198
and Jordan receives the remaining waters, while Israel is allowed to obtain
13 × 10
6 m
3 during the winter period. The parties agreed also on a storage system,
which permits the storage of 20 × 10
6 m
3 allocation during the summer period. In
Article 7 of Annex II, the establishment of a Joint Water Committee comprised of
three members from each country is fi xed. The cooperation of water issues and the
exchange of relevant data on water resources are synchronised by the Joint Water
Committee. The Joint Water Committee shall survey existing uses for documentation and prevention of appreciable harm. The treaty foresees also the joint establishment of monitoring stations and bans the disposal of wastewater in the rivers without
treatment to standards allowing the unrestricted agricultural use.
In fact the Jordan–Israel Peace Treaty is the legal foundation for the development
of the Red Sea–Dead Sea (RSDS) Conveyance Project. Israel and Jordan admitted
the fact that the natural water resources are not suffi cient to meet their needs. The
parties agreed to cooperate in the development of new water resources among others, and Israel agreed to transfer desalinated water to Jordan.
The Jordan–Israel Peace Treaty of 1994 did not address any of the other riparian
rights or any other aspect of the Jordan River basin except those of the Yarmuk and
Jordan River. Any peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians with concern to
water management will therefore interfere with the agreements settled in the
Jordan–Israel Peace Treaty (Mager 2015 ).
13.2.4 The Oslo II Agreement
The most important water issues of concern between Israel and Palestine are the use
of the aquifers located in the West Bank, the Eastern, Western and North-Eastern
Mountain Aquifers, and the sharing of their resources. The share and distribution of
the water resources and the establishment of a Palestinian Water Administration
Authority were settled in Annex III, Article 40 of the Oslo II Agreement (Israeli–
Palestinian Interim Agreement (Oslo II) 28 September 1995 , pp. 318 ff.). In essence
the Oslo II Agreement gives the Palestinians the right to establish a Water
Administration Authority and acknowledges for the fi rst time in principle Palestinian
water rights. The future water demands for the Palestinians have been mutually
agreed to be around 70–80 × 10
6 m
3 per year. The exact allocation is postponed to
the Permanent Status Negotiations and Agreement.
The two parties agreed to establish a Joint Water Committee (JWC) for the
interim period until a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis will be
settled. Even though the Joint Water Committee has far reaching administrative
responsibilities concerning the management of the water resources in reality, the
JWC led to the formalisation of discriminatory management practices (Baumgarten
2010 , p. 189). All development projects are under the condition of prior approval by
the JWC, but as all decisions of the JWC should be reached by consensus, Israel got
a de facto veto right. Furthermore, projects outside the areas under administration of
the Palestinian Authority (A and B) need the approval of the civil administration,
C. Bismuth
and Jordan receives the remaining waters, while Israel is allowed to obtain
13 × 10
6 m
3 during the winter period. The parties agreed also on a storage system,
which permits the storage of 20 × 10
6 m
3 allocation during the summer period. In
Article 7 of Annex II, the establishment of a Joint Water Committee comprised of
three members from each country is fi xed. The cooperation of water issues and the
exchange of relevant data on water resources are synchronised by the Joint Water
Committee. The Joint Water Committee shall survey existing uses for documentation and prevention of appreciable harm. The treaty foresees also the joint establishment of monitoring stations and bans the disposal of wastewater in the rivers without
treatment to standards allowing the unrestricted agricultural use.
In fact the Jordan–Israel Peace Treaty is the legal foundation for the development
of the Red Sea–Dead Sea (RSDS) Conveyance Project. Israel and Jordan admitted
the fact that the natural water resources are not suffi cient to meet their needs. The
parties agreed to cooperate in the development of new water resources among others, and Israel agreed to transfer desalinated water to Jordan.
The Jordan–Israel Peace Treaty of 1994 did not address any of the other riparian
rights or any other aspect of the Jordan River basin except those of the Yarmuk and
Jordan River. Any peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians with concern to
water management will therefore interfere with the agreements settled in the
Jordan–Israel Peace Treaty (Mager 2015 ).
13.2.4 The Oslo II Agreement
The most important water issues of concern between Israel and Palestine are the use
of the aquifers located in the West Bank, the Eastern, Western and North-Eastern
Mountain Aquifers, and the sharing of their resources. The share and distribution of
the water resources and the establishment of a Palestinian Water Administration
Authority were settled in Annex III, Article 40 of the Oslo II Agreement (Israeli–
Palestinian Interim Agreement (Oslo II) 28 September 1995 , pp. 318 ff.). In essence
the Oslo II Agreement gives the Palestinians the right to establish a Water
Administration Authority and acknowledges for the fi rst time in principle Palestinian
water rights. The future water demands for the Palestinians have been mutually
agreed to be around 70–80 × 10
6 m
3 per year. The exact allocation is postponed to
the Permanent Status Negotiations and Agreement.
The two parties agreed to establish a Joint Water Committee (JWC) for the
interim period until a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis will be
settled. Even though the Joint Water Committee has far reaching administrative
responsibilities concerning the management of the water resources in reality, the
JWC led to the formalisation of discriminatory management practices (Baumgarten
2010 , p. 189). All development projects are under the condition of prior approval by
the JWC, but as all decisions of the JWC should be reached by consensus, Israel got
a de facto veto right. Furthermore, projects outside the areas under administration of
the Palestinian Authority (A and B) need the approval of the civil administration,
C. Bismuth