VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTV #2682/01 3441344
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 101344Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4563
INFO RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN 6982
RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT 6433
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO 5088
RUEHDM/AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS 7292
RUEHJM/AMCONSUL JERUSALEM 3333
RUEHC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC

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