Edit ASI: ASI:Jordan River: Lessons learned and creative outcomes

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.

While the historical, geographical and scientific facts involved in a water management problem or water conflict can often be attributed to well-respected sources and agreed upon by multiple parties, each problem can also have multiple facets and not all issues may be considered equally important by all parties. Certain perspectives may interpret the implications of neutral facts in a different way from others.

Because of this, each case study can be linked to multiple articles in which contributors can provide analysis or insights and synthesis different viewpoints or lines of evidence. Professionals, academics, and community-members who have some involvement with the case first hand might have different experiences or interpretations to share. The goal is to collect a wide range of knowledge on these cases, which requires incorporating multiple (and sometimes conflicting) viewpoints into each case.

Each of these Analysis, Synthesis, & Insights (ASI) sections is protected -- only the user who created the section, official editors, and administrators have the ability to change the content in an individual ASI. Editors who take on the task of editing a user-contributed ASI section are committed to only adjust grammar and stylistic issues, and will avoid any changes that could lead to a different meaning or adjust content.

We suggest that anyone who would like to help improve an ASI section leave comments for the author and community on the discussion page for the specific ASI section. If you have questions about how this works, please refer to the help section or contact a site administrator.

[edit]

Aaron T. Wolf
Enter the contributor's name and (optional) link to a descriptive website, such as a professional bio or AquaPedia user page.

Joshua T. Newton
Enter the contributor's name and (optional) link to a descriptive website, such as a professional bio or AquaPedia user page.

Matthew Pritchard
Enter the contributor's name and (optional) link to a descriptive website, such as a professional bio or AquaPedia user page.

Enter the contributor's name and (optional) link to a descriptive website, such as a professional bio or AquaPedia user page.

Link to Case Study :

Integrated Management and Negotiations for Equitable Allocation of Flow of the Jordan River Among Riparian States

ASI articles need to be linked to a specific case study. If the case title above is not correct, you can select a different case.

Summary - Displayed only in Case Study:

Image Upload - open the image upload page in a new tab:
Upload a File View all Files
You can find or upload a file and then return here.

To insert an image in your text, type: [[File:filename.jpg]]

ASI - Extended Article Content

''The points below are summarized or excerpted from the Oregon State University Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD). Matthew Pritchard provided this and other summarized analysis or insights from the TFFD on behalf and with permission of the original authors. Available on-line at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/''

== Lessons Learned == 
* In highly conflictual settings, separating resource issues from political interests may not be a productive strategy. 
* Eric Johnston took the approach that the process of reaching a rational watershed management plan:
# May, itself, act as a confidence-building catalyst for increased cooperation in the political realm
# May help alleviate the burning political issues of refugees and land rights. By approaching peace through water, however, several overriding interests remained unmet in the process. The plan finally remained unratified mainly for political reasons.

Issues of national sovereignty which were unmet during the process included: 
* The Arab states saw a final agreement with Israel as recognition of Israel, a step they were not willing to make at the time. 
* Some Arabs may have felt that the plan was devised by Israel for its own benefit and was 'put over' on the U.S
 
:The plan allowed the countries to use their allotted water for whatever purpose they saw fit. The Arabs worried that if Israel used their water to irrigate the Negev (outside the Jordan Valley), that the increased amount of agriculture would allow more food production, which would allow for increased immigration, which might encourage greater territorial desires on the part of Israel. 
* Issues of national sovereignty can manifest itself through the need for each state to control its own water source and/or storage facilities. 
:The Johnston Plan provided that some winter flood waters be stored in the Sea of Galilee, which is entirely in Israeli territory. The Arab side was reluctant to relinquish too much control of the main storage facility. Likewise, Israel had the same kinds of control reservations about a water master.

* Ignoring a riparian party, even one without political standing, can hamper agreement.
 
:There was some concern over whether the Plan was designed to "liquidate the Palestinian refugee problem rather than to give the refugees their right of return." In fact, Palestinians were not addressed as a separate political entity. 
:Along with political entities, many interests affected by river management were not included in the process. These included NGO's, public interest groups, and environmental groups. Perhaps as a consequence, the entire river was allocated, leaving no water at all for in-stream uses. 
* Including key non-riparian parties can be useful to reaching agreement; excluding them can be harmful. 
:Egypt was included in the negotiations because of its preeminence in the Arab world, and despite its non-riparian status. Some attribute the accomplishments made during the course in part to President Nasser's support. 
:In contrast, pressure after the negotiations from other Arab states not directly involved in the water conflict may have had an impact on its eventual demise. Iraq and Saudi Arabia strongly urged Lebanon, Syria and Jordan not to accept the Plan. Perhaps partially as a result, Lebanon said they would not enter any agreement that split the waters of the Hasbani River or any other river. 
* All of the water resources in the basin ought to be included in the planning process. Ignoring the relationship between quality and quantity, and between surface- and groundwater, ignores hydrological reality.
:Groundwater was not explicitly dealt with in the Plan, and is currently the most pressing issue between Israel and Palestinians. Likewise, tensions have flared over the years between Israel and Jordan over Israel’s diverting saline springs into the lower Jordan, increasing the salinity of water on which Jordanian farmers rely. 
* Even in the absence of an explicit arrangement, some degree of implicit cooperation may be possible, perhaps leading to fairly high stability, if also to sub-optimum water management. 
:While the lack of ratified agreement left a legacy of unilateral and generally sub-optimum water development in the basin, the implicit arrangement which resulted, particularly between Israel and Jordan, decreased tensions and added a certain stability between these most active riparians. The "Picnic Table" talks have allowed a venue for some level of technical agreement, and an outlet for minor disputes, for more than forty years. 
== Creative Outcomes Resulting From Resolution Process ==
* The plan called for water allocations to be determined according to the amount irrigable land each state had within the basin, then allowed each country to do what it wished with its water, including out-of-basin transfers. 
* The development plan was created without regard to political borders, guaranteeing a degree of objectivity and engineering efficiency. 
* The plan incorporated issues of hydrological variability. For example, Israel was to receive the "residue" after Arab withdrawals, sometimes more, sometimes less from the average flow.

Perspective(s)
Selecting any of these choices expresses to to the reader what perspective you feel that you are taking by adding your analysis, synthesis, or insight. If you want to share more on your specific expertise, consider updating your user page with additional details about your professional and academic background. Practitioner Academic Participant Observer
Contribution Type(s):
Selecting any of these choices expresses to to the reader whether you consider your contribution to be primarily academic, professional, or personal in nature, or a combination of these types. Analysis Synthesis Personal Insights Professional Insights

Keywords

Help others find your ASI by providing keywords or short phrases. Selecting the arrow or entering a few letters will show you keywords others have used to describe their contributions

Add Keywords or phrases (no special characters or punctuation)

Provide a summary of the type/purpose of updates you have made. This summary is displayed on the "History" tab for the page and is not part of the page as it is viewed:

This is a minor edit Watch this page

Cancel

Edit ASI: ASI:Jordan River: Lessons learned and creative outcomes

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Explore

Learn More

Advanced