Innovative Solution

peace, water management

educational

• Explore solutions to key regional problems; and

• Build confidence among the parties to create a dynamic that reinforces cooperation and peace.

The model for cooperation incorporated in the multilateral peace process is premised on the vision of creating synergies through awareness of common problems, such as water. By concentrating on the common problem of regional water scarcity, the participants in the process have been able to transcend the realm of competing interests and create a situation in which, all parties share benefits. The central focus is placed on creating a positive dynamic that will lead to tangible results in solving common water problems and that will foster actions that will translate I into effective regional cooperation. This dynamic is self-reinforcing. Regional awareness and sensitivity to common needs lead to the conceptualization and definition of regional problems. This leads to a search for regional solutions, which then are channeled back into the process of bilateral problem solving between parties, and promotes synergetic regional cooperation. Once tangible milestones of regional cooperation are achieved, regional awareness is reinforced and the momentum is perpetuated.

Characteristics of the Multilateral Model

The model of cooperation exhibited in the multilateral framework has been a model-in-the-making. No preconceived limitations or requirements were developed or applied. At the same time, however, a common ground was fostered and reinforced by specific organizational and behavioral practices. The process has been gradual, deliberate, and, at times, laborious, requiring procedural definition, ratification of decisions by each of the participating regional parties, and the support (financial and otherwise) of the various donor parties involved. The progress that has been achieved, both in terms of project completion and confidence, building, can be attributed to a number of important factors:

• Articulated goals: Goals were articulated in broad terms by the regional participants themselves, and great care was taken to maintain the general nature of these goals throughout the various stages of the projects. The fundamental approach by all participants was technical in nature.

• Seeking a common denominator: The parties realized that the process would be gradual, and that the ultimate. goal was to find a common. denominator among the various positions rather than to focus on furthering national interests at the expense of the other parties. This action kept the focus of discussions on the future and led to a situation in which the success of the multilateral track was not contingent exclusively on progress made in bilateral negotiations.

• Participation of the international community: The support and participation of the international community was strong and, at times, crucial to the continuation of the process. The role of the donor nations was proactive and not limited to financing or occasional mediation. It reflected an international commitment to create a long-term solution to Middle East water problems that would be based on cooperation rather than mere compromise. While the international community role in “shepherding” new projects was essential early in the process, a sign of the success of the multilateral track is that their role has changed to that of a project funding donor and a partner with the participating parties. A further measure of success is that during a period of comparative stagnation in the peace process, multilateral water activities have continued to achieve, and even expand, their original objectives.

• Orientation on results: Program emphasis was placed on agreeing to pragmatic measures for future implementation. High priority was placed on activities that provided visible, positive results tot encourage public acceptance of the process. All sides endeavored to attain tangible, recognizable achievements or measures that could be translated into action when political circumstances permitted.

• Consensus decision-making: Decision-making was by consensus which means that the outcome of deliberations reflected acceptance by all the parties. This approach does not require that all parties enter with similar objectives or that all parties are equally committed to the outcome, but it does require that all parties can live with the decision. It also injects a basic equality into the process, as each individual party has the ability to veto a given proposal. Moreover, it allows issues to be raised openly as a focus of discussion rather than bargaining. Ultimately, consensual decision-making fosters mutual sensitivity to the, needs of the other parties. In order to be effective, veto power is used sparingly to reject only those proposals to which a party has a strong objection. This differs from traditional bilateral modes of negotiation where each side tries to gain an advantage by seeking optimal solutions for themselves.

• High-level participants: The Working Group was comprised of high-level decision-makers in the water sector who were able to forge long-term personal and professional relationships. In most cases, these professionals represented their respective governments in other international forums, such as the Barcelona Process, and were able to leverage regional contacts to further international networking for themselves and the constituencies they represented.

• Comparable technical capability: Early in the process, consensus was reached that special attention should be paid to capacity building in the Palestinian Authority. This was an absolute requirement for Jordanian, Israeli, and Palestinian participants to be able to establish and maintain a comparable technical and scientific level.

• Project flexibility: Most of the projects were designed to be flexible in order to allow the inclusion of additional regional participants and project elements with time. Follow-on, complementary activities also could be incorporated easily within a given project or activity in a manner that promoted organic growth and synergy.

• Informal atmosphere: Generally, multilateral activities were conducted without a protocol – a situation that encouraged participants to speak freely and openly. Multilateral discussions were low-key, and rarely allowed to attract public attention. Decisions reached did not formally commit participating parties to a specific course of action, and the projects undertaken were pragmatic rather than declaratory in purpose. This informality became particularly important when the formal multilateral framework was suspended. The Group’s legitimacy essentially resulted from its activity.

• Public/private sector cooperation: Not only were many participants in the multilateral track technical specialists, rather than politicians or diplomats, but several came from the Private sector. This was particularly, but not exclusively, the case in project activities carried out under the aegis of the MWGWR and applied not only to technical experts from outside the region, but also to experts from within the region.

Middle East Countries

The Middle East Multilateral Working Group on Water Resources (MWGWR) a case study of the “From Vision to Action” theme adopted by this international forum on water. Almost a decade ago at the Madrid Peace Conference, a vision for the Middle East was articulated.

Enhancement of water data availability

• Regional Water Data Banks

• Water management practices, including conservation

   

• Public Awareness & Water Conservation

• Optimization of Intensive Agriculture under Varying Water Quality Conditions

• Comparative Study of Water Laws & Water Institutions in the Region

• Enhancement of water supply

   

• Regional Water Supply & Demand Study

• Middle East Desalination Research Center

  Concepts of regional water management & cooperation

   

• Water Sector Training Program

• Declaration on Principles for Cooperation Among the Core Parties on Water Related Matters & New and Additional Water Resources

• Water Atlas

• Waternet

• Developing Infrastructure  to meet out the effective implementation and attainment

• Mobile laboratories to locate and monitor polluting agents;

• Telemetry equipment for early warning of natural disasters; and

• Computer and communications equipment.

• Rehabilitation of field equipment for flow measurement and upgrading laboratory equipment to enhance regional compatibility – in conjunction with the European Union.

• Initiation of a regional pilot project for the real-time collection and transmission of hydrological data – in conjunction with France.

• A pilot project to treat polluted local water sources – in conjunction with The Netherlands,

• Development of hydrological models for the infusion of marginal water to underground aquifers – in conjunction with The Netherlands, and

• Establishment of a regional data base on high intensity precipitation events – in conjunction with the United States.

Public Awareness and Water Conservation Project

Optimization of Intensive Agriculture Under Varying Water Quality Conditions

Comparative Study of Water Laws and Water Institutions in the Region

Regional Water Supply and Demand Study

Middle East Desalination Research Center

• Discovering, developing, and improving methods of desalination through basic and applied research.

• Initiating training programs in the field of desalination to develop expertise as well as technical and scientific skills.

• Promoting electronic networking communications to improve the dissemination of technical information on desalination.

• Establishing regional cooperation and work to foster progress in the development, improvement, and use of water desalination and related technical areas.

• The following things have to be kept in mind

• Developing regionally compatible legal, economic, and institutional frameworks, and

  The ability of the participating parties to cooperate based on identified common denominators among their respective water management systems.

• Every peace loving citizen would welcome this. We have to change our mental attitude to accept the reality in the ground.

• Pilot artificial recharge studies.

• Waste water treatment for small communities.

• Digital geological mapping of the region to facilitate data analysis, modeling, and monitoring.

• Identify sources of water pollution and waste water reuse.

• Estimation of groundwater recharge taking account of soils and geology.

• Development of brackish ground water.

• Water treatment and artificial recharge.

• Instrumentation and equipment – modern monitoring equipment could enhance reliability and accuracy of water data.

• Geophysical methods.

• GIS – application and linkages to enable use of modem mapping and spatial analysis techniques.

• Decision support system.

• Regional water resources model. Impact of climate change.

• Regional water quality field manual to enable regional standardization of procedures.

• Periodic water situation report.

• Implementation of a comprehensive quality control process in each water quality laboratory.

• Digitize historic water-resources data (currently in paper files).

• Update directories (experts and projects) and bibliography.

The MWGWR offers a viable process to undertake larger scale infrastructure projects that will physically demonstrate the benefits of the multilateral framework. An excellent starting point would be construction of the prototype desalination plants on the Mediterranean and the Red Seas. This proposal is a direct outcome of a working group study that demonstrates the possibility of creating as much as 10 MCM of additional water annually in these areas.

The MWGWR should endeavor to bring other parties from the MENA region into the process. Systems developed in the Regional Water Data Banks and Waternet Projects easily can be extended to include other regional parties. The many countries that participated in the Regional Training Program represent potential partners for ongoing and future activities.

Dr.P.S.Navaraj Dean Yadava College Madurai India 9442648168 navaraj678@sify.com