TWWG: ISRAEL AND PA GRAPPLE OVER WATER PROJECTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L TEL AVIV 002682 SIPDIS DEPT FOR NEA/RA, NEA/IPA AND OES/E AMMAN FOR ESTH USDA FOR FAS/OCBD E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/08/2014 TAGS: SENV PREL IS PS SUBJECT: TWWG: ISRAEL AND PA GRAPPLE OVER WATER PROJECTS Classified By: Econ Counselor David R. Burnett, Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 1.(C) SUMMARY. Israel Water Authority and Palestinian Water Authority chiefs met on November 17, marking ongoing coordination on water supply issues, but evidencing considerable disagreement regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of the present consultative structure. Although a Joint Water Commission (JWC) meeting preceeding the Trilateral Water Working Group (TWWG) produced a number of awaited approvals (particularly on pending USAID projects),PWA officials used much of the allotted two hours to criticize the cumbersome Israeli procedures for approving water supply and wastewater treatment activities in the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli officials asked for better PWA operational management and more PWA and USAID attention to wastewater problems. As a means to increase the utility and accountability of the TWWG process, both parties agreed that the TWWG should meet more often, perhaps quarterly, and a brief report on the status of actionable items agreed to, be circulated after the meetings. Comment: The meeting reflected aspects of the larger political tensions of the present Israeli/PA situation, however the two parties continue to work within the JWC framework as it is the principal mechanism to cope with the increasingly dire water shortage. End Summary and Comment. ¶2. (C) On November 17, NEA/RA Science and Technology Advisor Shaunfield chaired the TWWG at USAID offices in Tel Aviv. Uri Shani, Director of the Israeli Water and Sewage Authority, headed the GOI delegation which included representatives from COGAT and Mekerot; Shaddad Attili, Chairman of the Palestinian Water Authority, led the PA delegation, and on the U.S. side Shaunfield was joined by Embassy Econ Counselor, USAID D/Director and infrastructure officer, and ESTOffs from the Embassy and ConGen Jerusalem. 3.(C) Following initial opening statements, Attili offered a lengthy criticism of Israeli procedures for approving water projects in the West Bank. In effect, the Israeli side at the JWC first requires a policy approval and thereafter a Joint Technical Commission approval. When the JWC approves a project, the donors are ready to put the project out to contract for implementation. However, when projects are located in Area C of the West Bank or in a sensitive area such as a nature reserve, additional approvals are required. These added delays frustrate both the PA and donors, including USAID who find the prices offered on negotiated contracts expiring during delays, and always face fiscal year deadlines. Once a project is fully approved, however, the problem of getting the needed construction materials into the West Bank or Gaza opens another range of delays due to Israeli security concerns. ¶4. (C) The IWA response was to suggest donors apply for the technical approvals before the policy approval, but this created confusion about the sequencing of the whole process. The Israelis acknowledged that it was a serious problem, but claimed that changing the system of approvals would require renegotiating the Agreement which governs the JWC process. The COGAT representative on the Israeli delegation denied that construction materials were needlessly held up, and cited a list of materials approved for the World Bank Gaza wastewater treatment project in Beit Lahiya. ¶4. (C) Shani stressed that far more PWA and donor attention should be paid to wastewater treatment needs in the West Bank. By focusing chiefly on the freshwater supply side, he said, the Palestinians deplete the shared aquifers more rapidly. Further, the use of infiltration tanks or just dumping of sewage is leading to pollution of the aquifers. The PWA should recognize that treated wastewater is a valuable resource; it now comprises the majority of water given to Israel's agricultural sector, and its more effective handling by the PWA would lower the deficit of freshwater the territories experience. The PWA response was that such infrastructure required major investments, and it was the donors who design the projects. Note: Separately, donors have discussed with ESTOffs their concern about PWA ability to maintain and operate wastewater treatment plants, which explains their disinclination to fund them. ¶5. (C) Late in the meeting, Attili offered a list of specific projects for which the PWA had been awaiting action by the GOI. PWA officials promised to e-mail details of these to the Embassy. As a means to increase the utility and results of the TWWG meetings, the U.S. chair proposed moving toward a quarterly meeting schedule from the twice a year present schedule. This would give more continuity to TWWG work, and enhance the results of these coordination discussions by adding a measure of accountability to address specific problems raised. The three parties briefly discussed this and agreed to more frequent meetings, as well as to establishing a "meeting report" of the TWWG meetings that will note actionable items to assist with project approval or implementation. ¶6. (C) Comment: In a pre-meeting with the PWA, Shaddad was urged to be as specific as possible regarding projects and problems he raised. PWA staff seemed to accept this, and worked at the TWWG to bring Shaddad's general vexation down to addressable examples. The separate pre-meeting with the Israeli's found them quite defensive, after the World Bank and Amnesty International reports about water in the Palestinian territories. After initially rejecting the idea of meeting minutes or an official Action Item list from the TWWG, Shani agreed to a circulated and agreed report, possibly because it could verify his contention that the PWA is at fault for slow project implementation. Although the GOI has fewer grievances with the Oslo legacy JWC system than the PA (and needs less out of it),both parties continue using the imperfect JWC structure as it is principal mechanism for maintaining the dialogue on the critical water issue. CUNNINGHAM