Spaces of Water Governance: The Case of Israel and Its Neighbors

Abstract

This article examines the scale dynamics of water governance. Five generic scales are identified, each associated with a particular ideology and discourse. Hence, scale dynamics are hypothesized to oscillate as a function not only of power and economic factors (although these are central) but as reflections of shifts in dominant ideologies and shifts in sanctioned discourses. The dynamics are examined in the intra-Israeli and the Israeli-Arab cases. In the intra-Israeli case the scale dynamics largely conform with the hypothesis. Once the national level is exceeded, however, the different story lines associated with the generic scales are used only to legitimize negotiating positions, and the actual regime scale is a compromise among physical features, power factors, and sovereignty considerations. The difference in dynamics between the intranational and international levels is explained by the need of international regimes to address the discrepancy between resource domains and sovereignty rights domains, rather than the discrepancy with property rights domains at the intrastate level.Este artículo examina la dinámica de escala sobre el gobierno del agua. Se identifican cinco escalas genéricas, cada cual asociada con una ideología y discurso particular. En consecuencia, se hipotetiza que las dinámicas de escala oscilan como una función, no solo de factores económicos y de poder (aunqueéstos son centrales), sino como reflejo de cambios en las ideologías dominantes y cambios de los discursos autorizados. Las dinámicas son examinadas a la luz de casos en contexto israelí e israelí-árabe. En el caso israelí propiamente dicho, la dinámica de escala en gran parte está conforme con la hipótesis. Tan pronto como se transmonta el nivel nacional, sin embargo, las diferentes líneas de la historia asociadas con las escalas genéricas se utilizan apenas para legitimar posiciones de negociación, y la escala del régimen real aparece como un compromiso entre rasgos físicos, factores de poder y consideraciones de soberanía. La diferencia de dinámica entre los niveles intranacionales e internacionales se explica más por la necesidad que tienen los regímenes internacionales de tomar en cuenta la discrepancia entre dominios de los recursos y dominios de los derechos de soberanía, que por la discrepancia con dominios de derechos de propiedad al nivel intraestatal. Palabras clave: Israelí-árabe, escala, transfronterizo, agua.

The demarcation of arbitrary boundaries for coastal zone management: The Israeli case

“…Yet, the real life spatial and scalar configuration of governance reveals the struggle between stakeholders and decision makers on how to balance development with environmental concerns (Bulkeley, 2005). This struggle is illustrated by the great variation in how and according to what criteria boundaries are established for the management of natural resources (Feitelson and Fischhendler, 2009), especially those designed for management of the coastal zone. One option is arbitrary boundary delineation that ignores both the physical and administrative heterogeneity of the coastal area and therefore is likely to hinder the implementation of ICZM and ecosystem-based management approaches.…”

Decoupling dependence on natural water: reflexivity in the regulation and allocation of water in Israel

“…The Hydraulic Mission stage of Israel's water development following its establishment in 1948 is well covered in the literature, including Feitelson & Fischhendler (2009), Nativ, (2004 and Tal (2002). The main aim of this stage was to change the geographical distribution of water to match available land and population centres.…”

Retrospective on Nature–Society Geography: Tracing Trajectories (1911–2010) and Reflecting on Translations

“…6 Governance institutions and landscapes examined include: (1) community-and user-based management (nationally and internationally influenced) of fisheries, marine organisms, and forestry and range resources (Robbins 1998;St. Martin 2001;Young 2001;Mutersbaugh 2002;Mansfield 2004;McCarthy 2006;Campbell 2007); (2) water resources in urban planning, international relations, and irrigation, including response management and mitigation of climate change (Emel and Roberts 1995;Perreault 2008;Birkenholtz 2009;Feitelson and Fischhendler 2009;Norman and Bakker 2009;Gober et al 2010); (3) biodiversity and environmental conservation (Zimmerer 1999;Campbell 2007;Roth 2008); (4) agriculture, land tenure, land change, pesticide use, and agrarian reform and policy institutions, including urban and periurban food production (Bebbington and Carney 1990;Grossman 1993;Muldavin 1997;Schroeder 1997;Awanyo 2001;Freidberg 2001;Hovorka 2005;Unruh 2006;Galt 2010;Jepson, Brannstrom, and Filippi 2010); (5) modern environmentalism and justice movements (Bowen et al 1995;Pulido 2000;Liu 2008); (6) state environmental and energy agencies (Feldman and Jonas 2000;Heiman and Solomon 2004); and (7) industrial and manufacturing regulation (Willems-Braun 1997;R. A. Walker 2001;Prudham 2003).…”