View source for Gaza Strip Water Management

{{Case Study
|Water Use=Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply
|Land Use=agricultural- cropland and pasture, urban
|Climate=Dry-summer
|Population=1.67
|Area=360
|Geolocation=31.522561, 34.453
|Issues=
|Key Questions=
|Water Feature={{Link Water Feature
|Water Feature=Coastal Aquifer (Egypt, Israel, Palestine)
}}
|Riparian={{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Palestinian Territories
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Israel
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Egypt
}}
|Water Project=
|Agreement={{Link Agreement
|Agreement=Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo II Agreement)
}}
|REP Framework=<br/>
=Economy, Environment and Land Use=
  
Gaza is an urban economy, heavily reliant on intensive trade, communication and movement of people; however the area has been essentially isolated since 2005 given land and sea restrictions, which has led to an unviable economy. The Gaza Airport, funded by donor countries and which opened in 1998, and the Gaza Seaport project, which started in 2000, were both destroyed by the Israeli army when the second Palestinian uprising (intifada) against Israeli occupation inflamed.<ref name="Wiki Airport">Yasser Arafat International Airport. (2014, May 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:17, June 15, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasser_Arafat_International_Airport&oldid=610916688</ref><ref name="Wikipedia Gaza Seaport plans">Gaza Seaport plans. (2014, February 26). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:22, June 15, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_Seaport_plans&oldid=597201860</ref>  As of 2014, the airport is not operational and the construction of the Gaza seaport has not resumed even though the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA), following the Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, re-announced the start of the works.<ref name="Wiki Airport"/> The transfer of goods to the West Bank and exports to Israel, both traditional markets for Gazan goods, is banned with a few exceptions. For the goods entering Gaza, Israel collects customs and value added tax.<ref name="Gisha2">Gisha Legal Center for Freedom of Movement. (November 2011). Scale of Control: Israel’s Continued Responsibility in the Gaza Strip. Retrieved from http://gisha.org/publication/1660</ref> Restrictions on the movement of people are in place. Citing security concerns, the Israeli military has also imposed restrictions on access to farmland on the Gaza side of the fence, and to fishing areas along the Gaza Strip coast - the Access Restricted Areas (ARAs).<ref name="UNO OCHA 2013">United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Fragmented Lives Humanitarian Overview 2013: report of OCHA in the occupied Palestinian territory (March 2014), available from http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/43B4D427B63C369B85257CB300585957.</ref>

Gaza has been and continues to be kept alive through external funding and the illegal tunnel economy under the Egypt-Gaza border. According to an ILO report, the tunnel economy has benefited Hamas as they have received a considerable share of the benefits from it.<ref name="UN Gaza 2020 2012">United Nations, Gaza in 2020 - A liveable place?: report of the United Nations Country Team in the occupied Palestinian territory (August 2012). </ref> The tunnel economy has taken a sharp hit as Egypt's military has destroyed most of the 1,200 tunnels from June 2013 onwards, which were primarily used to smuggle construction materials for the private sector and subsidized Egyptian fuel.<ref name="Rueters 2014">Court bans activities of Islamist Hamas in Egypt. (2014, March 04). Reuters. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-egypt-hamas-idUSBREA230F520140304</ref> According to OCHA, the closure of these tunnels led to a sharp spike in unemployment, an increase in food prices, and chronic electricity shortages resulting from interruptions to the operation of the Gaza Power Plant (GPP), severely disrupting the provision of basic services.<ref name="UNO OCHA 2013">United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Fragmented Lives Humanitarian Overview 2013: report of OCHA in the occupied Palestinian territory (March 2014), available from http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/43B4D427B63C369B85257CB300585957.</ref> 

The people of Gaza remain worse off than they were in the 1990s, despite increases in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita over the past three years<ref name="UN Gaza 2020 2012"/>. One of the main reasons for the economy’s inability to recover to pre-2000 levels is the blockade of Gaza. The Palestinian Ministry of National Economy estimates that the blockade led to costs or unrealized growth worth US$ 1.9 billion in 2010 alone. Moreover, Israel’s Operation ‘Cast Lead’ in the Gaza Strip in December 2008 to January 2009 caused a total of US$ 181 million in direct and US$ 88 million in longer-term costs for Gaza’s agriculture; generated US$ 44 million in environmental costs and almost US$ 6 million in water and sanitation infrastructure damages.<ref name="UN Gaza 2020 2012"/>

Unemployment is high and affects women and youth in particular. High levels of food insecurity persist in the Gaza Strip, with a total of 66% of households classified as food insecure or vulnerable to food insecurity (UN, 2012). The main cause of food insecurity is the affordability of food and non-food items, resulting from the lack of income-earning possibilities for Gaza households.<ref name="Muenchenbach">M. Muenchenbach, personal communication with Christine Buesser, April 25, 2014.</ref> Gaza’s GDP per capita is expected to grow only modestly in the coming years, making it ever more difficult for Gazans to secure a living.<ref name="UN Gaza 2020 2012"/> The current import/ export conditions are unsustainable, putting Gaza’s economy at a competitive disadvantage, and eroding the resiliency of the private sector to create jobs, which is a key component for the affordability of food and non-food basic requirements for families.<ref name="WFP 2010">World Food Programme (WFP) occupied Palestinian territory Country Office. Gaza – eased or uneased? Changes on Gaza Market and Household Conditions following Israel’s 20 June 2010 New Access Regime [PowerPoint Slides]. </ref> If the current political status quo continues, the situation will only become more challenging.  

Agriculture plays an important but limited role in Gaza, with about 40% of Gaza under cultivation. The agriculture sector continues to be characterized by small-scale (mainly family-based) farming. Exports of small amounts of strawberries, flowers and cherry tomatoes (mostly to Europe) are too minor to have a substantial impact on the overall economic situation.<ref name="UN Gaza 2020 2012"/>  Given the water crisis, there is a trend to use fewer water-intensive and more salt-resistant crops, such as dates, which is in fact a return to the traditional crops of Gaza. The climate vulnerability of residents of Gaza is compounded by the expected environmental impacts of climate change. Increased amounts of precipitation will lead to reduced yields for rain-fed agriculture, and could also mean a greater frequency of flash floods.<ref name="PWA 2014">Palestinian Water Authority. (March 2014). Gaza Strip: No Clean Drinking Water, No Enough Energy, and Threatened Future. Gaza, occupied Palestinian territory: Author. </ref> Reduced amounts of precipitation will lead to increased strain on groundwater resources. According to Clemens Messerschmid, it should not be overlooked however that in former times Gaza was esteemed for its high-quality water resources and regarded as an oasis. The climate did not change over the last thousand years, but the number of inhabitants began to explode with the mass expulsions from Israel in 1948.<ref name="Messerschmid 2011">Messerschmid, C. (2011). Water in Gaza: Problems and Prospects. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1764252</ref>

=Political Environment=

==Peace Negotiations Between Israel and the State of Palestine ==
Direct negotiations between Israel and the State of Palestine began on 29 July 2013 following an attempt by United States Secretary of State John Kerry to restart the peace process. The negotiations were scheduled to last up to nine months to reach a final status to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by mid-2014. A deadline was set for establishing a broad outline for an agreement by April 29, 2014. On the expiry of the deadline, negotiations collapsed (AFP, 2014). The PA confirmed that the continuation of the negotiations depended on Israel agreeing in writing to: recognizing the 1967 borders of the Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital; releasing 1,200 prisoners; lifting the blockade of Gaza; returning Church of Nativity deportees; ceasing the construction of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and other locations; uniting fifteen thousand Palestinian families, giving them full citizenship; and preventing Israelis from entering areas of the PA and Area C.<ref name="GANSO Apr 2014">Gaza Strip Summary - Update on Reconciliation. (2014, April 03-16). Gaza NGO Safety Office (GANSO) Bi-weekly Safety Report, 7(21). </ref>
 
==Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation==
In April 2014, a reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas was announced, which builds on the talks between Hamas and Fatah first in Doha in February 2012 and expanded later in Cairo in May 2012. <ref name="GANSO Apr 2014"/> This development could see the Palestinian territories under a unified leadership for the first time in years. The next steps would be the announcement of an interim government in the weeks to come, with elections possible by early 2015.<ref name="CNN 2014">Hamas, Fatah announce talks to form Palestinian unity government. (2014, April 23). CNN World. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/world/meast/gaza-west-bank-palestinian-reconciliation/</ref>

=Legal Environment=


==Water Rights<ref name="Brookes and Trottier 2012">Brooks, D., & Trottier, J. (March 2012). An agreement to share water between Israelis and Palestinians: The FoEME proposal. EcoPeace/ Friends of the Earth Middle East, 3, 54-61. Retrieved from http://foeme.org/uploads/13411307571~%5E$%5E~Water_Agreement_FINAL.pdf
</ref><ref name="PWA 2014"/>== 
In the long-term, Palestinian water rights will be negotiated with Israel and the other riparian countries in accordance with international law and best practice with regard to the management of trans-boundary water resources. In the meantime, the Oslo II Agreement regulates the temporary allocations of water utilization to Palestinians. The Oslo II Agreement was primarily based on actual water abstraction at that time (1995), although it also included a slight increase to allow for population growth. Its aim was to regulate water allocations over a 5-year interim period, until a final agreement was reached between the State of Palestine and Israel. This interim period was not supposed to last 20 years and the Oslo II Agreement did not address what force (if any) it would have beyond the interim period. For this reason, the Oslo II Agreement utilization figures no longer meet the minimal requirements of the Palestinian people. Although there is an urgent need to amend these figures (due to population change and other environmental and socio-economic factors), this agreement is still frequently cited as a reference during discussions at Joint Water Committee (JWC) meetings. 

Additional comments from the 2014 PWA report<ref name="PWA 2014"/>:
*Under the Oslo II Interim Agreement, the Israelis are to supply 5 additional MCM/ year to Gaza, and Palestinians are authorized to develop an additional 78 MCM/ year in the West Bank (compared with their water use in 1995);
*The Oslo II Interim Agreement does not clearly deal with abstraction rights on the Coastal aquifer; it does not include any figures on either the Israeli or Palestinian abstraction rate in 1995. It merely states that both sides should maintain the existing utilization. 
According to different expert sources, the reasons for the Oslo accords not detailing how much Palestinians and Israelis can extract from the Coastal aquifer are:
*Extractions from the aquifer in Gaza will not affect the aquifer yield in Israel due to the direction the water flows, so Israel is not worried how much it is extracted from Gaza since it will not affect it.
*On the other hand, extractions from the Coastal aquifer from the Israeli side will affect availability in Gaza. Israeli over extraction of the Coastal aquifer affects the yield in Gaza but there is no good data of how much exactly. Even though it might be limited, for Gaza even limited impact of this extraction has big consequences.
*Israel had already embedded in the Oslo accords the separation of Gaza from the West Bank, which is part of the long-term planning of Israel. 
According to international law, Israel as the upstream riparian in the shared groundwater flow system is clearly responsible for an "equitable and reasonable" allocation of resources.<ref name="Messerschmid 2011"/> It would therefore have to supply Gaza with considerably more water.<ref name="Messerschmid 2011"/>

==The Current Water Problems==

As long as the permanent status negotiations are stalled, Palestinians will pursue their interests in connection with obtaining Palestinian water rights for the territories (Gaza and the West Bank), including the fair right-of-access, right-of-control and right-of-use to water resources shared with other countries, in line with international law.<ref name="PWA 2014"/> Ideally, Gaza would get its water from a transfer of high water volumes from Israel to the State of Palestine based on equitable and reasonable reallocation of the existing fresh water resources shared between the State of Palestine and Israel; however this is deemed unfeasible given the fact that there is no guarantee that a territorial link will exist between Gaza and the West Bank.

According to different stakeholders operating in the State of Palestine, there is no difference between the Israeli and Egyptian blockage of Gaza and the Israeli occupied West Bank as Israel is in control of both territories. For example, in the West Bank, water wells cannot be drilled without the approval from Israel and movements of Palestinians are severely hampered (Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks). In Gaza, import restrictions of certain materials are in place, movements of Gazans into the West Bank or Israel are only allowed in exceptional humanitarian cases and additional water transfers from Israel are very difficult to negotiate, etc. The Israeli Government is ready to provide the Palestinians with additional water as long as it is on a cost basis, which is not acceptable to the PA. In most water authority meetings between the State of Palestine and Israel, Israel says that it is ready to support the Palestinians in the following way as reflected in the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM):<ref name="Yaqoubi pc 12May2014">A. Al Yaqoubi, personal communication with Christine Buesser, May 12, 2014</ref>
*Ready to encourage donors to build desalination projects;
*Ready to help with the desalination of water; and/ or 
*Ready to allow the entry of all the materials needed to build and operate a desalination plant. 

The problem is that this does not fully translate into actions on the ground (e.g. restricted access to construction materials through the official crossing). 


===Technical Matters===
*As noted by the CMWU of Gaza in 2010, the supply of fresh water to the population is almost totally reliant on the underlying groundwater (the aquifer);
*Minor volumes of fresh water (5 MCM/ year, recently) are imported from Israel, and it has not been possible to date to increase those flows;
*Further very small volumes arise from several scattered desalination facilities in Gaza,<ref name="Hilles et al 2011">Hilles, A.H., & Al-Najar, H. (2011). Brackish water desalination is the merely potable water potential in the Gaza Strip: Prospects and limitations. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology , 4 (2), 158-171.</ref> but these are currently insignificant at the strategic level;
*The annual sustainable yield of the aquifer within the geographical boundary of Gaza is widely quoted as 55 MCM;<ref name="Yaqoubi 24April2014"/>
*Recent rates of pumping from the aquifer are estimated at 180 MCM/ year (in 2014) with the main problems highlighted below:
:#Abstraction rates have increased markedly over the last three decades, due to a combination of inadequate available water imports to Gaza; the expanding population; and the drilling and use of unlicensed wells (especially to provide irrigation for agricultural activities) (The Comparative Study of Options for an Additional Supply of Water for Gaza [CSO-G], 2011);
:#Gaza’s current salt input from the Southeast, which stems from natural lateral ground water inflow from Israel, has been increasing (amounting to 37 MCM/ year) with the bulk of it being contaminated by a very high natural salt content (Messerschmid, 2011)
:#Contamination of shallow groundwater from activities at the surface or near-surface of the land in Gaza,<ref name="Shomar 2008">Shomar, B., Osenbrück, K., & Yahya A. (2008). Elevated nitrate levels in the groundwater of the Gaza Strip: Distribution and sources. Science of the Total Environment, 398, 164-174.</ref> which arises mainly from wastewater (almost all of which is generated within Gaza); and
:#Military incursions by Israel caused environmental damage<ref name="UNEP 2009">United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Environmental Assessment of the Gaza Strip following the Escalation of Hostilities in December 2008-January 2009: report of United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva (2009).</ref> and water sector infrastructure damage<ref name="UNICEF 2010">The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG), Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Household Survey, Gaza: report of UNICEF and the PHG (April 2010).</ref><ref name="Messerschmid 2011"/> following Operation Cast Lead in late 2008 and early 2009. 

The result of these problems in combination is that: (a) the water quantity available to the population in Gaza is inadequate (supply and demand gap is discussed in more detail below); and (b) the water quality falls well short of accepted international guidelines for potable resources (i.e. for use as drinking water, or more broadly for domestic use, but also for the agricultural sector where yields are beginning to be impacted by the poor water quality). The overall effect of poor water quality is a very high incidence of water-related disease amongst the population as a whole.<ref name="UNICEF 2010"/> <ref name="UNICEF 2011">The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Protecting Children from Unsafe Water in Gaza: Strategy, Action Plan and Project Resources: report of UNICEF in the occupied Palestinian territory (March 2011).</ref> Many commentators have characterized this as a humanitarian crisis. In addition, the groundwater quality is so poor in some areas of Gaza that agricultural yields suffer<ref name="PNSU 2010">Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit (2010). A Strategic Plan for the Introduction of Wastewater Reuse in Palestine. Ramallah, occupied Palestinian territory.</ref><ref name="Messerschmid 2011"/> because of the saline intrusion (chloride negatively affects plant growth). 

Several parties have stated (usually on the basis of modeling future water salinity and quality) that Gaza’s groundwater will soon become so contaminated that its entire volume will cease to be available for use. This is commonly known as ‘aquifer failure’ or ‘aquifer collapse.’ 

There are short-term and long-term interventions that can potentially stop this from happening, which will be discussed further below. However, it must be noted that short-term interventions are humanitarian in nature and can only reduce the rate at which the situation worsens. Only medium-term and longer-term interventions, which can only succeed if the Gaza blockade is lifted, can generate sustainable improvement and allow the aquifer to recover. 


===Beyond the status quo===

The continuation of the status quo in the water sector in Gaza is not acceptable given the reasons mentioned in the paragraphs above. Based on a 2011 report produced by the Comparative Study of Options for an Additional Supply of Water for Gaza (CSO-G in acronym), which was a joint effort by PWA and some of the donors, there is need for rapid interventions to retrieve the situation in the water sector in Gaza. Many studies have been completed on the water sector in Gaza, however, the CSO-G is different in both its timing and its overall approach. The CSO-G represents the first component of an envisioned emergency response to the problems in the water sector in Gaza, and provides proposals for an overall strategy to address and resolve the current problems.<ref name="CSO-G 2011">Palestinian National Authority & Palestinian Water Authority, The Gaza Emergency Technical Assistance Programme on Water Supply to the Gaza Strip: the updated final report [Report 7 of the CSO-G] of The Comparative Study of Options for an Additional Supply of Water for the Gaza Strip (CSO-G) (2011, July 31).</ref>

Since then, the PWA has drafted the National Water Strategy (NWS) based on previous studies including the Coastal Aquifer Management Program (CAMP), a project funded by USAID, and the CSO-G report for the Gaza parts<ref name="Yaqoubi, n.d.">A. Al Yaqoubi, personal communication with Christine Buesser, n.d.</ref>. The NWS is a document presenting the framework of action in the water sector for the sustainable management of water resources in the State of Palestine<ref name="PWA 2014"/>. The NWS covers a time period until 2035, including a short-term implementation plan designed until 2017 assuming no change in the political situation, and a long-term investment plan assuming a comprehensive peace deal where the Palestinian people will recover their full rights over natural water resources according to the 1967 border. The short-term implementation plan includes only investments, water resources management and actions that can be completed in the present political situation because of the constraints and restrictions due to the Gaza blockade (e.g. abnormal delays and difficulties importing materials and equipment, restrictions on the movement of people etc.). After 2017, the plan includes an improvement of the industrial and tourist sectors’ water consumption, access to water resources and an expansion of the agricultural sector, etc.<ref name="Yaqoubi 27April2014">A. Al Yaqoubi, personal communication with Christine Buesser, April 27, 2014"</ref> 

During the first semester of 2013, PWA presented the NWS to other ministries, donors, NGOs, civil society, etc. The civil society technical experts have challenged some aspects of the NWS, not so much because of the document’s contents, but because they feel that they were not consulted enough<ref name="INGO 27April2014"> INGO working in the State of Palestine and Israel, personal communication with Christine Buesser, April 27, 2014</ref>. The NWS is about to be introduced in the PA Cabinet.

In 2014, different UN and INGO organizations working in Gaza, the PWA and the CMWU decided to come up with a multi-stakeholder roundtable co-hosted by UNICEF, the PWA and the CMWU to get water and energy stakeholders together and to get the attention of donors and diplomats regarding the enormous challenges to implement the CSO-G’s recommendations.<ref name="INGO 27April2014"/> The roundtable was meant to bring the appropriate people together to discuss the on-going lack of water resources, WATSAN installations and services and electricity (why is there a lack; material and people movement restrictions; lack of welfare of the population)<ref name="Muenchenbach"/>. The organizers of the roundtable felt that there is comprehensive and complex thinking missing when it comes to water and its linkage to the energy and food security sectors, which is critical for translating the NWS into action.<ref name="Ironside 15May2014"> P. Ironside, personal communication with Christine Buesser, May 15, 2014</ref> There is a need to create alliances and partnerships to advance from a more conservative mindset. The first such roundtable was held in Gaza on April 30, 2014, with another planned for September 2014.<ref name="Muenchenbach"/> According to one of the participants, for future roundtables, more private sector representatives, community-based organizations (farmers, users), and food security experts should be at the table. 

|Summary=The Gaza Strip (Gaza) is a self-governed entity on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea that borders Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the east and north. Gaza has a total area of 378 km2 (40 km in length, 6-12 km in width) with a total population of about 1.8 million inhabitants (70% of the population are refugees abroad). <ref name="Al Yaqoubi 2014 pres">Al Yaqoubi, A. (2014). Water Resources Management, Use and Sustainable Development in the Gaza Strip, Palestine [PowerPoint Slides].</ref> Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has been de-facto governed by Hamas, a Palestinian faction claiming to be the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian National Authority or Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestinian People. Israel, US, Canada, EU, Jordan, Egypt and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, while Iran, Russia, Turkey, China and many nations across the Arab world do not.<ref name="Hamas 2014">Hamas. (2014, June 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:21, June 15, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&oldid=612805559</ref> Following the elections, the Quartet (United States, Russia, United Nations [UN], and European Union [EU]) conditioned future foreign assistance to the PA on the future government's commitment to nonviolence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas resisted such changes, leading to Quartet suspension of its foreign assistance program. Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there. <ref name="Hamas 2014"/> In 2012, the UN recognized the Gaza Strip as part of the State of Palestine, which includes the territory claimed by the Palestinian government in Ramallah. However, geographically speaking, Gaza is completely isolated from the West Bank and there is currently no territorial link. Under the Oslo Accords, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are recognized "as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period".<ref name="Wikipedia Palestinian fom">Palestinian freedom of movement. (2014, May 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:19, June 15, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_freedom_of_movement&oldid=607462403</ref> Israel, however, has changed this position and now considers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as "two separate and different areas."<ref name="Hamoked BTselem 2014">Hamoked & B'Tselem (January 2014). So near and yet so far—Implications of Israeli Imposed Seclusion of Gaza Strip on Palestinians’ Right to Family Life. Retrieved from http://www.btselem.org/publications/201401_so_near_and_yet_so_far</ref>

The Coastal aquifer in Gaza is part of the Coastal Aquifer Basin that stretches along the eastern Mediterranean coast from the northern Sinai Peninsula via Gaza to northern Israel.<ref name="UN-ESCWA 2012">United Nations- Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UN-ESCWA), Inventory of Shared Water Resources in Western Asia - Coastal Aquifer: report of the Federal Institute of Geosciences and Natural Resources (2012).</ref> Water resources in Gaza are limited, and the Coastal aquifer is the only source of fresh water for the Palestinian population in Gaza.<ref name="PWA 2014">Palestinian Water Authority. (March 2014). Gaza Strip: No Clean Drinking Water, No Enough Energy, and Threatened Future. Gaza, occupied Palestinian territory.</ref> For the last three decades, the aquifer has been subjected to extreme pressure due to increasing demand for fresh water relative to the limited natural replenishment rate of the aquifer. This condition has resulted in the increase of many sources of pollution including seawater intrusion, leakage of partially treated sewage, return flow from irrigation water, etc.<ref name="UN-ESCWA 2012"/> There is little rainfall and no reliable surface flow; hence water supply for different purposes is tied to groundwater. Gaza’s population presently extracts almost three times the aquifer’s sustainable yearly recharge. <ref name="PWA 2014"/> At its present rate of deterioration due to pollution and amount of groundwater remaining, the aquifer will be unusable by 2016, and irreversibly damaged by 2020.<ref name="UNRWA 2014">United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), UNRWA leads the way with region’s first ‘Green School’. 24 March 2014, http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-leads-way-region’s-first-‘green-school’.</ref> Even if the aquifer cannot be irreversibly damaged, the likelihood of the aquifer being a sustainable water resource is decreasing in the years to come.<ref name="Togenburg">Personal communication between Christine Buesser and J. von Toggenburg, May 15, 2014.</ref>

Hamas' rise to power had a significant impact on water and sanitation issues in Gaza as highlighted below. The Palestinian Water Authority was split into two, one in Ramallah and one in Gaza. However, management and long-term planning has continued to be at the hands of the PA in Ramallah because they have the resources.<ref name="Z. Lunat 24May2014">Z. Lunat, personal communication with Christine Buesser, May 24, 2014)</ref> There was a donor arrangement to work through Coastal Municipalities Water Undertaking (CMWU) as they were seen as independent enough to be trusted with donor money to channel local projects.<ref name="Z. Lunat 24May2014"/> As part of an arrangement with the PA, the PWA is responsible for the water sector in Gaza.<ref name="Milner">M. Milner, personal communication with Christine Buesser April 24, 2014)</ref> Today access to Gaza is restricted under full Israeli military control. Moreover, the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, which is the only gateway that is not controlled by Israel, has been repeatedly closed since the installment of the military-installed government in Cairo.<ref name="UN pc">UN official, personal communication with Christine Buesser, April 25, 2014</ref> Israel also maintains a naval blockade along Gaza’s entire coastline (at a distance of approximately 3 nautical miles). In addition to essential items such as food or fuel, Israel’s blockade restricts the entry of materials needed to upgrade and repair Gaza’s collapsing water and wastewater infrastructure (e.g. cement) (EWASH, public presentation, March 18, 2014). Fuel shortages continue to create rolling electricity blackouts that in turn affect water distribution to household reservoirs, while many water wells have stopped working or are working at half capacity due to a lack of spare parts. <ref name="PWA CMWU 2014">Palestinian Water Authority & Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (2014, April 30). ‘Water and Energy’ - Time for solutions: from risk to resource [PowerPoint Slides]. 
</ref> Crucially, this also prevents Palestinians from exploring other options in terms of accessing alternative water supplies, and has delayed the importation of additional water. Despite an agreement for Israel to provide an additional 5 million cubic meters of water per year (MCM/ year) - in addition to the 5 MCM/ year Israel is already selling to Gaza - this agreement has not been activated by the Israelis due to political reasons, even though the necessary infrastructure on both sides has been completed.<ref name="Yaqoubi 24April2014">A. Al Yaqoubi, personal communication with Christine Buesser, April 24, 2014)</ref>

|Topic Tags=
|External Links=
|Case Review={{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=No
|Expand Section=No
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}}
}}