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