Water Discourse s and the Implications on the Rehabilitation of the Jordan River Romana Gašpirc Supervisor: prof.dr.ir. Arthur P.J. Mol - ENP

Outline Introduction: geography of the Jordan River Basin State-of-the-art: lower Jordan River Valley, water policy Research Aim: research questions Theoretical Approach: discourses and discourse analysis Methodological Approach: in-depth interview s , newspapers’ survey Findings: 3 story-lines, and sanctioned discourse Conclusions: implications of water discourses on Jordan River rehabilitation

Introduction: geography of the Jordan River Basin

State-of-the-art: lower Jordan River Valley, water policy

Research Aim: research questions

Theoretical Approach: discourses and discourse analysis

Methodological Approach: in-depth interview s , newspapers’ survey

Findings: 3 story-lines, and sanctioned discourse

Conclusions: implications of water discourses on Jordan River rehabilitation

1. Introduction: Geography Source: http://www.homepagez.com/pakhistory , http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/3.4.04/groundbreaking.html

Lower Jordan Basin Source: http://www.mideastweb.org/water.htm Euphrates Nile Jordan 32 bcm 86 bcm 1.3 bcm 2.333 km 6.400 km 800 km 3 9 5 So, if Jordan River is not important ... ... then why it is important?

2. State-of-the-art: Lower Jordan Valley situated in Great Rift Valley one of the world's most important crossroads for migratory birds meeting and crossing place for human societies, animals and plants of cultural, religious and geographical importance

situated in Great Rift Valley

one of the world's most important crossroads for migratory birds

meeting and crossing place for human societies, animals and plants

of cultural, religious and geographical importance

therefore, it is ironically that the sewage and saline water are keeping the river alive today... So, then why to talk about the Jordan River? in the last 50 years drop of annual flow from 1.3 bcm to less than 100 mcm, so over 90 % decrease of fresh water flow by Israel, Syria, and Jordan discharge of large quantities of untreated sewage, saline water and agricultural runoff

in the last 50 years drop of annual flow from 1.3 bcm to less than 100 mcm, so over 90 % decrease of fresh water flow by Israel, Syria, and Jordan

discharge of large quantities of untreated sewage, saline water and agricultural runoff

Agreement on Jordan River Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, October 26 1994: Article 6: Water Article 18: Environment CONTRAVENTION !!! Article 6 – Jordan River water allocation for human use Article 18 – ecological rehabilitation of the river

Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, October 26 1994:

Article 6: Water

Article 18: Environment

Which water discourses exist in the Jordan River policy arena? How do stakeholders construct the Jordan River? How do stakeholders organize their attitudes toward Jordan River? Have water discourses changed since 1994 until 2006? 3. Research aim: r esearch questions findings = STORYLINES : DISCOURSES and DISCOURSE COALITIONS

Which water discourses exist in the Jordan River policy arena?

How do stakeholders construct the Jordan River?

How do stakeholders organize their attitudes toward Jordan River?

Have water discourses changed since 1994 until 2006?

4. Theoretical approach: Discourse analysis DISCOURSE: a construction of claims and concerns toward environmental crisis / conflict (EC), it is ensemble of ideas and concepts DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: is “the analysis of the discussion of the ecological crisis and examines all those actors who influence the way in which we conceive the environmental problematisation” (Hajer, 1995) SANCTIONED and ALTERNATIVE DISCOURSES EC

DISCOURSE:

a construction of claims and concerns toward environmental crisis / conflict (EC), it is ensemble of ideas and concepts

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS:

is “the analysis of the discussion of the ecological crisis and examines all those actors who influence the way in which we conceive the environmental problematisation” (Hajer, 1995)

Story lines are discursive practices and the attitude toward environmental dispute maintained by participants or discourse coalitions – individuals, groups, antagonists, etc. Sanctioned discourse – current policy and alternative discourses – the critics to the current policy. Sanctioned discourse: if many people use it so conceptualize the world if it solidifies into institutions and organizational practices

Sanctioned discourse:

if many people use it so conceptualize the world

if it solidifies into institutions and organizational practices

5. Methodology: interviewing and newspaper’s articles extensive literature research and documents review, investigation of water policy arenas in Israel and Jordan, direct observation, in-depth interviews and newspapers’ articles survey IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS 40 interviews, 36 accounts for discourse analysis Interviews conducted in Israel and Jordan TOPICS NEWSPAPERS’ ARTICLES SURVEY 214 newspapers’ articles on transboundary water issues, 1994 – 2006 ISRAELI Jerusalem Post and JORDANIAN Jordan Times EVENTS

extensive literature research and documents review, investigation of water policy arenas in Israel and Jordan, direct observation, in-depth interviews and newspapers’ articles survey

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

40 interviews, 36 accounts for discourse analysis

Interviews conducted in Israel and Jordan

TOPICS

NEWSPAPERS’ ARTICLES SURVEY

214 newspapers’ articles on transboundary water issues, 1994 – 2006

ISRAELI Jerusalem Post and JORDANIAN Jordan Times

EVENTS

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS – TOPICS Participation in domestic water sector Domestic water sector reality Article 6: Water agreement Article 18: Rehabilitation NEWSPAPERS’ ARTICLES SURVEY - EVENTS Peace Treaty, after signing 1994-1995 Amman drinking water contamination 1998 Water shortage 1999-2001 Peace Treaty, after 12 years 2005-2006 STORYLINES CHANGES OF DISCOURSES

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS – TOPICS

Participation in domestic water sector

Domestic water sector reality

Article 6: Water agreement

Article 18: Rehabilitation

NEWSPAPERS’ ARTICLES SURVEY - EVENTS

Peace Treaty, after signing 1994-1995

Amman drinking water contamination 1998

Water shortage 1999-2001

Peace Treaty, after 12 years 2005-2006

Stakeholders / type Negotiator: Head of water negotiation group – Israeli and Jordanian, Head of environment negotiation group – Jordanian, members of negotiation team, Joint Water Committee (JWC) Govt. officials (G) : Water Commissioner, Consultant, Civil servant, Ministerial advisor, Secretary general, f ormer Water Commissioner, former Water Minister, Head of National Water Master Plan Academia (A) : Professor / Researcher of geology, geography, env. engineering, water and env. research, strategic and security studies Environmentalists: Director of NGO, environmental researcher, ecologist, agricultural researcher L ocal level (L) : env. engineer, municipality civil servant, agricultural and irrigation manager

Negotiator: Head of water negotiation group – Israeli and Jordanian, Head of environment negotiation group – Jordanian, members of negotiation team, Joint Water Committee (JWC)

Govt. officials (G) : Water Commissioner, Consultant, Civil servant, Ministerial advisor, Secretary general, f ormer Water Commissioner, former Water Minister, Head of National Water Master Plan

Academia (A) : Professor / Researcher of geology, geography, env. engineering, water and env. research, strategic and security studies

Environmentalists: Director of NGO, environmental researcher, ecologist, agricultural researcher

L ocal level (L) : env. engineer, municipality civil servant, agricultural and irrigation manager

6. Findings: 3 storylines Storyline 1 Storyline 2 Storyline 3 Article 18 : R YES YES YES Article 6: W agree agree disagree TR Cooperation: positive negative negative n Storyline 1 actors stress current water policies toward Jordan River on the base of Article 6 and the cooperation is a “success story”. Storyline 2 actors also agree with Article 6 water policies, but tend to blame each other for the pollution of the river. Storyline 3 actors are the most critical, disappointed, they blame current policies for the state of the river.

Storyline 1 actors stress current water policies toward Jordan River on the base of Article 6 and the cooperation is a “success story”.

Storyline 2 actors also agree with Article 6 water policies, but tend to blame each other for the pollution of the river.

Storyline 3 actors are the most critical, disappointed, they blame current policies for the state of the river.

Discourse coalitions / number L – local, and e-NGO – environmental non-governmental level. Figure 7.1. Graphic presentation of numbers and levels of participation of the stakeholders in the story lines of

Discourse coalitions / type Storyline 1 Water Authorities, Negotiators (water), Ministries (agricultural, foreign, planning, infrastructure), National Water Corporation, Municipality – Jordan Valley, agricultural business manager, Academia – geology, geography, geopolitics Storyline 2 Negotiator (environment), Ministries (environment), Nature and Parks Protection Authority, environmental NGO, Aid agencies (UNDP, USAID, GTZ) Storyline 3 Academia – policy/strategic studies, environmental NGO, environmental researchers (water, environment)

Storyline 1 = Sanctioned Discourse number of actors: 20 ( out of 36) profession of storyline 1 actors: governmental officials – key players, supported by local actors and academia professionals, no environmentalists institutions / issues : JWC – Joint Water Committee, water cooperation, deterioration of Jordan River’s ecosystem, rehabilitation has not yet found its way into the agenda of policy-makers, no solution for the river on horizon, etc. change between 1994-2006: no change according to the newspaper’s article survey, which supports storyline 1 Storylines 2, 3 = Alternative Discourses

number of actors: 20 ( out of 36)

profession of storyline 1 actors: governmental officials – key players, supported by local actors and academia professionals, no environmentalists

institutions / issues : JWC – Joint Water Committee, water cooperation, deterioration of Jordan River’s ecosystem, rehabilitation has not yet found its way into the agenda of policy-makers, no solution for the river on horizon, etc.

change between 1994-2006: no change according to the newspaper’s article survey, which supports storyline 1

7. Conclusions Three storylines identified: sanctioned discourse and two alternative discourses Sanctioned discourse supported by the majority of the interviewees and institutionalized – current policy, institutions, Article 6 in use, JWC, further degradation of the river ecosystem, ... All stakeholders agree Jordan River rehabilitation is necessary, but sanctioned discourse enables continuation of “all for human need” water policies Sanctioned discourse has not changed during 12 years period, alternative “green” discourses gaining more space

Three storylines identified: sanctioned discourse and two alternative discourses

Sanctioned discourse supported by the majority of the interviewees and institutionalized – current policy, institutions, Article 6 in use, JWC, further degradation of the river ecosystem, ...

All stakeholders agree Jordan River rehabilitation is necessary, but sanctioned discourse enables continuation of “all for human need” water policies

Sanctioned discourse has not changed during 12 years period, alternative “green” discourses gaining more space

“ Water shouldn’t be an obstacle to the peace. I don’t know if water will bring peace, but water shouldn’t be an obstacle to reach peace.” “ The peace is better, the river is worse...it took 50 mcm out of the equation.” “ Any country living along the sea...and Israel living along the Mediterranean Sea does not have a water problem whatsoever.” “ How can you take the water out of the river and rehabilitate it at the same time?” “ How can you take the water out of the river and rehabilitate it at the same time?” “ The river is as fish when you take it out of the water.” THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!