943
(streams) in Israel have seasonal tributaries originating in the West Bank, and five of them
originate in the West Bank. These are: Wadi Mugata’ (Jenin district), Wadi Zaimer (Nablus-
Tulkarm districts), Wadi Zhor (Qalqilia district), Wadi An-Nar (Hebron district) and Wadi
Mahbas (Ramallah district).
The management of wastewater in the Israeli settlements is not within the scope of this
paper. But it is notable that the settlements refuse to share in the capital investment costs or
even to pay the wastewater tariff; although they benefit by being connected to the Palestinian
sewage works.
If a WWTP proposal is technically approved by the Joint-Israeli-Palestinian Water
Committee (according to the Oslo Agreement of 1995), this does not automatically mean
direct implementation. Final approval really rests with the ‘military orders’ granted by the
‘Civil Administration’, still valid for the West Bank. This body usually takes years to issue a
permit for construction; for example, more than 10 years for Nablus and Hebron.
More than 33% of the annual collected urban wastewater (73.7 mcm/year) from Palestinian
communities is being treated in Israeli wastewater treatment plants. The treated effluent is
further reclaimed for various applications within Israel, mainly for unrestricted agricultural
irrigation and water for nature purposes (river rehabilitation and landscape recreation). The
Palestinian Authority (PA) has no share in the economic and environmental benefits from the
treated or reclaimed effluent that is of Palestinian origin [12].
Schalimtzek and Fischhendler [13] investigated the feasibility of the Polluter Pays Principle
(PPP) as a cost sharing tool for the treatment of Palestinian trans-boundary wastewater from
the West Bank that crosses the Green Line ‘Border’ to Israel. They found that under conflict
Figure 2.Location of Palestinian WWTPs and receiving surface water bodies.
Table 3.Asymmetry and political conflict on transboundary wastewater management options (modified after
Schalimtzek and Fischhendler, 2009)
Background conditionsEffect on suggested/adopted solutions
International
politics
Escalating conflictPeace process halted and
JWCa stopped meeting
- Unilateral solutions endorsed
- Israeli insistence on PA wastewater
treatment despite delayed process
approval
- Israeli insistence on PPP leading to
adoption of extreme PPP regulations
- Reclaimed water used by Israel alone
- Location of wastewater projects inside
Israel, and no approval for PWA projects
- Project first paid by local authorities and
next activation of offset mechanism
- Cost sharing without benefits; refuses
offset
- Israeli military orders enacted causing
delay in implementation of Palestinian
projects
- Separate plants proposed or implemented
- Emergency projects with high treatment
standards
- Israel deducted operation costs from
Palestinian taxation collected by Israel
- Inferior downstream solutions (upstream
in Wadi An-Nar-Kidron)
More emphasis on ‘high
politics’
Unstable security
conditions
Internal Politics Pressure for unilateral actions by Israeli
settlements/local agencies
Palestinian Authority has no role
Economic
Environmental
Lack of economies of scale
Acute need to prevent pollution
aJWC: Joint Water Committee.
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 9

944
R. Al-Sa`ed
conditions with strong political and economic asymmetries Israel opted for the extreme form
of the PPP. It is evident that lack of a transparent political framework and the immense pressure
applied by many Israeli internal actors in the environmental decision-making process have
resulted in disagreement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides as to a feasible cost-sharing
system.
Table 3 illustrates how Israel[ b p r i m e ]`s application of the PPP did not achieve environmentally
sound solutions on trans-boundary wastewater management. Instead, the current Israeli water
practices have advanced environmental alternatives that deviate from a fair PPP under a
dominating regional conflict and asymmetrical power conditions.
4. Current practices of effluent disposal into the receiving water bodies
4.1. Regional water treaties between Israeli and Palestinian sides
Tal [13] explored several trans-boundary stream restorations and wastewater treatment stan-
dards among five main Israeli/Palestinian trans-boundary streams and analysed the actual
capability of current Israeli laws and regulatory tools to resolve them. Among the main 10
Israeli water pollution control laws and orders is the Sewage Effluents Standards (SES). The
1992 SES (Public Health Ordinance) were based on European standards. The SES assumed a
considerable degree of dilution in receiving surface water bodies. The standards unfortu-
nately do not take into consideration the site-specific vulnerability of groundwater and the
existing water quality of many streams. Yet most of these streams have seasonal water flows,
if any, or are composed entirely of wastewater.
With almost 95% sewerage coverage, Israel uses annually about 300 mcm (75% of treated
effluent) in agricultural irrigation and has the status of a ‘world leader’ in reclaimed effluent
reuse. The present ‘20/30’ rule for BOD/TSS set for effluent discharge into receiving waters
and reuse for agricultural irrigation was effective in health risk reduction. But, Gabbay [14]
reported that the recommendations made by the Israeli ‘Inbar’ inter-ministerial committee
entailed efforts to update the current effluent disposal standards. For comparison, Table 4 lists
selected major parameters highlighting the huge variations between Israeli and Palestinian
Standards for Effluent Disposal for agricultural irrigation and discharge into surface water
bodies.
Based on the Israeli security and trans-boundary water management [13], Israeli–Palestin-
ian agreements (or Memoranda of Understanding, MoU) were enacted, constituting the
outline of an official water management system [15]. The MoU impose Israeli effluent quality
standards with BOD/TSS of the 20/30 rule. The Palestinian WWTP should comply with these
standards during the first phase of implementation. But, the WWTPs effluent should comply
with more stringent level of standards (10/10) during the second phase of implementation,
given a period of five years as a construction phase to erect an advanced filtration stage. This
is evident from the approval protocol for the Tulkarm and Nablus-West WWTPs [15]. The
adequacy of the standards remains controversial as even the less stringent ‘Inbar Standards’
remain debatable, due to the huge financial burdens associated with their implementation and
the objections to their adoption by the Israeli Ministries of Finance and Interior.
At present, the current 20/30 standard is still valid as the level of treatment required for
wastewater treatment in Israel. It would seem that before Israel begins to impose new strin-
gent effluent standards on the Palestinian wastewater management facilities, it should first
enact those applying to its own treatment facilities [16]. Because of increased public debates
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 10

Trans-boundary wastewater cooperation
945
on water policy paradigms [17], the Israeli water policy network has been first adapted
during the nineties (1991–1997) to deal with the discrepancy between adverse environmental
impacts and the level of Israeli administrative control in order to solve the global (regional)
environmental problems. Until late 1994, the ideological dominance of Zionism, the agricul-
ture-affiliated Water Commissioner and the excessive political power of the agricultural
sector were institutionalised in the water policy network. On the other hand, Menahem [18]
believed that the peace process and the water sector privatisation, both taking place outside
the water policy network, might force a change in Israeli water policy. Indeed, the real
progress in the peace endeavours between the Israeli and Palestinian governments and their
capacity to generate a viable regional water treaty to escape the trap of their current one,
should lead to actual change in Israeli water policy.
4.2. Tulkarm-Nablus/Emek Hefer Regional Council: a case on trans-boundary wastewater
management
There is a lack of research studies on long-term environmental impacts from the discharge of
raw wastewater of upstream Palestinian communities and the possible adverse impacts on the
performance of the Yad Hanna wastewater treatment plant (YHWWTP). This fact poses a real
challenge due to technical and socio-cultural differences within the Palestinian–Israeli
‘border’ region and the varying powers and responsibilities among local councils and govern-
mental agencies from both countries. The challenge, on the Palestinian side, is depicted in the
capacity to erect and manage their own WWTPs as well as the willingness of the Palestinian
farmers to accept and pay for the reclaimed effluent. The willingness of the Israeli side is only
to share the benefits from the reclaimed effluent and the management of regional WWTPs
exacerbates the challenge. To overcome this challenge, there will be the development of an
Environmental Management System (EMS) for YHWWTP, where an initial environmental
Table 4. Israeli and Palestinian standards for effluent disposal in various applications
Israeli Standards 2002Palestinian Standards 2002
ParameterUnit
Unrestricte
d Irrigation
Surface Water
(Rivers)
Unrestricted
Irrigation
Surface Water
(Rivers)
BOD
TSS
COD
Ammonia-N
Total-N
Total-P/PO4-P
SO4
Chloride
Sodium
Fecal coliforms
Boron
Hydrocarbons
Anionic detergents
Total Oil
pH
Dissolved O2
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
10
10
10
10
70
1.5
10
0.2
–
400
200
200
–
20
30
–
100
20
20
200
5 50
5 30
500
500
200
< 200
0.7
0.002
15
5
–1000
–
–
<1000
250
150
10
0.4
–
2
–
6.5–8.5
< 0.5
CFU/100 ml
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
[–]
mg/l
2
11
0.525
10
6–9
> 1
15
6.5–8.5
< 3
6–9
> 0.5
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 11

946
R. Al-Sa`ed
assessment (IEA) of the discharge of raw sewage from Palestinian urban areas including indus-
trial facilities along Wadi Zaimer shall be made. The IEA should aim at identifying environ-
mental issues and the most likely significant environmental aspects (SEAs); which can have
significant impacts (positive or negative) on the receiving environment. Because of the scope
and breadth of activities at the JHWWTP, the SEA identification process will reveal a range
of environmental aspects from Palestinian communities over which it has little or no control.
Since the JHWWTP receives wastewater from Palestinian urban areas, some SEAs identified
would be the ones that are not within the control of the WWTP, but which it could perhaps
influence (figure 3).
The Israeli government’s Sewage Infrastructure Development Administration is the
agency charged with determining the charges. It liaises with the Israeli Ministry of Finance’s
Chairman’s office to implement the deductions and make arrangements for them to be trans-
ferred to the respective Israeli local authorities. The basis for the deductions appears to be
vested in the unilateral decision made by the Israeli Ministerial Committee for Social and
Economic Affairs (6/ 01/ 03) that funds should be deducted from the PA for treating waste-
water of Palestinian origin that flowed into Israeli territory [13]. Indeed, the PA, the JWC and
the PWA did not play any role in the development of this charging system. The Protocol
provisions (Article 40, the water treaty signed by the two parties) for charging for water
supply services lack such provisions for wastewater services. Schalimtzek and Fischhendler
[11] reported that the Israeli government opted in January 2003 for the application of an
offset mechanism to balance the treatment costs of wastewater of Palestinian origin, similar
to the health and water supply services. This Israeli unilateral action allowed the construction
of ‘emergency projects’. Currently, the annual capital and operational expenditures for the
downstream solutions (e.g. Wadi Zaimer [Alexander river] and Wadi An-Nar-Hebron) are
being deducted from the Palestinian taxation money collected and held by Israel [11].
Figure 3. Tulkarm-Nablus/Emek Hefer council a case on transboundary wastewater treatment.
Figure 3. Tulkarm-Nablus/Emek Hefer council a case on transboundary wastewater treatment.
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 12

Trans-boundary wastewater cooperation
947
5. Regional wastewater agreements between Israeli and Palestinian sides
A similar case on the development of an Environmental Management System (EMS) is the
Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP) to deal with the management of
the real and potential trans-boundary environmental impacts from Mexico to the USA. The
NIWTP was able not only to influence but control the treatment of sewage from Mexico that
was found to contain industrial and infectious waste. The EMS teams focused on the inputs
of its processes and found proper methods to work with the upstream entities across the
USA–Mexico border to manage the SEAs and minimise the pollution loads at the source
through cleaner production processes [19].
One specific challenge for the YHWWTP is to meet the Israeli standards for an effluent
discharge permit for restricted irrigation use and for discharge into the Alexander River, a
surface water body. Of particular concern are the total suspended solids (TSS), ammonium
and high oil/grease content of the influent coming from Tulkarem city and Nablus-West
(Wadi Zaimer). Because of the strict Israeli regulatory issues (10/10; mg/L TSS and BOD,
respectively) and the potential for contaminating the underlying aquifer, treated effluent
became a significant factor. Although the effluent has overall a positive environmental
impact on the riparian habitat of the Alexander River by providing regular annual flow (water
for nature) for what would otherwise be a dry and seasonal small stream bed, the effluent has
appeared to limit populations of some wildlife, including invertebrates and fish.
Figure 4 illustrates the annual operational expenditures (OPEX) for the operation, mainte-
nance and repair of the JHWWTP (around US$4 million for the period 2004–2008). Israel
deducts the expenditures from Palestinian tax money. The JHWWTP was erected by the use
of Palestinian tax money that Israel should transfer to the Palestinian Ministry of Finance.
The installation of advanced pre-treatment units (flocculation/coagulation) to reduce high
organic and inorganic pollution loads of the influent is associated with high annual capital
and running costs, exceeding 40% of the total OPEX. The PA refused all receipts sent by the
Israeli Water and Sewerage Authority for many reasons. The Israeli official authorities’
financial claims are not supported by signed bilateral agreements and they do not fulfil legal
requirements. The establishment of the JHWWTP, paid with Palestinian taxes of about US$5
million, was a unilateral Israeli action characterised as an emergency solution (while
Figure 4.
controlled by Israel.
Annual operational expenditures (OPEX) exempted from Palestinian tax refunds collected and
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 13

948
R. Al-Sa`ed
currently claimed as a ‘status quo’). This forced the Palestinian side to pay for annual trans-
boundary wastewater quantities [11–13].
As mentioned above, the costs of water degradation of the Wadi Zaimer (tributary of the
Alexander river in Israel) as well as the benefits from the development (erection of JHWWTP
on the Israeli side) of the Wadi Zaimer are not evenly distributed among the Israeli and Pales-
tinian sides. Therefore, a bi-national agreement on trans-boundary wastewater management
based on an integrated watershed management, with mutual benefits for both sides and devel-
oped in an international framework might resolve the current technical and political conflict.
Indeed, creation of an atmosphere of increasing concern about the long-term effects of hazard-
ous pollutants and a sensitive public awareness that pollutants cross national boundaries and
infiltrate into shared aquifers, might promote the suggested bi-national agreement on cross-
border wastewater. Israel has deducted more than $34 million over the past 14 years (1994–
2008). This deduction is made from the reimbursements allotted to the Palestinian Authority
paid as custom/trade taxes, that are collected by Israel at all import and export points controlled
by Israel. Under the EMS framework, both sides must work towards minimising any environ-
mental impact through programs that increase bi-national cooperation, stakeholder engage-
ment, and best practices to implement environmental management programs.
Figure 4.Annual operational expenditures (OPEX) exempted from Palestinian tax refunds collected and controlled by Israel.
6. Israeli water policy towards transboundary wastewater management
Environmental policy aims to make environmental standards obligatory for all members of a
society. The duty of environmental economists has been to study the most efficient and cheap-
est way to achieve targets set by others. Israel’s environmental policy on sanitation services in
general and trans-boundary wastewater management, in particular, has the following economic
efficiency criterion: a given target or output has to be achieved by a minimum input at minimum
costs. This principle is only useful in cases where clear environmental rules and guidelines can
be defined. It is often not possible to determine exactly which interventions into nature are
environmentally sound. The relationships between ecological and economic systems from the
local up to the global level are too complex to set proper standards for many pollutants.
Additionally, the Israeli water policy does not adapt economic behaviour to principles of
ecological system development. Previous studies [18] indicated that in spite of the prevailing
severe water crises, the current Israeli water policy prioritises the expansion of agricultural
sector (price subsidies on water) over preserving the scarce water resources (decline in water
national planning). Yet a dynamic water policy should aim to encourage this kind of adapta-
tion for precautionary reasons. This would depend on the political will to change the present
‘economic behaviour’. The Israeli Finance Ministry has tried to reach the maximum financial
output, thinking in conventional, limited economic efficiency terms. The focus is not on
specific environmental targets that have to be sustainably achieved, but rather on a specific
ideology-based development target that will change the economic patterns of local develop-
ment. This approach maximises a kind of economic advantage, but not a long-term advan-
tage; because it fails to consider the ecological principles in the upstream riparian areas
where downstream environmental problems arise from economic activities on both sides. In
addition, the Israeli environmental policies and management regimes along the Green Line
are different and seldom if ever take the Palestinian socio-economic system into consider-
ation in order to facilitate regional acceptance [16].
Figure 5 depicts schematically the current Israeli water (wastewater) policy with the acting
influential official institutions and the various tools applied to delay the establishment of
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 14

Trans-boundary wastewater cooperation
949
wastewater infrastructures in Palestine. The associated adverse impacts pertain to socio-
economical and community development.
The figure depicts the principle of control, check and isolate (CCI), where Israel has
succeeded (both now and in the past) in applying resistance and inflexibility. This policy has
cast burdens onto the PA, and NGOs, and donors, thus impeding the provision of adequate
sanitation services in the OPT. Figure 5 draws on the methodological issues applied by the
current Israeli water policy in the promotion of unilateral actions. The figure also illustrates
the main Israeli influential water related agencies and refers to the contexts in which the ICC
methodology and tax exception decisions are made. Selby [20] analysed the Oslo II regime
regarding the joint management of the West Bank’s water resources, sanitation systems and
water supplies; arguing that this regime is evidence of ‘joint mismanagement’, as the struc-
ture of the Oslo peace process did not allow promotion of effective institutions and ‘good
governance’ in the water and wastewater sectors and thus was not a good model for joint
Israeli–Palestinian water management. Israel succeeded in claiming that the PA is not willing
or is making no effort to prevent any harm to water resources [1,8,10].
It is argued that lack of governance mechanisms that allow flexibility in the implementa-
tion of the current water treaty has fuelled the political conflict between Israel and the PA.
This is reflected by the absence of stream-wide planning programmes or regional decision
authorities. Indeed, lack of a regional water treaty has caused annual increment in water
pollution, environmental degradation and reduction in the quality of water resources. This
has adversely affected both human and ecosystem health in both Israel and OPT. Therefore,
policy approaches favouring only environmental standards based on analytical data obtained
Figure 5.Israeli water policy regarding transboundary wastewater from Palestinian communities.
Figure 5.Israeli water policy regarding transboundary wastewater from Palestinian communities.
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010

Page 15

950
R. Al-Sa`ed
from short-term scientific research and uncertainty are of little help. They do not sufficiently
reflect knowledge of complex interactions in natural systems with seasonal flow, and so
cannot determine exactly precise standards, or past and continuing processes. The presence
of numerous national and regional authorities (upstream/downstream) along the flow of
regional streams with diverse, conflicting interests hampered the development of unified
stream quality standards and creates disincentives for cooperative behaviour. Global environ-
mental problems call for an environmental policy that encompasses a process orientation
while considering ecological principles of system development [21]. This again points to the
need for a joint policy framework on trans-boundary wastewater (water) issues between
Israel and Palestine.
6.1. Co-operation for sustainable trans-boundary wastewater management
The intention of this study is to develop a policy framework for managing trans-boundary
wastewater by peaceful agreement, rather than to provide comprehensive solutions for
regional freshwater disputes among riparians. More detailed scholarly literature on
freshwater disputes (conflict and cooperation) and bi-national agreements can be found in,
for example, Wolf [22] and Mostert [23]. The use of natural water resources has been the
subject of many fruitful joint initiatives with neighbouring countries worldwide (Europe and
USA), but not in the Middle East [24]. Trans-boundary projects have enabled efficient
management of water courses, improvement of the quality of lakes and rivers, the develop-
ment of tourism and the preservation of biodiversity. Based on six years’ experience in
Hungary, Marczin [25] reported that trans-boundary co-operation had included discussion
and transforming opportunities for exchange and joint management of natural resources for
the well-being of the local population. Any trans-boundary co-operation between Israel and
Palestine requires national and regional multi-functional management of the land and water
bodies through well-coordinated bi-national institutions. Throughout history, harmonious
relationships with one’s neighbours have been a prerequisite for the economic, social, envi-
ronmental and cultural development of any country.
Tal [13] and Caponera [26] have written much about water law and administration but
there are still many unanswered questions. Since law is made by legislators – and not really
by academic lawyers – there are many difficulties. Indeed, the whole problem of Israel–
Palestine relations is not unique, if one considers the potential conflicts over the allocation of
the Nile (many African countries), the control of the Ganges (countries in the Indian sub-
continent), or even disputes within one country (Australia) over the Murray-Darling river
system. Perhaps the Israel-Palestine problem is worsened by the damming of the headwaters
of the Euphrates (Turkey) since this will very likely have adverse impacts throughout the
region. Here is the challenge for international law, legislators and water lawyers – to develop
the legal instruments which will enable nations to carry out such difficult water management
policies which include reallocation of water and may involve complex legal issues of owner-
ship and compensation. This is obviously a problem with regard to the Nile.
Establishing a trans-boundary dialogue and mutual trust after 42 years of Israeli military
occupation and associated conflicts and enabling local actors to manage shared natural
resources in a sustainable way should be the main tasks of any planned regional project in the
Israeli–Palestinian areas. Israel has stable human and financial resources but it is surrounded
by threats of a variable nature, among which is the dispute on water and wastewater issues with
neighbouring countries: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria. This core threat can be
solved through viable partnerships, inter-municipal and fair co-operative agreements [27]. The
Downloaded By: [Al-Sáed, Rashed] At: 04:47 9 December 2010