Case Studies of Israeli–Palestinian Environmental Cooperation in the Greater Bethlehem Area
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Springer - Publisher Connector GeoJournal DOI 10.1007/s10708-016-9708-0 Unpacking the complex nature of cooperative interactions: case studies of Israeli–Palestinian environmental cooperation in the greater Bethlehem area Kyra Marie Reynolds Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In the last few decades, a growing number Ultimately, these factors are making such interactions of theorists have suggested that the natural environ- limited, unstable and/or prone to collapse. The paper ment can be a platform for promoting cooperation concludes that only by conducting in-depth multi- between former adversaries and can perhaps con- tiered and context-specific analyses of cooperative tribute to peacebuilding. However, environmental processes and subsequently finding ways to overcome cooperation has not lived up to these claims. In many the identified barriers can we move towards more cases, such cooperation has largely been ineffective successful environmental cooperation. and/or inequitable. Therefore, there is a growing awareness that we cannot be overly optimistic at the Keywords Environment Á Cooperation Á Israel Á first signs of ‘cooperation’. It is argued that this reality Palestine results from the great complexity inherent in cooper- ative interactions. This paper explores the nature of such cooperation in two Israeli–Palestinian case Introduction studies. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is one of the longest-running protracted conflicts in the modern era Alongside concerns pertaining to the emergence of and is currently characterised by a political stalemate. water wars and natural resource conflicts in the 21st However, there is also a willingness by some at the century, the last few decades has witnessed a surge in local level to cooperate. Therefore Israel/Palestine academic literature expressing the potential of the provides an ideal case study. The findings of the paper environment in facilitating cooperation and amicable illuminate the complex nature of environmental benefit-sharing between conflicting parties (Phillips cooperation and reveal that even with the presence et al. 2006). Some even contend that such cooperation of good intentions, cooperation at the subnational level can contribute to peacebuilding by spilling over from is impacted by the broader socio-political structures areas of so-called low-politics (in this case the and contexts within which it is embedded. In these environment) into areas of high-politics (e.g. Agges- case studies, this is negatively affecting both the tam and Sundell-Eklund 2014). However, despite this nature and scale of the processes and outcomes. optimism, environmental cooperation/peacemaking has not lived up to such expectations and has often been ineffective and/or unfavourable. This paper, & K. M. Reynolds ( ) recognising this issue as the product of the complexity School of Geography & Environmental Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, County Londonderry, UK inherent in the nature and conduct of environmental e-mail: [email protected] cooperation, seeks to problematize and unpack this 123 GeoJournal complexity. After laying out the literary context to of the geographic features of specific basins with a which it contributes, it explores the nature of cooper- multiplicity of historical, political, economic, social, ation in two Israeli–Palestinian cases of environmental strategic and cultural factors’’ (p. 202). Within this cooperation in the greater Bethlehem area. Such already complicated context, one must add the range of exploration, by identifying obstacles and limitations self-interested actors engaged in the cooperation, each encountered in cooperative interactions, sets the coming to the table with their own interests and platform for future studies to suggest ways of agendas, political standings, developmental stage, enhancing the processes and outcomes of such coop- perceptions, power position and reputations (e.g. Victor erative projects. 2006). In sum, cooperation faces many barriers- strategic, political, technical and economic- that influ- ence the capacity and willingness of actors to engage in Literature review cooperative interactions (Elhance 2000). In light of these factors, agreements, conventions, and river basin Since the mid-1980s, in response to alarmist notions of organisations (RBOs) are not necessarily accurate ‘resource wars’ and environmentally induced violent indicators of cooperation, as is often assumed (e.g. conflict that dominated environmental security liter- Mirumachi and Allan 2007). They are often nothing ature, a more liberal counter-discourse emerged which more than ‘paper tigers’, sinks for donor funds, or argued that the environment is more often an inducer regimes that preserve or further inequity (Zeitoun of co-operation rather than conflict, and that it could be 2008), result in asymmetric gains, further economic a potential catalyst for promoting stable rela- development under the rubric of promoting cooperation tions/peacebuilding (Martin et al. 2011). Indeed, Wolf at the expense of the environment (e.g. Sneddon and et al. stated in (2005), that in the previous 50 years, Fox), and methods which fail to have the presumed spill there had been 507 conflict-related transboundary over effects and thus promote broader cooperation and events over water compared to 1228 cooperative dialogue at larger political and societal levels (e.g. events. They contend that ‘‘water has…been a pro- Carius 2006). In light of these many faces of cooper- ductive pathway for building confidence, developing ation, Mirumachi (2007) outlined a 5-level scale which cooperation, and preventing conflict, even in particu- assesses the intensity of cooperation in various cases. larly contentious basins’’ (p. 94). Aside from negoti- These levels are distinguished from one another based ations and signed agreements, other oft cited evidence on the presence/absence of 4 things: joint action, of the potential for environmental cooperation has believing that the other party will contribute to been the formation of transfrontier conservation areas collective action, intention to contribute to collective (TFCAs) or ‘Peace Parks’ (e.g. Ali 2007). Some action, and common goals. This recognises that not all scholars have thus come to believe that the environ- cooperation is of equal value. ment ‘‘provides a window of opportunity for cooper- It is now also recognised that the presence of ation and coexistence between former adversaries’’ cooperative type interactions does not automatically (Coskun 2009: 103). However, these transformative mean the absence of conflict. In fact, cooperation can views have been accused of being overly optimistic be laden in conflict (Selby 2013). Zeitoun and and of being too hasty with their optimism at the first Mirumachi (2008) claim that: signs of cooperation. Correspondingly, environmental The examination of either conflict or coopera- cooperation literature appears to be becoming increas- tion…refutes the reality of the vast majority of ingly aware that not all cooperation is favourable or contexts where cooperation and conflict coexist, effective, thus acknowledging the need to scrutinise and perpetuates the paradigm that any conflict is the nature of cooperative interactions. These realities, ‘bad’ and that all forms of cooperation are I argue, stem from the complexity inherent in coop- ‘good’ (p. 297). erative processes. Elhance (2000) contends that, ‘‘hydropolitics by its The above statement suggests that conflict and coop- very nature is one of the most complex arenas of eration are not necessarily negative and positive interstate relations’’ (p. 202). This stems from the fact respectively. Indeed, they assert that there are ‘‘less that each context brings with it ‘‘unique combinations ugly faces of conflict and less pretty faces of 123 GeoJournal cooperation’’ (p. 299). Yet they claim that these are settler-colonial project aiming to establish a Jewish overlooked, as are the political aspects of these national homeland in historic Palestine, thereby creat- interactions. Cooperation, then, is not always positive. ing a long-running conflict with the native Arab In fact Zeitoun and Mirumachi (2008) claim that it inhabitants of the region. Although a peace process ‘‘may serve to veil or perpetuate conflict’’ and may began in Oslo in 1993, it subsequently collapsed in even ‘‘deepen it’’ (p. 312). A lot of this potential for 2000 with the eruption of the Al-Aqsa intifada (e.g. negative ‘cooperation’ stems from the fact that it often Coskun 2009). Since that time, there has been a takes place in situations of highly asymmetrical power political stalemate and the conflict continues. However, and economic relations where the hydro-hegemons whilst state-level officials still view water-management can use ‘soft power’ to achieve their strategic goals at as a security issue embedded within ‘high politics’, at the expense of the hegemonised (Zeitoun and Warner the same time there are local level actors willing to 2006; Mirumachi and Allan 2007). Soft power allows cooperate on such issues (Coskun 2009). The presence powerful parties to frame inequitable cooperation in a of a local willingness to cooperate makes it surprising cooperative light (Zeitoun et al. 2011). Hence, Zeitoun that previous studies of environmental cooperation and Mirumachi (2008) encourage cooperation theo- have largely looked at state-level