Browse wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Integrated Management and Negotiations for Equitable Allocation of Flow of the Jordan River Among Riparian States
Answer The parties defined some of the key aspectThe parties defined some of the key aspects of their deal with relative vagueness. Some of this could have been intentional, so that both countries’ home governments would be able to interpret the agreement in different ways. This allowed negotiators to ‘sell’ the deal to their internal constituencies and also gave them the time they needed to conduct further studies that allowed them to adjust the details of the agreement during implementation. Yet, some ambiguity in the agreement was not helpful. For example, there was disagreement after the treaty was signed as to who should bear the cost of transferring Jordan’s water. According to Israel, Jordan was responsible for the additional cost since the water was for its benefit. Not surprisingly, Jordan did not agree. This highlights the two sides of the ‘ambiguity coin.’ On one side, ambiguity helped allow for some measure of adaptive management. At the same time, the tensions that were not resolved during the negotiations did not go away. during the negotiations did not go away.  +
Case Study Integrated Management and Negotiations for Equitable Allocation of Flow of the Jordan River Among Riparian States  +
KQandA Integrated Management and Negotiations for Equitable Allocation of Flow of the Jordan River Among Riparian States  +
Question What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions?  +
hide properties that link here 
Integrated Management and Negotiations for Equitable Allocation of Flow of the Jordan River Among Riparian States + Has subobjectThis property is a special property in this wiki.
 

 

Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.