Environmental
Justice For Palestine
By Alice Gray
23 March, 2007
Countercurrents.org
With the formation of a new Palestinian
Unity government opening up the possibility of a shift in Palestine's
diplomatic relations, both with Israel and with the wider international
community, there has been much focus in recent weeks upon the willingness
of the new Palestinian government to submit to international pressure
(particularly from the 'Quartet' which includes the US, the EU, Russia
and the UN) to "acknowledge Israel, renounce violence and abide
by past peace agreements". These are the conditions for relaxing
the international aid embargo that has been in force for the last year,
throttling the Palestinian economy and causing widespread hardship throughout
Palestinian society; and for resumption of peace negotiations with Israel,
which could bring about an end to the military occupation of the Palestinian
Territories, and the formation of a Palestinian State.
However, there has been no
focus on the content of past peace agreements and hence the implications
of adhering to them; neither has there been any similar pressure placed
on Israel, or any examination, indeed scarcely even a mention, of Israel's
track record in keeping past agreements. With regard to the content
of the agreements which it is demanded that Palestinians must abide
by, this is a particularly serious omission. The pervading attitude
in the international media appears to be a somewhat simplistic interpretation
that unwillingness to honour the letter of past agreements implies unwillingness
to make peace.
This is a totally misguided
interpretation. The peace agreements in question, principally the Oslo
Accords and the Road Map to Peace, cover not just undertakings to bring
about the cessation of violence but also access to and control over
natural resources and land, which are pivotal both to the daily lives
of Palestinians and to the viability of a future Palestinian State.
There are extremely good, practical, sensible reasons for a Palestinian
government to avoid committing themselves to abiding by the letter of
past agreements with Israel. Namely that currently the agreements preclude
Palestinians from effectively accessing resources that are vital for
life, and from exercising effective environmental management, causing
serious and potentially irreversible degradation of their homeland.
Oslo and the Palestinian
Environment
In 1993, the year of the
first Oslo Agreement, the World Bank published a report entitled "Developing
the Occupied Territories: An Investment in Peace" in which it described
the provision of public services and infrastructure in the Occupied
Territories as 'highly inadequate'. Water, solid waste and wastewater
infrastructure were practically non-existent; hence the standard of
living in Palestinian localities lagged way behind that enjoyed within
Israel and also in other Middle Eastern countries; and poor waste management
threatened the environment with serious pollution and degradation. The
reason for this was essentially neglect and underinvestment during the
Israeli Administration from 1967 to 1993. It is pointed out in the report
that the investment in Palestinian infrastructure by the Israeli Civil
Administration was not equal to the amount payed in taxes by Palestinians.
Thus from its inception, the Palestinian administration had a gargantuan
task in front of it to develop Palestinian infrastructure and implement
programs of environmental protection. Despite high investment by many
international donors, progress on the ground has been much slower than
it ought to have been. This is due to the deficiencies and ambiguities
in the Oslo Agreement, and the way in which it has been interpreted
and implemented (and violated) by successive Israeli Administrations.
More recently development has been as good as halted by escalating violence
and the international aid boycott.
Oslo and Land:
The key to understanding
how the Oslo Agreement has prevented Palestinians from exercising effective
environmental management is the division of control of land under Oslo.
According to the Oslo Interim Agreement (1995) the West Bank was divided
up into three zones: Areas A, B and C.
In Area A, which comprised
4 % of the land area of the West Bank, complete authority was granted
to the PA. In Area B, which comprised 25 % of the West Bank, civil authority
was given to the PA and military authority retained by Israel; whereas
in Area C, some 71 % of the West Bank, Israel retained total control
[1]. Under the Oslo Interim Agreement (1995) it was envisaged that Israel
would gradually withdraw its military presence in three phases starting
with Area A (major Palestinian towns to be evacuated before elections
could take place), then Area B, followed by most of Area C, excluding
settlements and military bases, over a period of 18 months:
"The two sides agree
that West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will
be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will come under
the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council in a phased manner, to be
completed within 18 months from the date of the inauguration of the
Council." (Oslo Interim Agreement, Article XI, Paragraph 2)
However, the exact nature
of the redeployment of Israel's military presence after withdrawal from
Area A is not specified, nor is the amount of land they will withdraw
from quantified. Today Area A comprises 17.8 % of the West Bank's land
area (up 13.8 % from 1995), Area B comprises 18.3 % (down 6.7 % from
1995), Area C comprises 61.5 % (down 9.5 % from 1995) and 3 % is classified
as Nature Reserves. Thus whilst there has been some redeployment and
some transfer of authority over some areas, the ability of Palestinians
to control and develop their environment has been and continues to be
extremely limited and has not lived up to the spirit of the peace agreements,
which envisaged a transition from an occupied territory to a viable
state. Instead, the Palestinian Territories are becoming a series of
rotting Bantustans, without adequate access to resources to sustain
themselves.
Urban centres in Areas A
and B are becoming increasingly crowded as people migrate from the countryside,
forced off their land by settlement expansion, land confiscation, military
closures, lack of security and deteriorating socioeconomic conditions.
The urban economy is not robust enough to absorb the influx of people
and unemployment and poverty are escalating. Population density in Palestinian
cities is among the highest in the world, exceeding 6000 people per
square kilometre [2]. Provision of public services, already inadequate
in the early 1990s, lags behind population growth. Sewage systems are
strained and overflowing, and unmanaged dumping and burning of waste
is an endemic problem in urban landscapes. This causes soil, water and
air pollution; which in turn threaten public health. Access to land
is needed to develop sanitary landfill sites and sewage treatment facilities.
However, this access is frequently delayed by cumbersome beaurocratic
procedures or outright denied by Israeli authorities, who cite security
concerns as a reason to prevent development from going forward. Closure
of large tracts of land has increased pressure on the remaining open
areas, encouraging intensive farming practices and overgrazing; which
cause soil degradation and erosion, and loss of biodiversity. Since
2002, these problems have been exacerbated and escalated by the construction
of the 'Security Fence' (as the Israeli Administration calls it) or
'Segregation Wall' (as Palestinians prefer to call it), which snakes
deep inside Palestinian Territory, escalating land confiscation and
environmental destruction, imposing worse movement restrictions, decreasing
access to land, ghettoizing urban communities and isolating and impoverishing
rural ones.
Oslo and Water
When Israel occupied the
West Bank in 1967, the second military order passed declared all water
resources in the region to be 'Israeli State Property'. Several subsequent
military orders essentially froze water development in Palestine, fixing
pumping quotas and prohibiting rehabilitation of wells or drilling of
new wells without a permit. Additionally, all Palestinian pumping stations
on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated, and Palestinians
have had no access to the river since then. At the same time, Israel
moved to exploit the water resources of the West Bank for its own ends,
drilling 38 wells deep wells, largely to supply settlements. Between
1967 and 1990 only 23 permits were issued for drilling wells in the
West Bank, of which 20 were for domestic use only[3] . The number of
working wells in the West Bank decreased from 413 in 1967 to 300 in
1983 [4]. This was due to drying out of wells caused by the dropping
water table and the drilling of deeper wells by Israel and also because
owners could not obtain permits to rehabilitate wells or equipment.
By 1993, Palestinians had
access to only 20 % of the water of the Mountain Aquifer system underlying
the West Bank and no access to the Jordan River. Average water supply
totalled just 60 litres per person per day [5], way below World Health
Organization recommendations of 150 litres per person per day; and many
Palestinian towns and villages were not even connected to the water
network. Israel was utilizing 80 % of the Mountain Aquifer, both to
supply settlements and communities in Israel. Disastrously for water
starved Palestinian communities, the Oslo Interim Agreement did nothing
the redress this inequality, and in fact reinforced it. Annex III, Article
40 of the agreement states that Israel "recognizes the Palestinian
water rights in the West Bank" but that "these will be negotiated
in the Permanent Status Agreement relating to the various water resources".
In the meantime, it was agreed that "existing quantities of utilization"
were to be maintained; although Palestinian were to be allowed to develop
some additional water resources from the Eastern part of the Mountain
Aquifer system (a total of 70-80 MCM per year). Israel's exploitation
of 80% of the Mountain Aquifer water was formally endorsed in the Oslo
Agreement, until such a time as the Final Status Negotiation should
take place.
It was further agreed that
development of water and sewage systems would be coordinated by a Joint
Water Committee a management institution containing equal numbers of
Israeli and Palestinian representatives. All development of water resources
in the West Bank must be approved by the JWC before it can go ahead.
This includes rehabilitation of wells, drilling of new wells and increasing
abstraction from any source. Furthermore, construction of pipelines
in Israeli controlled areas and areas under joint control (Areas B and
C) cannot go ahead without approval. Absolute authority over water resources
is retained by the Water Officer of the Israeli Civil Administration,
who has the power to veto JWC decisions.
There has been much criticism
of the JWC since it began work, with accusations from the Palestinian
side of obstruction and lack of cooperation by the Israelis [6]. It
is undoubtedly the case that, despite appearing to be egalitarian in
structure, containing as it does equal numbers of representatives from
each side, the JWC in fact confers a large advantage to the Israelis
for the simple reason that the Palestinians stand in much greater need
of developing their water resources and distribution systems. The Israeli
settler population of the West Bank number between 0.2 and 0.25 million
(not including East Jerusalem settlers) and have access to ample water
supplies – possibly up to 9 times as much per capita as an average
West Bank Palestinian [7]. Therefore the capacity for Israelis to obstruct
desperately needed Palestinian water developments is much greater than
vice versa. In fact, what has ensued is a modus operandi whereby Palestinians
have been forced to agree to new water infrastructure for illegal Israeli
settlements in return for Israeli agreement to water developments for
water starved Palestinian communities.
To date the Oslo Agreement
on water has not been fully implemented. However, even if it was, the
quantity of water allotted to the Palestinians (including additional
quantities) is not enough to meet the basic needs of the current population;
and takes no account of population growth and economic development.
Currently 13 % of the population of the West Bank remain unconnected
to the water network [8], and only 46% of communities who are connected
receive 100% coverage [9]. Lack of access to water is crippling the
agricultural economy and decreasing overall food security. There is
only one functioning wastewater treatment plant to serve a population
of more than 2 million people, and wastewater collection infrastructure
is far from adequate. In addition, construction of the Israeli Segregation
Wall has caused the destruction of 29 wells and 32 springs and 35 km
of water pipes as well as many cisterns and reservoirs [10]. Furthermore,
50 wells and 200 cisterns have been isolated behind the wall or confiscated
for 'security reasons' [11]. Thus the growing Palestinian population's
access to water is ever more restricted and present per capita availability
of water is the lowest of all the countries in the Middle East.
Oslo and Settlements:
Since 1993, Israel has expanded
civilian presence in the West Bank, creating a series of 'facts on the
ground' which make eventual withdrawal seem increasingly unlikely. Existing
settlements have been expanded, new settlements built, and a network
of roads for the exclusive use of Israelis put into place, further fragmenting
the Palestinian environment, and causing the destruction of thousands
of acres of farmland. Furthermore, the construction of the Segregation
Wall to protect these settlement blocks will annex 10 % of the West
Bank to Israel (555 km2), and has already directly caused the destruction
of over 1 million trees, thousands of acres of farmland and over 50
wells; causing a serious downturn in the rural economy and the quality
of life in rural areas.
Besides this, the Settlements
themselves constitute a serious environmental hazard as few of them
implement any form of waste management or wastewater treatment; and
in many cases both solid waste and untreated sewage are discharged into
the surrounding Palestinian environment. In addition, over 160 Israeli
industrial sites are attached to settlements, taking advantage of the
lack of enforcement of environmental standards in the West Bank. These
discharge industrial waste and effluents into the Palestinian environment,
causing pollution of soil, water and air [12]. Damage to Palestinian
farmland in the form of soil pollution from industrial effluents and
untreated wastewater has further harmed the already struggling Palestinian
agricultural sector [13].
The failure of the Oslo Accords to explicitly ban Settlement growth
in the Occupied Territories is a serious flaw in the agreement. Article
XXXI, Clause 7 of the Interim Agreement states that: "Neither side
shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status
negotiations." It has been argued by Palestinians that Settlement
expansion is a direct contravention of this provision; however, Israelis
have argued that expansion is due to 'natural population growth' (although
in reality it far exceeds it), and that settlements do not constitute
a 'change in the status of the West Bank', as they are not permanent
structures. Although the Wall clearly does alter the status of the West
Bank, it is justified by Israel under Article XII Clause 1 of the Oslo
Interim Agreement which states: "Israel shall continue to carry
the responsibility…..for overall security of Israelis and Settlements,
for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order,
and will have all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this
responsibility." Settlements are essentially a tool used by Israel
to appropriate land and resources in the West Bank, whilst systematically
undermining the viability of the Palestinian State: fragmenting and
degrading the Palestinian environment and turning it into a dumping
ground for Israeli industries.
The Road Map to Peace
Following the collapse of
the Oslo Process and the outbreak of the Second Palestinian Intifada
(uprising) in September 2000 (largely as a result of the failure of
Oslo to deliver promised improvements in standard of living and continuing
Israeli Settlement expansion), the Road Map to Peace was drawn up by
the Quartet in 2002, and implementation began in 2003. In its own words
the Road Map is a "performance based and goal driven [agreement],
with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks aiming at
progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties in the political,
security, economic, humanitarian, and institution-building fields…..
The destination is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian
conflict by 2005".
The Road Map was to be a
two phase process, in which the first phase sought to create the conditions
for Final Status Negotiation to take place in the second phase, which
would conclude in the creation of an independent Palestinian State,
living in peace with Israel. The first phase was to include a cessation
in all terrorist activities by the Palestinians, and a freeze in all
Settlement activity (including natural growth) by Israelis. Phase II
was scheduled to begin between June and December of 2003, and was to
include an International Conference to promote Palestinian economic
recovery, a revival of multi-lateral cooperation on issues such as water,
environment and arms control, and eventually, creation of an independent
Palestinian State. Essentially it was an attempt to revert from the
violence of the Intifada to the 'peace process' that had been in force
before it broke out, and with the exception of banning settlement expansion,
addressed none of the problems which had made Oslo such an unsatisfactory
agreement in the first place. Like Oslo, it deferred resolution of these
issues to 'Final Status Negotiations', which would take place at the
end of the second phase.
The second phase of the Road
Map never came about, and the timelines and target dates of the first
phase are all long surpassed. The Hudna (ceasefire) that was called
in 2003 has well and truly broken down, and settlement expansion in
the West Bank continues apace, both on an official (Israeli government
approved) and unofficial basis. For example, in February this year it
was revealed that Israeli government bodies are currently promoting
a plan to build a neighbourhood of 11 000 housing units in Arab East
Jerusalem [14]; and in October 2006, a Haaretz exposé revealed
that "a secret, two year investigation by the [Israeli] defense
establishment shows that there has been rampant illegal construction
in dozens of settlements, in many cases involving privately owned Palestinian
properties", as well as 107 new settlement outposts. [15]
Environmental Justice and
the viability of the Palestinian State
While peace negotiations
stall and the international community continue their aid boycott, environmental
and humanitarian conditions in the Palestinian Territories are steadily
worsening; and the dream of a viable, independent Palestinian state
is receding further and further into the distance. Soil degradation,
pollution of groundwater and air pollution are all consequences of poor
waste management practices in Palestinian towns and Israeli settlements.
Palestinians are hampered in dealing with these problems by the conditions
imposed under past peace agreements, the ongoing conflict, Israeli obstruction
and economic hardship. At the same time, Palestinian access to environmental
goods and services is being eroded by land closure, settlement expansion,
construction of Israeli by-pass roads and construction of the Segregation
Wall.
Viability is intimately intertwined
with sustainability and environmental justice. In order for a Palestinian
State to be viable it must exist within an environment that allows it
to sustain itself, with sufficient access to environmental goods and
services to allow a decent standard of living for the Palestinian people.
Environmental justice has been defined as: "a condition….when
environmental risks and hazards and investments and benefits are equally
distributed with a lack of discrimination, whether direct or indirect,
at any jurisdictional level; and when access to environmental investments,
benefits, and natural resources are equally distributed; and when access
to information, participation in decision making, and access to justice
in environment-related matters are enjoyed by all." [16]
No past peace deal between
Israel and Palestine has successfully incorporated this concept, and
the situation in the Palestinian Territories today encapsulates environmental
injustice. All past agreements have deferred definition of environmental
rights to elusive 'Final Status Negotiations' which have never taken
place. In order to address pressing environmental problems, which are
also impacting severely on public health it is vitally important that
these negotiations take place without further delay. A return to the
status quo of Oslo is not adequate. A new deal is needed, that recognizes
and addresses contemporary conditions in the Palestinian Territories,
confers sufficient sovereignty on the Palestinian Authority to manage
and develop the Palestinian environment and recognizes the environmental
rights of the Palestinian people.
Suggestions that Final Status
talks should take place at a recent US brokered tripartite summit in
February this year were dismissed out of hand by Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert. [17] Currently the Israeli government refuses to recognize
the Palestinian Unity government, and is calling on the International
Community to continue the aid boycott which is stalling many desperately
needed development projects and causing widespread economic hardship
in the Palestinian population. In the meantime, Israeli settlement expansion
continues, expanding Israeli control over Palestinian land and resources,
and eroding the viability of the future Palestinian State. By turning
all the focus on the Palestinian Unity governments' willingness to abide
by past agreements which are essentially obsolete, recognize an Israeli
State which has not yet declared its borders and renounce armed struggle
against an oppressive military occupation, the International community
allow this blatant injustice to persist, whilst simultaneously imposing
communal punishment on the Palestinian people for voting the wrong way
in a democratic election. It is up to the International community to
demand Israeli participation in final status negotiations with the Palestinian
Unity government. If current trends are allowed to continue, the establishment
of a viable Palestinian State will become impossible, and Palestinians
will be locked into a series of rotting ghettoes within a matrix of
Israeli control.
Alice Gray is a researcher at the Applied Research Institute –
Jerusalem (www.arij.org), a Palestinian environmental NGO based in Bethlehem,
West Bank, Palestinian Territories, and a columnist for News from Within,
a publication of the Alternative Information Centre (www.alternativenews.org).
[1] Avi Shlaim, 2001. Peace confounded. In: Index on Censorship 1, pp
50-55. users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Peace%20Confounded.html
[2] Applied Research Institute
– Jerusalem, 2007. Status of the Environment in the Palestinian
Territories. (In press)
[3] Yousef Nasser, Palestinian
Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, 2003. . Palestinian
Water Needs and Rights in the Context of Past and Future Development.
In: Water in Palestine: Problems – Politics – Prospects.
[4] Ibid.
[5] World Bank, Washington
DC, September 1993. Developing the Palestinian Territories: An Investment
in Peace.
[6] Directorate General of
Resources and Planning, Palestinian Water Authority, 2003. Status of
Wells in the Drilling Sub-Committee.
[7] Foundation for Middle
East Peace, Washington DC, 1998. The Socioeconomic impact of Settlement
on land, water and the Palestinian Economy
[8] Directorate General of
Resources and Planning, Palestinian Water Authority, 2005. Quantities
of Water Supply in the West Bank Governorates.
[9]Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene Monitoring Project, Palestinian Hydrology Group, 2005. Water
for Life: Continued Israeli Assault on Palestinian Water, Sanitation
and Hygiene during the Intifada.
[10] Applied Research Institute
– Jerusalem, 2006. Database on the Palestinian Environmental Conditions.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Foundation for Middle
East Peace, 1998
[13] Applied Redearch Institute
– Jerusalem, 2007
[14] Meron Rapoport, Haaretz
Correspondent, February 28th, 2007. Government promoting plan for new
Ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighbourhood.
[15] Amos Harel, Haaretz
Correspondent, October 24th, 2006. Settlements grow on Arab land despite
promises made to US. www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778767.html
[16] Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice
[17] Gil Ronen, Arutz Sheva
– Israel National News, February 13th 2007. Israel – No
Final Status Talks at Summit. www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121503
Click
here to comment
on this article