Water Imports – An Alternative Solution to Water Scarcity in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan?

IPCRI Fact Sheet #2 Water Imports – An Alternative Solution to Water Scarcity in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan?

January 2010

Water scarcity is a major concern in the Middle East, where most countries have only less than 500m3/capita/year of water available. The annual volume of actual renewable water resources per capita is 261m3 in Israel, approximately 90m3 in Palestine1, and 164m3 in Jordan, while water‐rich countries such as the United States have more than 10,000m3.2 Because the situation is getting worse as a result of sustained population growth and economic development in the region, measures must be taken urgently. Desalination is an attractive solution for Israel and other Arab countries. It is a simple solution and does not require transboundary cooperation, but it may not produce sufficient amount of fresh water to meet the rising demands.3 As a not alternative but a complementary solution, this fact sheet focuses on the potential of exporting water from Turkey to Israel, Palestine, and Jordan.

The Current Water Situation in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan

Israel, Palestine, and Jordan are under absolute water stress, and the situation is getting worse. In fact, a recent study reports that despite Israel’s current maximum exploitation of fresh water resources, 30 percent more water will be required to meet the needs of its population in 2020.4 As for Palestine and Jordan, a recent report states that many Palestinian communities have only interrupted water supply and that two hundred villages in the West Bank are not even connected to the water grid. Even Ramallah, which is at the top of the PA’s order of priorities, has running water only on alternate days of the week during the summer.5 In Jordan, water services operate only for 12 hours each day in Amman and elsewhere.6

Turkey’s Potential as a Water Exporter Among all Mediterranean countries, Turkey is most likely to supply water to Jordan, Palestine, and more especially Israel. Export is possible both practically and politically.

Practical Feasibility 1

This figure derives from information published by the Palestinian Water Authority while international databases such as AQUASTAT which is managed by UN‐FAO put the figure substantially higher 2 (Rijsberman, 2005) (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 3 (Rende, 2007) 4 (Rende, 2007) 5 (Feldman & Blau, 2009) 6 (Rende, 2007) 1

Contrary to general perceptions, Turkey is not necessarily a water abundant country at the global level.

Its available water resources (3,162m3/capita/year in 2007) are merely one fifth of those of water rich countries in North America and Western Europe, and actually, the exploitable amount is only about 1,300m3/capita/year. Nevertheless, Turkey has considerable water resources compared to other Middle Eastern countries, whose annual average amount of available water is only 619.3m3/capita.7 Moreover, it is expected that Turkey’s ongoing efforts for water utilization such as GAP will enhance storage capacities in Anatolia, where 28% of total precipitation flows, and thus make more water available for agriculture, economic development, and export to other countries.8 Thus, assuming that shortage of water, transportation costs, and technical difficulty do not allow for bringing water from non‐Middle Eastern countries in the Mediterranean, only Turkey is a practical candidate for water export in this region.

Political Feasibility Turkey is basically on good terms with both Israel and Arab countries, and its government has consistently supported water export plans in order to strengthen its political status including its bid for the entrance to the EU or other diplomatic interests in the Middle East. In fact, the first proposal for a “Peace Water Pipeline” was made by Turkish President Turgut Özal in 1986. It aimed to bring water from the Seyhan and Ceyhan Rivers in Turkey via pipelines to Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Gulf States. In expectation that water export will be possible, Turkey has already invested $147 million for construction of facilities on the Manavgat River in southern part of the country. It is hoped that these facilities can also provide for export to other countries.9 The Actual Proposals for Implementation

Although water import from Turkey is potentially significant for Israel, Palestine, and Jordan, the biggest issue remains in how such transportation should be undertaken. The following three options have been presented so far though the last one – Manavgat River project – seems to have been most discussed.

1. Surface Pipeline through Syria to Israel and Jordan – The Modified “Peace Water Pipeline” - Overview: This originates from “Peace Water Pipeline”, which was the $21 billion project first presented by Turkish President Turgut Özal in 1986 to transport about 2.2 billion cubic meters of water per year from the Seyhan and Ceyhan Rivers to Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Gulf States via pipelines. Since this initial proposal, which excluded Israel because of Arab objections, was not supported by the oil‐rich Gulf which favored desalination, a shorter pipeline to Jordan or Israel, who are interested in buying Turkish water, has been suggested.10 - Technical and Economic Feasibility: According to Turkey’s State Hydraulic Works (DSI), the average flow in the Seyhan and Ceyhan Rivers is 39.17 million cubic meters per day, and the quantity used in Turkey for all projected agricultural, industrial, and domestic utilization is about 23.04 million cubic meters per day. Therefore, there is 16.1 million cubic meters of surplus per day in Turkey. This will provide sufficient water for export.11 In addition, this plan can be self‐sufficient in terms of energy consumption for transportation: the water coming down the slopes of the western Golan Heights would generate sufficient energy to convey itself along with the whole route of around 700 km.12 The estimated cost of this short pipeline project is $5 billion, and assuming financial and military guarantees from the U.S. and U.N., the price for final users is estimated at less than $0.50. 13 - Political Feasibility: The surface pipeline either to Jordan or Israel must go through Syria, which means that whereas 7

(Rende, 2007) ( Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (Bayazait & Avci, 1997) 9 (Gruen, 2007) 10 (Gruen, 2007) 11 (Gruen, 2007) 12 (Wachtel & Liel) 13 (Hoffman, 2003) 8

2

-

the pipeline to Jordan is not in dispute, its extension to Israel would be difficult due to the political conflict between Israel and Syria. In other words, the pipeline to Israel will only be possible if Israel leaves the Golan Heights. Even then, Israel will be reluctant to rely on water supply through a pipeline which is at the mercy of Turkey and Syria.14 Regional Impact: If excludes Israel, this plan is no longer a regional solution; it would not solve the water scarcity of Israeli and Palestinians. Nevertheless, there might be some indirect positive effect on Israeli and Palestinian water resources; the pipeline might encourage Syria and Jordan to take less water from the Yarmouk River and thus could increase the amount of water available for Israel and hopefully for Palestine.15 However, there is no guarantee of such a possibility.

2. Undersea Multipurpose Pipeline through the Mediterranean Sea to Israel – “Medstream” Project - Overview: Because of the political difficulty in laying surface pipelines as mentioned above, the construction of undersea pipelines directly to Israel from Turkey has been discussed. This “Medstream” Project would consist of five pipelines that carry water, natural gas, oil, electricity and fibre‐optics. It is hoped that a comprehensive project of this kind would be able to attract financial support. The undersea pipeline, which would be about 400km long, would be constructed between the Turkish Mediterranean city of Ceyhan and the Israeli Mediterranean city of Ashkelon, and further connection to the existing oil pipelines from Ceyhan to Baku, Azerbaijan and from Ashkelon to the Red Sea port of Eilat is also envisaged.16 - Technical and Economic Feasibility: The cost, estimated at $2.5‐4 billion, could be covered if there is sufficient support from public and private sectors interested in using the pipeline. However, a major technical problem will remain; the sea between Turkey and Israel is very deep, almost one km at its deepest, and as a result the pipeline and contents may not be able to sustain water pressure.17 Feasibility studies on this project are ongoing according to the agreement which was made in 2008 between Israeli and Turkish governments, but the results are not available yet.18 - Political Feasibility: This project is not affected by the political relationship between Israel and Syria and thus is easy. However, it should be noted that the project was actually rejected once before when the Turkish Government insisted on having a transit station in the politically disputable Northern Cyprus. The negotiations would become complicated if it is raised again.19 - Regional Impact: There is no direct impact on Palestine and Jordan since all imported water goes straight into Israel.

What is brought to these two countries would be only the slight possibility of the increased water share in the Jordan River Basin resulting from Israel’s use of Turkish water.20 3. Manavgat River Project Using Purpose‐Built Tankers or “Spragg” Bags - Overview: The idea of exporting water from the Manavgat River in Turkey to Israel by tanker came up when a serious drought hit Israel in 1999, and finally, the agreement that Israel would purchase 50 million cubic meters of water annually for twenty years was signed by both governments in March, 2004. In fact, Turkey had already completed constructing the necessary facilities on the Manavgat at the expense of $147 million, which were capable of extracting 500,000m3 per day and treating half of this amount. However, the high cost of transporting the water by tankers actually led to the cancellation of the agreement. In order to transport the water economically alternatives such as using water bags must be considered.21 - Technical and Economic Feasibility: One of the biggest issues in this project is how treated water can be shipped, on which economic cost of water depends. Whereas building special tankers is an option with huge construction and maintenance costs, another option is using water bags which can float at sea level and be towed by tugs. In fact, so far there have been two Mediterranean cases of exporting water by using bags. However, in both cases, the ocean distance is no more than 100 km ‐ from Turkey to the Greek islands or from Turkey to Northern Cyprus – while the ocean distance between Turkey and Israel is 500 to 600km.22 Moreover, the Turkey‐Cyprus case eventually failed 14

(Gruen, 2007) (Wachtel & Liel) 16 (IHS Global Insight, 2008) (Ariyoruk, 2003) 17 (Wachtel & Liel) 18 (IHS Global Insight, 2008) (Ariyoruk, 2003) 19 (Newman, 2009) 20 (Wachtel & Liel) 21 (Gürer & Ülger, 2007) (Gruen, 2007) (Rende, 2007) 22 (Policy Research Initiative) (Government of New Foundland and Labrador, 2001) 15

3

-

-

after four‐year operation due to technical deficiencies under rough sea conditions.23 Since then, a new innovative bag for transporting water, the “Spragg” bag, has been developed, but the technical feasibility of using it has still to be further studied.24 The economic cost might be increased by the facts that the shallow coastline off Israel requires offshore pipes to be installed. At the present time, the costs of loading and transportation are estimated

by Turkish sources at $0.13‐0.18 and at $0.7‐0.8, leading to a high final user price of about $1.00 per cubic meter25, but those directly concerned with the development of the water bags put the figure substantially lower at $0.40 to $0.50 depending on the distance to be covered, capital cost figures and the number of bags to be transported at any one time. Presently the developers of the "Spragg" bag are attempting to persuade the authorities to authorize a trial demonstration of their technology.26 Political Feasibility: Turkish government has been highly motivated to implement the agreement with Israel because there are no other willing customers despite its investment in the Manavgat facilities and their large capacity for providing water for export. In addition, the government is eager to make this project a model for water export to Cyprus, Malta, and the Greek Islands. On the other hand, a difficulty exists in Israel since there are strong objections from desalination advocates from both economic and political perspectives. They indicate that given the rapid improvement of desalination technology in Israel, desalinated water would be cheaper than Turkish water.

Also, there is a concern about too much reliance on Turkey, which recently criticized Israel for its occupation of the West Bank. Actually, Israel has not equipped its port with suitable facilities yet, and even if an agreement is eventually signed for export by tanker or “spragg” bags, the purchase amount agreed by Israel (50 mcm/year) is no more than 3% of Israeli annual consumption (2000 mcm/year).27 Regional Impact: The positive impact will at first be available only to Israel. The West Bank and Jordan will be left out of the project though Israeli purchase of Turkish water might help reallocation of water to the Jordan River Basin.28 Another positive feature might be that if sufficient water were made available to Israel less water would need to be pumped from the Kinneret with a consequent reduction in energy costs which are currently high for supplying water to the national carrier. There are also opportunities for using the technology as a productive solution for the water scarcity in Gaza. It is politically and geographically unlikely that pipelines from Turkey would be extended to Gaza, but shipping water directly to Gaza’s coastline is perfectly possible.

23

(Rende, 2007) (Policy Research Initiative) (Government of New Foundland and Labrador, 2001) 25 (Gruen, 2007) 26 More information about Spragg Bag is available on the website www.waterbag.com.

27 (Rende, 2007) (Gruen, 2007) 28 (Wachtel & Liel) 24

4

ANNEX I: Comparisons of Measures from Israeli Perspective

Turkish Water via Surface Pipelines

Turkish Water via Undersea Pipelines

Turkish Water by shipping

Direct Beneficiaries

Jordan, Syria

Israel

Uncertain Beneficiaries

Israel, Palestine

Jordan, Palestine

$5 billion

$2.5 ‐ 4 billion Low Uncertain

Israel, Gaza West Bank, Jordan Uncertain

Economic Costs Political User Price (/m3)

High < $0.5

Low About $1.0

Quantity (m3) 2.19 billion (per year)

Uncertain

50 million (per year)

Quality

High

High

high

Seyhan and Ceyhan Rivers in Turkey 700km

Seyhan and Ceyhan Rivers in Turkey 400km

Manavgat River in Turkey

Water

Source

distance

500‐ 600km

Waste Water Treatme nt

Desalination (quite various depending on plant conditions)29 Israel

Israel

Palestine

Palestine

Uncertain

Uncertai n Low 0.35

Low $0.52‐0.55 ($0.33‐0.42 if brackish) 500 million (per day) ‐ drinking water: 50 million per year by using brackish water

270 million in 2003, 620 million in 2020 (per year) Medium (high if Low brackish) Israel Israel

0

0

29

(Government of New Foundland and Labrador, 2001) 5

ANNEX II: Water resources: total renewable per capita (actual) (m3/inhab/yr) in 2007 Algeria

350

Bahrain

157

Cyprus

922

Egypt

773

Iraq

2652

Israel

261

Jordan

164

Kuwait

7.2

Lebanon Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

*Data in 2007 from AQUASTAT, FAO of the UN

1110 99

Occupied Palestinian Territory

215

Oman

550

Qatar

70.6

Saudi Arabia

99.3

Syrian Arab Republic

865

Tunisia

450

Turkey

2889

United Arab Emirates

35.3

Yemen

96.6

6

Bibliography Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). AQUASTAT. Retrieved 8 1, 2009, from http://www.fao.org/NR/WATER/AQUASTAT/main/index.stm

Ariyoruk, A. (2003). Turkish Water to Israel? Retrieved 8 1, 2009, from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/print.php?template=C05&CID=1660

Bayazait, M., & Avci, I. (1997). Water Resources of Turkey: Potential, Planning, Development, and Management. Water Resources Development , Vol. 13, No. 4, 443‐452.

Feldman, Y., & Blau, U. (2009, 8 20). A dry and thirsty land . Haaretz .

Government of New Foundland and Labrador. (2001). Examining the Export of Bulk Water .

Gruen, G. E. (2007). Turkish Water Exports: A Model for Regional Cooperation in the Development of Water Resources. In Water Resources in the Middle East: Israel‐Palestinian Water Issues — From Conflict to Cooperation (p. Chapter 15). Berlin: Springer.

Gürer, İ., & Ülger, M. (2007). Manavgat River Water As a Limited But Alternative Water Resource For Domestic Use in Middle East. In H. Shuval, & H. Dweik, Water Resources in the Middle East: Israel‐Palestinian Water Issues ‐ From Conflict to Cooperation (p. Chapter 17). Berlin: Springer.

Hoffman, T. (2003). A Strategy to Build a Freshwater Pipeline from Turkey to Jordan. California: The Monterey Institute of International Studies.

IHS Global Insight. (2008, 7 18). Turkey, Israel Agree to Move Ahead with Med Pipeline; Gazprom Nears Supply Deal with Israel.

Retrieved 8 1, 2009, from http://www.globalinsight.com/SDA/SDADetail13378.htm

Newman, D. (2009). In the Name of Security: In the Name of Peace ‐ Environmental Schizophrenia and the Security Descourse in Israel/Palestine. In H. G. Brauch, U. O. Spring, J. Grin, C. Mesjasz, P. Kameri‐Mbote, N. C. Behera, et al., Facing Global Environmental Change ‐ Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts (p. Chapter 65). Berlin: Springer.

Palestinian Water Authority. (2007). Water Supply Report.

Policy Research Initiative. (n.d.). Exporting Canada’s Water I: Outside of NAFTA. Retrieved 8 1, 2009, from https://policyresearch.gc.ca/doclib/BN_SD_ExportingWater_200501_e.pdf

Rende, M. (2007). Water Transfer from Turkey to Water‐Stressed Countries in the Middle East. In Water Resources in the Middle East: Israel‐Palestinian Water Issues — From Conflict to Cooperation (p. Chapter 16). Berlin: Springer.

Rijsberman, F. R. (2005). Water scarcity: Fact or fiction? Sri Lanka: Elsevier B.V.

Terry G. Spragg & Associates. Spragg Bags. http://www.waterbag.com/ (accessed 9 1, 2009).

UNESCO, WMO, & IAEA. (2006). The State of the Resource. In T. U. Nations, The 2nd UN World Water Development Report: 'Water, a shared responsibility' (p. Chapter 4). http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr2/table_contents.shtml.

Wachtel, B., & Liel, A. The Turkey to Jordan River Basin Countries 'Peace Canal on the Golan' Proposal: Benefits and Risks for Regional Water Cooperation in the Middle East.

7