Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies
Herd No More: Livestock Husbandry Policies and the Environment in Present Day Israel from 1900 until Today
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “Master of Arts”
By: Elizabeth Wuerker
January, 2008
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies
Herd No More: Livestock Husbandry Policies and the Environment in Present Day Israel from 1900 until Today
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “Master of Arts”
By Elizabeth Wuerker
Under the Supervision of Prof. Alon Tal Department of Man in Drylands
Author's Signature …………….……………………….. Date ……………. Approved by the Supervisor…………….……………… Date ……………. Approved by the Director of the School ………………. Date …………….
i
Herd No More: Livestock Husbandry Policies and the Environment in Present Day Israel from 1900 until Today By Elizabeth Wuerker Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “Master of Arts” Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies 2008
Abstract
Livestock production has been cited as a key contributor to the most important environmental problems around the globe. This refers to both industrial systems, where livestock are packed tightly together and slaughtered en masse, and to highly traditional systems, where a shepherd follows her herd. Israel is one of the few countries where both of these systems exist, with little contact between them. Interviews and site visits were conducted with livestock growers in both the Jewish and Arab sectors of Israel, as well as with policy makers. The environmental impact of the sectors was examined by an analysis of available published data. Policies were examined from a review of primary and secondary sources, as well as interviews.
The research shows that while much attention has been placed on the contribution of the Bedouin pastoralists to desertification and erosion, this has been largely due to political motivations, and does not reflect their true contribution, which has been minor. A far more critical concern is water pollution caused by the industrial sector of livestock production. The Dairy Farm Reform, implemented from 1999-2006, has ensured that the wastewater from Israel’s dairy farms, equivalent to the wastewater from all human inhabitants, will enter Israel’s sewer systems for treatment. Overall it has been a significant step in the mitigation of adverse environmental effects from the Israeli dairy sector. The Dairy Farm Reform may have unintended effects, such as the southward movement of dairy producers. A potential weakness of the Dairy Farm Reform is its failure to differentiate between climatic regions in its guidelines for producers. It falls short in not addressing the water pollution from beef production. ii
Policies regarding access to land have been influenced by nationalistic and security motivations. The divisions between governmental supports for the Jewish and Arab sectors of livestock management are detrimental to efficient environmental management. Current policies provide a strong discouragement to Bedouin to continue their traditional livestock husbandry practices, which may provide a cultural loss to Israel and to the world.
iii
Acknowledgments
To Juan Pablo Wachs, who provided constant support, encouragement, some translation, company, and married me while I was writing this, thank you.
Thanks to Prof. Alon Tal, who supervised me in the writing of this thesis, for the energy, enthusiasm and confidence you brought, and for much thoughtful editing.
Thanks to the Man in Drylands Department, especially Prof. I. Meir, for providing support, flexibility and food for thought during the research process. To the administrative staff of the Blaustein Institute, particularly Ms. Dorit Levin, for helping with every type of crisis and even just minor problems effectively and with a smile.
Thanks to my family for not protesting too much when I decided to travel so far away to study.
Thanks to the many farmers, herders, and officials who spent time with me and talked to me so openly about your experiences.
This work was supported through a scholarship of the Bona Terra Foundation and the
Albert Katz International School Foundation. Many thanks for the financial support that allowed me to focus on this research and learn so much about drylands and the environment during these two years.
iv
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ______1 Literature Review ______2 Research Questions ______3 Background ______4 Livestock and the Environment ______4 Environmental Disasters______5 Arid Zones ______6 Semi-arid and Dry Subhumid Land ______7 Sustainable Development and Growing Consciousness of Environmental Issues ______9 Israel’s Political Structure______10 Geography of Israel ______11 Types of Livestock Production Systems: Intensive vs. Extensive ______12 History and the Land ______14 Scope ______14 Framework______15 Methodology______15 2. The Jewish Livestock Economy, Past and Present ______16 Introduction ______16 Under Ottoman Rule______16 Agriculture ______17 Early Attempts at Livestock Husbandry______20 Changes in Palestinian Rule ______21 British Mandate ______21 The Development of a Modern Dairy Industry______21 Sheep and Goats ______22 Planning ______23 Livestock Policy After the Establishment of the State of Israel ______25 Jewish Dairy Farming______25 The Jewish Livestock Sector Today ______27 Milk Consumption ______30 Meat ______31 Sheep and Goats ______32 Risks ______33 Summary ______34 3. The Arab Sector ______36 Introduction ______36 In Ottoman Times and Before ______37 The British Mandate Period ______38 v
The Establishment of the State of Israel and Beyond______41 Semi-Extensive Grazing Among the Bedouin ______43 General Grazing Regulations ______46 Obtaining Grazing Land ______48 Trends______53 Summary ______54 4. The Environmental Effects of Livestock Husbandry in Israel______56 Introduction ______56 Desertification ______56 Land Degradation in Israel due to Livestock ______56 Defining Overgrazing ______57 Overgrazing ______58 Desertification ______60 Land Use and Livestock in Israel______61 Climate Change and Livestock in Israel ______63 Water Use in Israel ______65 Water Pollution ______67 The Biodiversity Cost of Industrial Livestock Production ______73 Off the Farm—Processing, Packaging and Transport______76 Conclusion ______77 5. Israeli Livestock Policy and the Environment ______79 Introduction ______79 Grazing Systems, Policy and the Environment______82 Ottoman Period______82 Grazing Policy During the British Mandate Period ______86 Grazing Policy from the Establishment of the State of Israel until 2007 ______93 Intensive Livestock Production Systems, Policy, and the Environment______100 Introduction ______100 British Mandate Period______101 Post-State Israel ______101 Conclusions ______105 6. Summary and Conclusions ______107 Nomos, Choice and the Environment ______108 Cultural Preferences ______109 Extensive Production Systems ______113 The Bedouin Culture______114 Productivity in arid regions ______116 Simplification of Land Tenure ______117 Intensive Livestock Systems ______119 vi
Areas for further consideration ______121 7. References______122 Books______122 Papers ______125 Websites ______135 Periodicals ______138 8. Appendices ______139 Appendix 1: Early chart showing the growth of Israel’s Jewish Dairy Industry, from Elazari, 1930. ______139 Appendix 2: Model of the conflict between livestock husbandry (grazing) and conservation in productive pastures with a long history of grazing (Mediterranean Basin). Taken from Noy-Meir, 2005. ______140
vii
List of tables
Table 1. Dairy and Beef Cattle in Israel. Data from Israel Veterinary Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2005). ______27 Table 2. Differences between Extensive and Semi-Extensive Grazing Systems among the Bedouin. Data from Rummel, 2003. ______42 Table 3. Israel Water Use by Livestock. Data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (Sternick, 2002)._____66 Table 4. Israel's Livestock Breeds with the population information listed in the FAO Domestic Animals Diversity Information System. ______75
List of figures
Figure 1. Map of Israel showing divisions into climatic zones (from Clemdes, 2004). ______11 Figure 2. Quantity of Milk Processed in 2005. Data from Hojman (2005). ______28 Figure 3. Value of Meat Production in Israel, 2004. ______30 Figure 4. Value of Israel’s Milk Production, 2004. ______30 Figure 5. Milk Consumption Comparison 2000-2005. Data from FAO Statistical Database. ______31 Figure 6. Beef Production and Consumption in Israel, 1990-2004. Data from FAO Statistical Database. _32 Figure 7. Sheep and Goats in the non-Jewish sector. ______37 Figure 8. Ownership of Livestock in Bedouin, Arab and Jewish Sectors. Data from Israel Veterinary Services, 2005. ______46
viii
Abbreviations and terms
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease) CAFO Concentrated animal feeding operation DAD-IS Domestic Animal Diversity Information System FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FMD Foot and Mouth Disease JNF Jewish National Fund ILA Israel Lands Authority IDF Israel Defense Forces NIS New Israeli Shekel PICA the Palestine Colonization Association PPR Peste des petite ruminants UN United Nations
1
"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." —Livestock’s Long Shadow, a publication of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
1. Introduction
In the past forty years, especially after the birth of the “Green Revolution 1,” global agriculture metamorphosed from a network of small producers into a sophisticated industry.
Food now travels long distances from fields to plates; the raw materials may be unrecognizable when the final product is consumed 2. While humans have been actively modifying their foodstuffs for millennia 3, cheap oil, the widespread trade in fertilizers and the advent of modern methods of transport, have allowed for a more complete transformation of the process by which food is grown, delivered, and ultimately consumed.
Livestock producers are not immune to these trends. A new acronym, CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation), has been coined to describe megafarms, particularly in the
United States, where thousands of animals are crammed into a structure. CAFO’s provide massive amounts of waste that are only now beginning to be regulated.
1 The Green Revolution was the intensive focus on and development of new varieties of high yielding seeds, which were then distributed around the world, leading to a much greater international food supply and lower food prices. For a summary of the impact of the Green Revolution, see Evenson and Gollen, 2003. 2 Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” demonstrates the many forms that corn takes for the US consumer, eventually leading to a very high percentage of the typical American diet being made up of corn— a transformation that has taken place almost invisibly, with the substitution of corn as cattle feed and high fructose corn syrup for sugar in many foods. 3 In fact the domestication of corn is considered by many to be the first act of genetic engineering in foodcrops, and it was done by preliterate societies, thousands of years ago (Federoff, 2003; Mann, 2005). 2
Israel provides a unique setting in which to examine the differing environmental impacts of livestock practices. Israel is a dryland country, with only a small area of humid land. So it faces a challenge in providing food security. Israel is home to several differing ethnic groups, and is one of the few places in the world where ultra-modern, zero-grazing techniques of livestock management coexist alongside transhumant grazing. Its small size facilitates observation, and in the past fifty years regulatory policies have been in place.
Intensive and extensive livestock management provide very different types and degrees of environmental impacts. They are regulated by various policies, which constrain the choices of livestock growers. This thesis is an attempt to examine the various practices and policies of livestock production in Israel, and to understand their environmental impacts. It can be a tool for policymakers in future years.
Literature Review
While no one has looked at the specific combination of questions examined here, the associated parts have been considered by others. The Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) of the United Nations (UN) has been vigilantly monitoring the environmental effects of livestock husbandry, first in 1997 with a major review by DeHaan et al. and in 2006 with
“Livestock’s Long Shadow,” by Steinfeld et al. These works provide a broad overview of the environmental effects of livestock husbandry.
Alon Tal has begun to examine Israel’s grazing policies through history (2007) as well as looking at the history of the emergence of modern agriculture in Israel (2006). Tal’s
“Pollution in a Promised Land” provides a necessary backdrop to environmental issues and 3
policy in Israel (2003). Capua and Oren (2001) provide an analysis of environmental issues due to livestock and agriculture in Israel (in Hebrew).
Rummel et al. wrote an excellent Analysis of Sheep Farming Systems in Israel (2003 ), following up on Hirsch (1933). They are the principal sources referred to in discussing the classification of Israel's livestock production systems. Sources on the dairy and beef sectors are confined to newspaper and internet sources, particularly Hojman’s annual reports of the Dairy Industry in Israel (2004, 2005, 2006).
While much has been written on the environmental impacts of grazing in Israel
(Perevolotsky, 1998), there is little research tying Israel’s intensive livestock production to its environmental effects. No research has been done linking the two types of livestock production. And very little has been written about the policy mechanisms affecting livestock production and the environment, particularly since the major Dairy Farm Reform
(1999-2006).
Research Questions
This thesis attempts to offer a response to several related questions:
1. What has characterized Israel's policies toward livestock husbandry and grazing?
2. What is Israel's current policy toward livestock husbandry and grazing?
3. What have been the environmental impacts of this policy?
4. What changes should be made to ensure that animal husbandry in Israel remains environmentally sustainable? 4
Background
Livestock and the Environment
Recently, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published
"Livestock's Long Shadow" in February of 2007, examining livestock's global impact. As mentioned preceding this chapter, the report found that livestock was a major contributor to all of the compelling global environmental issues. The report urged further examining livestock's impact particularly on the following environmental issues: land degradation, climate change, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
Globally, livestock production accounts for 40% of agriculture's GDP (Steinfeld et al.,
2007, p. 22). This phenomenon holds true in Israel, where milk alone accounts for 10% of agriculture's GDP (Hojman, 2005). Meat consumption per capita is rising, as is the global population. According to the FAO study, meat production is expected to double over the next fifty years and milk production may double (Steinfeld et al., 2007, p. 22). More and more of meat and dairy products are produced in large, industrial style farms. The main benefit of the industrial system of food production is that better nutrition can become available to a wide array of people. This may also have a beneficial effect on the environment since poverty and the environment are closely related (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005). 5
Livestock production is the largest anthropogenic land use in the world, accounting for 30% of the planet's land surface, and 70% of agricultural land. This includes land used for grazing itself and land used for production of feedcrops (Steinfeld et al., 2007, p. 23).
Looking at total planetary emissions, livestock production is a larger contributor of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than the transportation sector. According to the FAO, livestock production is responsible for 18% of "greenhouse gas emissions measured in
[carbon dioxide] CO 2 equivalent." The breakdown is 9% of CO 2 (primarily from deforestation and other changes in land use to allow for grazing land and cultivation), 37% of methane, and 65% of nitrous oxide. All figures are percentages of anthropogenic emissions. The ammonia emissions from livestock account for 64% of the global total
(Steinfeld et al., 2007).
There are both potential benefits and harm to the environment from livestock husbandry.
Livestock can cause land degradation and desertification, they cause the reduction and pollution of water resources, add to greenhouse gases, and cause a loss of biodiversity. But livestock husbandry can also improve soil quality, increase biodiversity, and enable the creation of alternative energy sources such as biogas. Israel is a good test case, because it is a small country that has developed very rapidly, where very traditional and very modern systems still exist side by side.
Environmental Disasters
Research on disasters, calamities and hazards is still maturing. Keith Smith characterizes environmental disasters in the following way: they generally have both natural and human 6
components, and result when humans come into conflict with geophysical processes
(Smith, 1996). McGuire, Mason and Kilburn (2002) define natural hazards as "extreme natural events that pose a threat to people, their property and their possessions." They explain that disaster ensues when the threat is realized.
Jared Diamond’s recent book “Collapse” examines environmental downfalls spanning the world, and tries to understand what made some fall while others were able to remain viable.
He looks at the case of Iceland, colonized by Vikings from Norway, who swiftly degraded the soils so much that they are even now not fully recovered (Diamond, 2005). Thus the connection between land degradation and calamities with a human impact is posited.
Arid Zones
Previously it was believed that arid zones around the world were undergoing severe desertification 4, largely caused by overgrazing. A key example was in the Sahel, where a study showed that the Sahara was expanding over land once part of the Sahel. Tucker, an original author of this research, discredited his own study, showing that the boundary of the
Sahel fluctuates according to climatic conditions (Tucker and Nicholson, 1999).
Subsequent research has shown that productivity in the Sahel has actually increased over time (DeHaan et al., 1997).
4 the most common definition of desertification is that coined by Nelson and adopted by the UNCCD, “land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry subhumid areas due to climatic and human induced factors.” 7
Arid zones under traditional pastoral regimes are resilient—grazing tends to be a very efficient system that leads to increased plant and animal biodiversity. The land degradation that does occur is localized around watering points, which never make up more than 10% of the land (DeHaan et al., 1996).
The chief driver of land degradation in arid zones is population pressure. Whereas arid regions were formerly dominated by pastoral systems, now others are moving in. This leads to restrictions on pastoralists, who can no longer move about at will. This creates too much pressure on grazing lands used previously only in the dry season. Frequently new settlers practice agriculture, which can lead to degradation of arid lands that are marginal for crop production. The development and use of water resources in arid regions can also cause drastic changes to the ecosystem (DeHaan et al., 1996).
Policy is also a driver of land degradation in arid zones. Policies that seek to stabilize incomes from the boom and bust cycle natural to arid lands by limiting stocking rates, subsidizing feed during drought periods, privatization of communal land, subsidizing farmers settling in arid zones, and subsidies for mechanized equipment which leads to
“motorized nomadism.” Tariffs on imports of livestock also lead to degradation, by providing an additional incentive for domestic meat production (DeHaan et al., 1996).
Semi-arid and Dry Subhumid Land
Semi arid and dry subhumid land react differently than arid land to grazing. Rainfall levels are less variable in semi arid and dry subhumid land in comparison to arid zones. Higher rainfall levels and therefore productivity support a larger population size. This means that 8
land degradation is much more of a threat in these areas—constant occupation of the lands prevents the regeneration possible due to mobility in arid zones. Like in arid zones, land degradation from grazing is most prevalent close to watering areas.
Other major environmental threats in semiarid and dry subhumid areas are the encroachment of alien species and environmental contamination from chemical agents used to prevent the spread of disease. These climatic zones have historically been the sites of disease bearing insects, from the tse tse fly to the malaria bearing mosquito (DeHaan,
1996).
As in arid zones, the chief driver of environmental degradation is population pressure.
Poverty is also an important driver, and together with population growth, it leads to cropping in marginal areas, deforestation, and overgrazing. Policies also contribute to environmental degradation. In some areas, the lack of available banking leads pastoralists to overstock animals as a “savings account.” The failure to attribute economic value to biological resources such as medicinal plants and endemic species contributes to their loss.
Policies that can be helpful in semi arid and dry subhumid lands include decentralized political authority, development of water supplies, regenerating vegetation, breeding indigenous species of livestock for hardiness, the use of multiple species of livestock, improved infrastructure, regulated burning, environmentally friendly methods of disease control, and growing leguminous plants to improve savanna land. Rangeland management theories based on the concept of “stocking rate” are more valid in semi arid and dry subhumid lands than in arid lands, again because in arid zones pastoralists will modify their 9
stock in accordance with climatic conditions, or will move to a less grazed area (DeHaan,
1996).
Sustainable Development and Growing Consciousness of Environmental Issues
The phrase sustainable development arose to describe an ideal situation of human advancement. Sustainable Development is defined as, “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” With the rising human population, present needs of food, shelter, and resources are higher than they have ever been. And these needs are continuing to increase. So it is necessary to produce more, while minimizing environmental damage, and maximizing environmental benefits.
Industrialization has enabled the rapid growth of the human population, and has also allowed human needs for food to be met while the world population has multiplied (Galor and Weil, 1993). But the rapid development due to industrialization has been built on the utilization of fossil fuels (Azar and Schneider, 2002), and now there is an awareness of the high environmental cost implied, particularly climate change. In industrial systems, the environmental cost is treated as an externality. Frequently, it is not factored into the profit margin of the supplier (Harris, 1996).
Preindustrial systems of animal husbandry also exacted a cost on the environment. Many were also sustainable: e.g. Israel and other Mediterranean countries were grazed for thousands of years, and supported the populations living there (Perevolotsky and Seligman, 10
1998). Preindustrial techniques alone are no longer feasible in order to support the growing population. Now developing countries as well utilize modern farming techniques.
In the next 100 years, the world population will continue to increase, and world demand for the products of livestock husbandry will continue to grow. But awareness has grown of environmental challenges such as global warming and desertification. It is important to evaluate current policy and practice for its effect on the environment.
Israel’s Political Structure
Israel is a democracy with a parliamentary structure. Elections are generally held every four years. The Israeli parliament is called the Knesset and consists of 120 members. At its head is a president, who may choose the prime minister (in accordance with Knesset members), signs laws and treaties, appoints and receives diplomats, appoints judges and other political roles, and may grant amnesties (2). The prime minister is responsible for forming and leading a government, composed of ministers, who will lead each branch of government (3). The Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development is in charge of soil conservation, veterinary services, extension services, agricultural regulations, rural development and related topics. It was established when the state of Israel was born, in
1948. The Ministry for Environmental Protection is much younger, formed in December of
1988. It deals with many of Israel’s environmental issues, and an internal department of agroecology was formed in 1991.
11
Geography of Israel
Israel’s shape is long and narrow; 470 km. in length and at its widest point reaching 135 km. across (4). Its land falls into five climatic zones. The center of the country, including
Ashqelon, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa and Lake Kinneret, is semi-arid. Pockets in the very north are dry sub-humid, and a small part of the Golan Heights is humid. The south is split between the arid zone, encompassing Beer Sheva south to Mizpe Ramon, and hyper-arid, which stretches from Mizpe Ramon to Eilat, and includes the Arava along the lower half of the Dead Sea.
Figure 1. Map of Israel showing divisions into climatic zones (5).
12
Types of Livestock Production Systems: Intensive vs. Extensive
Israel is one of the few places in the world where intensive and extensive systems of livestock production exist side by side. Intensive and extensive are terms that are not always quantified. Rummel et al. (2003) provides a review of definitions of intensive and extensive sheep production systems, which gives an idea of the major differences between them.
The chief goal of intensive production systems is to maximize profits. Intensive production usually refers to systems with a high input of outside resources, such as infrastructure, genetic material, and fossil fuels. Stocking rate is sometimes used as a criteria—an intensive production system will have a stocking rate of 6-20 heads/hectare and a flock size of between 1500-3000 heads of sheep. Breeds used are often exotic, not local breeds, which have characteristics that make them more marketable (dairy production, meat taste, wool) or a higher rate of reproduction. Reproduction is managed intensively, often involving artificial insemination. In Israel, intensive production usually refers to the Jewish sector. It usually refers to dairy production, although there is intensive meat production in the sheep sector and at some stages of beef growing (Rummel et al., 2003).
Industrial livestock production systems are very efficient at converting feed and human labor into milk and meat. They are less efficient in terms of energy usage. Animal waste is the most important influence on the environment, both during storage and in application to land. Industrial systems require the use of large areas of arable land for concentrated feed production, use fossil fuels to power their feed and storage systems, and cause a diminishing of genetic resources of the livestock, which makes them more susceptible to 13
epidemic disease (DeHaan et al., 1997). Other negative effects include the loss of technological diversity and an increase in the susceptibility to accidents (Geisler, 1991).
Extensive production, on the other hand, involves large flocks grazed on a low density of land 5. Extensive producers adapt to environmental constraints instead of trying to surmount them. Local breeds of livestock are used. Infrastructure is very rudimentary.
Investment of outside resources is minimal. Often the goal is not profit maximization, but rather cost minimization (Ginguld et al., 1997). Extensive production in Israel is generally in the Arab sector, particularly in the Bedouin sector. The primary product is meat
(Rummel et al., 2003). 6
Much production in Israel falls somewhere in between highly intensive and very extensive.
For example, Bedouin grazing sheep in the Negev frequently have access to pasture for just six months per year, so they must give their animals feed for the other six months. A
Jewish goat farmer may rely on purchased feed, but may also allow the goats to graze in her garden for a few weeks in the spring. In this thesis while discussing sheep I rely on
Rummel’s categorization of sheep production systems in Israel.
5 Rummel et al. (2003, p. 14) include a table showing the differences between intensive and extensive systems from the literature. A typical stocking rate in an extensive system of sheep production might be less than 0.5 to 4 animals per hectare. An intensive system might include 6-20 animals per hectare, and a highly mechanized zero grazing system would have an even higher number of animals per hectare. 6 The best way to understand the role of an extensive production system in the context of a modern capitalist system is as an insurance system, or alternative stream of income. A herder may raise sheep the way that a city dweller could keep chickens or grow tomatoes in pots. She does not expect this to be a sole means of subsistence, but it reduces her cost of living. 14
History and the Land
This thesis was partially inspired by the contrast between the land that makes up Israel now and before Israel’s independence. There are aerial photos of the area surrounding
Jerusalem in the early 20 th century that look very similar to current vistas in the northern
Negev (Tal, 2002). Now a drive to Jerusalem takes you through tree covered hills that hold parks with picnic areas for local families.
Scope
This thesis studies only the production systems located within the boundaries of modern day of Israel. It does not look at the Palestinian territories but includes the Golan Heights.
It focuses on the production of sheep, goats and cattle, and does not look at other types of livestock. While organic agriculture is very interesting in the perspective of sustainable agriculture, it is not a major force in the Israeli market, so is considered very little in this thesis. This thesis considers the industry of livestock production while on the farm (or the field). It does not consider the environmental effects of the processing and transport stages, or the rest of the lifecycle of the animal products. It relies on previously published materials to assess environmental effects of livestock practices. This occasionally presents difficulties when the materials found are out of date or do not differentiate between types of livestock. In such instances, interviews attempt to supplement the material and provide updated assessments of the situation in Israel.
15
Framework
The thesis begins by describing livestock production systems in Israel, and providing historical background. Jewish and Arab livestock production are considered separately, due to their very different histories and present orientation. The environmental issues in
Israel are then discussed with an analysis of the contribution of the livestock sector. Finally the policies that influence livestock husbandry in Israel are described, examined and discussed. The conclusion tries to draw together the major observations from the thesis, and point out areas where future research is necessary.
Methodology
This research is conducted under the rubric of policy analysis and social science. It is a mixed methods research. The primary tools were as follows:
• Literature review
• Site visits
• Interviews with policy makers
• Interviews with pastoralists and farmers
Generally, initial conclusions were made by surveying the relevant literature, and verified or challenged by site visits and interviews. Analysis has been aided by conversations with policymakers and livestock growers, who have been able to give commentary not reflected in the literature on why policies were made. 16
2. The Jewish Livestock Economy, Past and Present
Introduction
Throughout the twentieth century, there was a division between the Jewish and Arab sectors of agriculture. Jews arrived in immigration waves, called “aliyah.” The first aliyah took place in 1882, and many more have since occurred. From the very beginning, Jews, with some exceptions, sought to emulate European agricultural practices. There are very few examples of Jews trying to learn livestock husbandry from the Arab population.
During the early twentieth century, the Jewish settlers developed their own infrastructure for agricultural development. The agricultural practices they brought from Europe have remained more or less within the Jewish sector. The story of the Jewish livestock economy is the transition from loose networks of livestock growers engaged in mixed farming in a country with little infrastructure, to an intensive, technologically advanced industry.
Under Ottoman Rule
Early Zionism and Land Acquisition
Typically, the first modern Zionist settlers are considered to have arrived in Palestine in
1882. This involved a small wave of Jewish settlement in Palestine driven in part by pogroms in Russia. In 1896, Theodor Herzl’s Der Judenstaat, “The Jewish State” was published. The first World Zionist Congress was held in 1897. The Zionist movement had begun.
One of the first challenges for the Zionist Movement was the accumulation of enough land to build a Jewish state. As written by Menachem Ussishkin, who served as the chairman of 17
the Jewish National Fund from 1923-1941, “In order to establish … a Jewish state in Eretz
Israel, it is necessary, first of all, that all, or at least most of Eretz Israel’s lands will be the property of the Jewish people. Without ownership of the land, Eretz Israel will never become Jewish, be the number of Jews whatever it may be in the towns and even in the villages…” (Shafir, 1996 page 42, quoting The Ussishkin Book).
The Zionist Movement set about on a slow but steady course of land purchases. In 1901 the Jewish National Fund (JNF is the English abbreviation, known in Hebrew as Keren
Kayemeth LeIsrael) was established as a corporation owned by the World Zionist
Organization to acquire land for the Jewish State in Palestine 7. The JNF began a slow but steady course of land purchases. This led to the next challenge: cultivation of the lands now under Jewish ownership.
Agriculture
For early Jewish settlers, agriculture was both an ideological axiom and part of the open strategy to establish a Jewish homeland. Agriculture was crucial to establishing ownership
7 Archival studies have shown that the majority of the landholders who sold land to the early Jewish settlers were not even resident in Palestine. Owners of large tracts of lands, sellers were largely the beneficiaries of the 1858 Land Code. Granott (name changed from Avraham Granovsky, headed the Jewish National Fund from 1945-1956) shows a table summarizing data from the Jewish Agency for Palestine’s Statistical department which shows that over the period from 1878-1936, more than 90% of the land purchased by Jews came from large landholders (90.6%) and less than 10% came from the Arab small farmers resident there (9.4%) (Granott, 1952. P. 277). Some other figures show a greater disparity. While this was to have ramifications during the ensuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Shafir, 1996), in the present context it marks the beginning of a major change in the land tenure system and agricultural practices in then Palestine.
18
of large tracts of land, because land under Ottoman rule had to be continuously cultivated or it reverted to State control. This was the practical challenge. There was also a romantic aspect to Zionism at that time that included agriculture: a vision of returning to the land, that motivated many settlers as well, although it couldn’t sustain them for more than a few years of difficult life as laborers. And agriculture was another way of earning a living and developing a Jewish economy during the Ottoman years. Initially, livestock production was important primarily as part of mixed farming systems in Jewish agricultural efforts. By the period of the British Mandate, small ruminant production as well as dairy farming had begun to be important branches of agriculture in their own right.
The Mikve Israel Agricultural School began operating in 1870 in Jaffa, training Jews without agronomic background from European cities. Its faculty also experimented with new forms of agricultural development. In 1880 experiments with dairy farming began there (2). On a large scale, the plantation economy would be dominant among the Jewish settlers for the next twenty to thirty years 8. Agricultural production on plantations was focused on producing cash crops for export, generally by monoculture. In the colonial model, the exports had been to the mother country. Important crops in Palestine’s plantation agriculture included grapes for wine, almonds, and oranges.
8 Some early backers of the Zionist enterprise, beginning in 1882, like Baron Edmund de Rothschild, saw the development of Israel as a colonial endeavor, an attempt to civilize a remote and primitive land (Shafir, 1996, p. 51). They sought to create a plantation type of agriculture in Israel, as had been successful in other “colonies,” particularly in North Africa. 19
Quickly the problems of the plantation style agriculture became evident. Despite large inflows of financial backing from Rothschild, the settlements he founded failed to become self-sufficient before the turn of the century. He eventually turned them over to the control of the Palestine Colonization Association (PICA), and they slowly began to show profits by
1910 (Shafir, 1996, p. 52).
Plantation agriculture led to further problems, however. In North Africa and other areas where the plantation economy had been tried, it depended on large populations of people, native or enslaved, who could provide cheap labor. But the Jewish colonization process also needed to provide jobs for the Jewish settlers, who were unwilling to work for the subsistence wages that the local Fellahin population accepted. While the plantation subsisted for a time, ultimately it was not a viable method to achieve both colonization of land, economic prosperity, and employment for Jewish settlers.
The World Zionist Organization set up training farms, and those also lasted just for a limited period of time. The first Jewish experiments in cooperative agricultural settlements took place in 1907-08 in the Sedjra cooperative and in Degania in 1909. The success of these two ventures led to the establishment of Degania as the first kibbutz in 1910 (Shafir,
1996, pp. 167-168).
20
Early Attempts at Livestock Husbandry
An Agricultural Experimental Station was begun in 1909/1910 in Atlit, which would eventually become assimilated into the University of Haifa 9. In 1911 Ben Shemen
Experimental farm began dairy farming operations. In 1912, Degania acquired a dairy herd.
Jewish settlers faced many obstacles in the development of dairy farming. Some were related to basic infrastructure, lack of running water, lack of transportation infrastructure, lack of electricity. But some pertained specifically to the livestock economy at that time.
Goats were the largest milk producing animal at the beginning of the 20 th century. The native cattle breed was not productive, yielding only between 300 and 1,000 liters per year, in contrast to the modern Israeli average of over 10,000 liters (6). Sheep were not useful for dairy production. The native Awassi sheep is well adapted to hot temperatures, but her milk is best used for cheese, rather than consumed fresh.
Early Zionists were interested in sheep breeding but were not successful at it. In 1914, members of the Shomer, the Jewish Guard's organization, apprenticed themselves to the
Bedouin to learn sheep breeding from them (Rummel et al., 2003). The Shepherd
9 Currently a research site for the Institute of Evolution (3). 21
organization was established with the goal of bringing flocks of Awassi sheep to Jewish settlements in Mizpa, Sharona, Hamara and Sheikh Abriq (Rummel et al., 2003).
Changes in Palestinian Rule
Soon thereafter World War I broke out, taking a toll on the economy of all Palestine. The war also marked a death knell for the Ottoman Empire, greatly weakened, which would disappear over the course of the next decade. When the war ended, Great Britain gained control over Palestine, and named a Mandate government. This marked a profound change in the policy framework that the Jewish settlers would have access to. In article four of the declaration of the British Mandate, the creation of a Jewish agency was decreed.
The World Zionist Organization formed the “Restoration Fund” in 1918, and in 1920 it became the “Palestine Immigration and Colonization Fund,” or “Keren Hayesod.
(Choveaux, 1927).” The Jewish Agency for Palestine was formed in 1922. Beginning in
1920, Keren Hayesod began channeling 20% of its funds to the JNF, whose charter required it to spend the money buying land in Palestine and leasing it to Jews. Keren
Hayesod began raising money.
British Mandate
The Development of a Modern Dairy Industry
The 1920’s, soon after the establishment of the British Mandate government in Palestine, the Jewish dairy industry developed quickly. In 1921, the JNF established the Agricultural
Experiment Station in Beit Dagan. The Jewish community formed a series of cooperatives to construct a support infrastructure for farmers. In 1919, the Hahaklait cooperative was 22
established, first as an insurance guarantee for livestock. In 1921, Hahaklait established veterinary services as well (it now serves 80% of the dairy herd) (Galon, 2005). In 1926, another cooperative, TNUVA, owned by the Histadrut Labor Organization, was established, to market agricultural products (Hojman, 2005).
Jewish farmers began importing East Friesian cattle in 1922. Crossing the Damascus breed with the East Friesian cattle greatly increased the yield per head, and the total amount of milk available for consumption (Elazari-Volcani, 1930).
In 1921, the Jewish settlers brought 1/8 of a million liters of cow's milk to market. In 1929, they brought 3 million liters of cow's milk to market (Elazari-Volcani, 1930). The Jewish contribution to dairy farming was still small, though growing, in comparison to Arab production 10 . Jewish farmers held only 8% of the cattle in Palestine, and 20% of their market value (Hirsch, 1933). And the largest portion of milk consumption was still derived from goat milk, a largely Arab undertaking.
Sheep and Goats
Sheep and goats remained marginal in Jewish agricultural production during the British
Mandate period. Hirsch's study "Sheep and Goats in Palestine," published in 1933, stated that Jews owned only 1% of the sheep and goats. Hirsch attributed this to "lack of desire to
10 This takes into account their relative proportion of the population. In 1931 the British Mandate government conducted a census, which McCarthy corrected to adjust for undercounting of certain groups, such as Bedouin. His figures show that Jews made up 16.7% of the population at this time (McCarthy, 1990). 23
rear sheep and goats, lack of necessary knowledge, and lack of sufficient interest and support on the part of the colonizing agencies, which considered this branch unsuitable for modern Jewish agriculture, (Hirsch, 1933)." Despite that, he noted that raising sheep and goats was profitable enough that many Jewish settlements had plans to buy flocks. Jewish farmers also experimented with sheep and goat breeds, such as Merino sheep, imported to
Kfar Giladi in 1929, and Angora, Saanen, and Anglo-Nubian goats (Hirsch, 1933). In 1929 the Jewish Sheep-Breeders Association was established. Efforts towards cross breeding and developing the “improved Awassi” sheep began and in 1943 a flock book was established (Rummel, 2003).
Early Jewish sheep and goat farmers did engage in grazing, but their rearing methods quickly diverged from contemporaneous Arab and Bedouin methods. Jewish farmers gave their sheep and goats supplementary feed during the winter. They built structures to protect the livestock from winter and rain. They relied extensively on veterinary care. Jewish- owned sheep and goats experienced lower mortality in the winter (due to supplementary feed) (Hirsch, 1933).
Planning
The first head of Israel’s Agricultural Research Organization, Isaac Elazari-Volcani, was a sufficiently dominant personality to eventually have the institute renamed in his honor. (it is now known as the Volcani Center). Volcani was a Lithuanian immigrant and the first head of the Agricultural Research Organization in Beit Dagan. His ideal was a largely unmechanized agricultural sector. He believed that mechanization took jobs from rural areas and would undermine a Jewish agricultural class in the countryside. Rather, Volcani 24
wished to use modern agricultural methods without machinery, and emulate the lessons of
European agriculture during the Middle Ages (Troen, 2000).
In 1927, Isaac Elazari-Volcani published a study entitled “Dairy Industry as a basis for
Colonisation in Palestine.” In 1930 he published its companion volume, “The Transition to a Dairy Industry in Palestine.” The second book was an attempt to examine the dairy industry as the basis for large scale colonization. During the British Mandate period, many believed that the state of Palestine would be an agricultural one. As head of the leading agricultural research station, Volcani was among those working to determine which lines of agriculture could support a growing population in an arid land. He recommended a diversified, mixed farming scheme in regions of heavy soil, where cereals were grown. He also proposed developing dairy production in these areas, since the organic manure from cattle could be exploited in order to enhance the soil. Volcani estimated that Israel could support one million cows, and could reach a level of 2.5 billion liters of annual milk production (Volcani, 1930) 11 .
The Palestinian milk market was saturated in 1930, but the price of milk was double that of
European countries (Denmark, Holland and Switzerland). Palestine was importing large amounts of dairy products (other than milk). Volcani outlined a plan for the organization of
11 Volcani’s estimate is interesting as a prophecy. Today, Israel supports more than 400,000 cattle and produced 1.124 billion liters of milk in 2006 (Hojman et al., 2006). This means that Israel is approaching the halfway mark to achieving his numbers, something that would probably have seemed incredible to his contemporaries, when basic infrastructure was still to be established. 25
the dairy industry. The first criterion he defined was the establishment of a research institute. He thought that for large scale production, quality must be both high and uniform. He urged the establishment of two quality control stations and two laboratories to research bacteria and imperfections. He advocated inviting in a foreign specialist to work with the newly created Tnuva to develop the marketing apparatus for milk and dairy products. He noted that Israelis would consume Israeli products in preference to foreign products only if the quality were comparable or superior. He urged further work on breeding by importing many cows from Europe and experimenting with different breeds
(Volcani, 1930).
Livestock Policy after the Establishment of the State of Israel
Jewish Dairy Farming
By 1948, when Israel gained its independence, cow milk was already the second most important agricultural commodity in Israel (4). From this point on, dairy farming in Israel evolved into a productive, intensive enterprise capable of supplying the needs of Israel’s population and even exporting to other countries. These developments were due to heavy investment in research, development and marketing, continuing processes already started during the British Mandate period.
Israeli agricultural policy was characterized by strong central planning at this time.
Economic motives were extremely important. Agriculture was an economic tool to ensure a certain standard of living for the farmer, and if it could not provide this, it was deemed unsuccessful: 26
"The first principle is that the farmer's income should not lag behind that of the average earner in Israel. We have seen that the qualified industrial worker's income is likely to rise to IL. 6,000 during the development period. Hence, the farming units should be planned so that the farmer's income should reach this level during the same time," (Weitz, 1963, p. 87). In the 1960's, AMBAR, a cooperative feedmill, was established. AMBAR introduced the use of computers for farming in Israel, by mechanizing the production and allocation of feed. The 1960's was also the last decade in which bulls were imported from abroad for breeding purposes. Since then, Israel has relied on its own stock, using artificial insemination.
The Institute for Farm Income Research was commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture to conduct a study in collaboration with the Central Bureau of Statistics about the profitability of various branches of Israeli agriculture for 1964 and 1965. The study showed that the dairy herd comprised 166,000 heads of cattle. The area farmed for fodder consisted of 20% of Israel's unirrigated lands and 14% of the irrigated land. The dairy industry used 6% of the water that all Israel's agriculture used. One of the conclusions of the study was that profitability of large farms increased with the number of heads of cattle
(Institute of Farm Income Research, 1967).
In the 1970's, the first herd of indigenous Israeli cattle began to produce an average of more than 10,000 liters of milk per head, at Ma'agen Mikhail. In 1980, a campaign was started to improve milk quality. This campaign was successful in reducing bacteria and improving the content of milk solids (6).
27
The Jewish Livestock Sector Today
Israeli cows now have the highest milk and milk solids production in the world, a big change in under a century of dairy production (Hojman, 2006). Israel is self sufficient in its production of milk and dairy products. Israel is home to approximately 350,000 cattle.
The dairy industry uses more than 111,000 or one third, of the cattle. The remaining cattle population is made up of the Israeli beef herd and feeder calves imported from Hungary and Australia. Israel imports around 60% of the beef consumed annually, and produces
40% (Hojman, 2006; Negev Foundation, 2004).
Beef Dairy Veterinary Grand Office Farms Minority Kibbutz Total Farms Minority Kibbutz Total Total Beersheva 16,733 5,950 1,490 24,173 9,032 254 16,864 26,150 50,323 Hadera 3,060 3,835 133 7,028 12,783 12 17,497 30,292 37,320
Teberia/ K-Shmona 21,464 14,245 23,130 58,839 15,110 2 17,980 33,092 91,931 Kanot 4,643 974 6,558 12,175 35,493 35 20,610 56,138 68,313 Acco 5,274 10,927 2,545 18,746 5,321 8 12,603 17,932 36,678 Afula 2,228 2,369 7,310 11,907 27,823 0 22,059 49,882 61,789 Total 53,402 38,300 41,166 132,868 105,562 311 107,613 213,486 346,354
Table 1. Dairy and Beef Cattle in Israel. Data from Israel Veterinary Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2005) 12 .
Israeli dairy farmers now use a high technology, zero grazing approach. A high technology approach is typical of the developed world. Jewish settlers have consistently followed
12 Does not include the “Other” category. 28
modern, western agricultural research and methods, and expanded from there. Since Israel is a dryland country where land is scarce, while the price of grains on the world market has tended to be low, a zero grazing method has made sense in order to maximize production.
Dairy farms, located on moshavim, and kibbutzim are home to most of the livestock, in large centralized dairy operations. Together kibbutzim and moshavim produce 83% of
Israel’s total agricultural output.
Tnuva, a cooperative, is the largest dairy producer in Israel, and is sometimes characterized as having a monopoly on Israeli dairy products. In 2005 it processed 75.6% of Israel’s milk. Tara (recently acquired by Coca Cola) and Strauss are the next two largest producers. Their processing figures are shown below.
Quantity of milk processed in 2005, in millions of liters
40 115 Tnuva
120 Tara
Strauss
Small Dairies (counted 850 together)
Figure 2. Quantity of Milk Processed in 2005. Data from Hojman (2005).
Kibbutz Gan Shmuel is an example of a typical Israeli modern dairy operation.
Computerized sensors track even the number of paces taken by each cow, as well as milk production. The touch of a button can instantly call up any of this data, and display relevant trends. The workers can also track likely illnesses in the herd via computer (site visit, August 2006). 29
Records of 90% of Israeli dairy cattle are maintained in the Israeli Herdbook, a management tool that stores official information on milk production with breeding and veterinary data. The information in the herdbook is publicly available and can be used by farmers to analyze trends and records and make changes in practice (5). Dairy cattle are almost all Israeli-Holstein.
Cattle made up 14% of the value of Israel's agricultural output in 2004. Sheep and goats are included in the "other" category that makes up 10% of Israel's agricultural output. The total agricultural output for Israel in 2004 was 17,864,700,000 NIS (Koskas, 2005). In
2004 the value of Israel's total cattle output was 2580 million NIS (1918 million from milk,
407.1 from dairy cattle used for meat, and 254.6 million in cattle raised for meat). The value of sheep and goats was 510.7 million NIS.
The value of cattle sold as meat in 2004 was 661.7 million NIS, of that 240.4 were calves from the dairy herd, 215.2 million was from calves from the beef cattle herd, and 206 million was from cows. The value of sheep sold as meat was 355.6 million NIS, and that of goats was 37.8 million NIS. The value of milk was 2,035.7 million NIS; 1918 million NIS from cow milk, 72.2 million NIS from sheep milk, and 45.1 million NIS from goat milk
(Koskas, 2005). 30
Value of Ruminant Meat Production, 2004 (in millions of NIS)
37.8 Bovine Meat 355.6 Sheep Meat 661.7 Goat Meat
Figure 3. Value of Meat Production in Israel, 2004.
Value of Milk Production, 2004 (in millions of NIS)
45 72
Cow milk Sheep milk Goat milk
1,918
Figure 4. Value of Israel’s Milk Production, 2004.
Milk Consumption
Israelis consume double the world average of milk and milk products. They fall below the trend line for developed countries, but above that of their neighboring West Asian states
(although that gap has narrowed in recent years). Jewish traditional separation between meat and milk means that many households do not have milk on their tables for one or two meals a day. It is possible that more than 60% of Israel’s Jewish population may be lactose intolerant, which can partially explain Israel's lower rates of milk consumption than in
European countries (Leichter, 1971). In 2006, Israelis consumed 1.2 billion liters of milk, 31
which was an increase of 6% from 2005. Israel’s Milk Council, a joint industry and governmental body, recently began a "three-a-day" campaign, to urge consumption of 3 servings of dairy daily.
Per Capita Milk Consumption 2000-2005
400 350 300 Israel World 250 West Asia 200 Developed Countries 150 Developing Countries 100 50 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 5. Milk Consumption Comparison 2000-2005. Data from FAO Statistical Database.
Meat
Israeli beef production has more than doubled since 1990. The sharp increase in domestic beef production is due to a liberalization of trade policies which allowed Israel to import
“feeder calves” beginning in 1996 (Negev Foundation, 2004). In 2002, a case of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) was discovered in Poland, who had been the primary source for Israel’s feeder calves, which prompted Israel to suspend the imports. Hungary and Australia are now the chief sources of Israel’s feeder calves. Hungary exports Holstein dairy calves, similar to the Holstein cows from Israel’s own dairy industry. Australia exports high quality beef cattle, including Black Angus. 32
In Israel the Beef Industry is essentially a byproduct of the Dairy Industry (Negev
Foundation, 2004). Male calves born on dairy farms are sold to be fattened for consumption as beef, as are some heifers from the dairy herds. The calves and heifers from the dairy herd make up 40% of Israel’s fresh beef supply.
The beef cattle herds are primarily from the Simental, Charolais, Limousin, and Simford breeds. As of 2004, the domestic beef herd was continuing to benefit from a grazing subsidy (Negev Foundation, 2004). As of 2002, there were 775 feedlots in Israel. In 2004 there were 17 slaughterhouses in Israel.
Beef Production and Consumption in Israel, 1990 -2004 , data from FAOSTAT
160 140 120 Beef Production Israel, 100 in 1000 tonnes 80 60 Beef Consumption, 40 Israel, in 1000 tonnes Production 20 0
90 92 00 9 1 19 1994 1996 1998 20 2002 2004 Year
Figure 6. Beef Production and Consumption in Israel, 1990-2004. Data from FAO Statistical Database.
Sheep and Goats
While the milk production of sheep and goats is marginal to the dairy industry, representing less than 1% of total production, some believe it is an area with a high growth potential. 33
The production of goat milk has almost tripled since 1994, and sheep milk has also risen substantially (Hojman, 2006). The Agricultural Census for 2000 gave the number of sheep in Jewish holdings at 122,717. According to the figures of the Veterinary Service for 2005, the number of sheep held by Jewish farmers was then 271,882, more than double the number held in 2000. The same is true for goats, in 2000 the CBS reported that Jewish farmers owned 22,528 head of goats. In 2005 the number had more than doubled, to
54,653. Nevertheless, the total combined milk yield of goats and sheep was 17,695 tons in comparison with 1,150,000 tons of cow milk, or 1.5% (Hojman, 2006).
Risks
Many risks still face Israel’s livestock industry. Modern husbandry practices expose the animals to high health risks 13 . Two cow illnesses have made headlines in recent years:
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as Mad Cow Disease. Both FMD and BSE have been present in Israel. In the
Middle East region, foot and mouth disease is endemic, and the pathogens travel by air.
Even with strict controls, it is difficult to prevent it from entering Israel’s borders when it is endemic in neighboring countries. Israel’s first and only case of BSE was discovered in
2002 (10). BSE cannot be transmitted to humans by the consumption of dairy products. It
is an aggressive disease that does great harm to the bovine population and can be
13 Intensive livestock production systems involve holding large numbers of genetically identical livestock in close quarters, so that any virus introduced will be spread very quickly. This is an important environmental concern with intensive production systems. Partially for this reason, conventional livestock producers in the United States supplement animal feed with antibiotics. 34
aggressive disease that does great harm to the bovine population and can be transmitted to humans if the meat is consumed (11).
Intensive systems of livestock production rely on a low cost supply of grain. Noy Meir and
Seligman describe the relationship of grain prices to livestock production (1979). In
August 2007, the milk price was raised 3.8% due to a substantial increase in grain prices worldwide. Some environmentalists (and economists) would argue that grain prices are artificially low. Large scale grain production relies on a heavy influx of fossil fuels in producing fertilizers and pesticides as well as in the production cycle and postproduction transport. Subsidies often cover part of these costs, and other environmental costs may never be accounted for (such as deforestation, a major cause of global warming, that is done in order to make way for soy plantations in Amazonia). The Israeli Dairy Board cited an increase in demand for grains in China, increased prices for transport and a lack of grain surplus (partially due to an increased demand for grains for the production of biofuels) as reasons for the higher grain and milk prices. If the price of grain continues to increase, feeding livestock on concentrate may become less economically viable.
Summary
Israel’s Jewish livestock sector developed dramatically during the twentieth century and until the present. At the beginning of the twentieth century there was no livestock industry among the early Jewish settlers, just some cattle, sheep and goats kept as part of mixed farming systems, to provide fertilizer and food for household consumption. Now Israel is a world leader in terms of productivity for dairy cattle, and is self sufficient in the production of dairy for a population more than seven times the size what it was in 1900. Israel’s 35
Jewish sector was able to capitalize on world trends towards intensification of farming, and at the same time build an infrastructure that would continue to support its technological, scientific and distribution needs.
Whereas under Ottoman government, the agricultural sector was left pretty much on its own, now Israel’s government entities extensively regulate and support modern producers.
Israel continues efforts in research and development in agricultural issues. While modern veterinary care has made great strides in combating common livestock diseases, foot and mouth disease continues to remain a challenge in the Middle East region, and hence from time to time in Israel. Changes in world grain prices may mark a challenge for the Jewish livestock sector.
The next chapter will address the Arab sector, whose path in livestock husbandry was and remains very different. While the Jewish sector has intensified production greatly, the trend toward intensification is much less clear in the Arab sector. There is almost complete separation between the Jewish and Arab sectors of livestock production. 36
3. The Arab Sector
Introduction
This chapter is a chronological examination of the Arab sector of livestock husbandry in
Israel. The focus is primarily on the Bedouin of the Negev. This is because very little has been written about Arab livestock husbandry in Israel that does not pertain to the Bedouin.
While Bedouin, and Arabs of Bedouin extract, also live outside the Negev, they have typically become more assimilated into western culture, and do not maintain their traditional grazing practices.
Over the past 40 years, the number of heads of sheep in the Arab sector has increased dramatically, while the number of goats has remained fairly constant. In the Jewish sector livestock numbers have also increased, but the relative contribution of the Arab sector is even larger. The chart included shows that the increase from 1981 to 2000 in sheep and goats in the non-Jewish sector was dramatic, from below 150,000 heads in 1981, to over
300,000 heads in 1991, and to over 400,000 heads in 2000 (Sternick et al., 2002). 37
Sheep and Goats held in the non-Jewish sector of Israel
400000 300000 Sheep (Heads) 200000 Goats (Heads) 100000
Number of Heads 0
1 6 0 9 9 0 9 9 0 1971 1 1994 1 1998 2 Year
Figure 7. Sheep and Goats in the non-Jewish sector.
In Ottoman Times and Before
Present day Israel has been a crossroads of cultures for millennia, and is one of the most important areas to western culture. It was the site of the ancient Hebrew culture, which provided a basis for Jewish claims for a national homeland. It was conquered by the
Romans in 63 BC and passed to Byzantine hands in 330 A.D. In 638 B.C. it was conquered by the Islamic Empire, and remained under Arab rule until the British Mandate period (the Ottomans conquered Palestine in 1517). By the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab inhabitants of Palestine fell mostly into two groups as far as livestock husbandry is concerned: the fellah, or Arab peasant, who relied mainly on cultivation and whose major type of livestock was the goat, and the Bedouin, whose livelihood was chiefly derived from pastoralism and whose major type of livestock was the Awassi sheep.
The Bedouin have been present in the Negev and Sinai since pre-Islamic times, but most of the groups currently present arrived much later, and in the Negev many arrived in the 17 th and 18 th centuries (Bailey, 1985). During most of their history, they have maintained a 38
nomadic lifestyle, deriving most of their livelihood from herding 14 . While accounts vary, it seems that in the absence of other settlers, Bedouin functionally controlled the southern portion of what is now Israel and parts of the Galilee region as well (Ginguld et al., 1997;
Reilly, 1981) 15 .
Kressel described a change in Bedouin land use beginning in the mid nineteenth century, beginning with the spread of “patchwork farming” in wadis that were part of traditional
Bedouin grazing lands (Kressel, 2003). This change in land use correlated with a change in the principal source of livelihood among Bedouin. While it is not clear exactly when the switch took place, the 1931 census showed that close to 90% of Bedouin identified themselves as agriculturalists (Falah, 1985) rather than pastoralists. Already during British rule the Bedouin had begun in large numbers to adopt a system of wandering with flocks of sheep around a defined home base in place of pure nomadism (Rummel et al., 2003).
The British Mandate Period
In his 1933 treatise on the raising of sheep and goats in Palestine, Hirsch wrote that the sheep and goats of the fellaheen relied only on grazing for food. The fellaheen grazed their flocks outside their villages in valleys or hillsides. They did not build shelters for the sheep
14 Finkelstein and Perevolotsky (1990) suggest occasional shifts back and forth between nomadism and a more sedentary existence. 15 Marx describes the Bedouin inhabitation thus: "In the 1870's the Ottoman government began to pacify the Negev Bedouin tribes, which had until then been left to their own devices, except for occasional raids by government troops (1967, p. 4).” He emphasizes the lack of separation historically between the Negev and the Sinai. 39
and goats. Like the Bedouin, they did not have modern veterinary services and were just being introduced to the veterinary services under the British Mandate government. Their sheep keeping practices were very similar to those of the Bedouin except that they did not engage in semi-nomadism (Hirsch, 1933).
For the Arab fellaheen, goats were the principal breed of livestock kept. The 1930 livestock census listed 440,132 goats in Palestine, and 80%, or 352,105 of them, were held by the fellaheen. Goats were the most important animals for milk production. Most of the goats were the native breed. The fellaheen seldom built pens for their goats, and gave supplemental food during the rainy season only (Hirsch, 1933).
Extensive Grazing Systems among the Bedouin
During the British Mandate period, Bedouin in Israel held sheep and goats in extensive grazing systems. This generally implied a synergy between grazing sheep and goats and engaging in rainfed farming, principally the cultivation of barley and wheat. Fertilizer use was negligible and feed concentrates were not used at all. Production was generally for subsistence (Rummel et al., 2003). Flock sizes were on average 100 heads, ranging between 10 to 500 heads (Noy Meir and Seligman, 1979). Tents fabricated from goat hair provided housing for the herders. The families moved with their herds, bringing along their tent and household possessions. The shepherd slept with the flocks, while the rest of the family slept in the tent (Rummel et al., 2003).
Bedouin herders raised Awassi sheep. Sheep and goats were mixed in the flocks. The livestock lived outdoors year round, and the most important grazing period was between 40
December and May, when the natural grasslands were grazed. After the barley and wheat harvest, the animals grazed the stubble from the fields, gradually moving to the north and west to reach more humid areas. From October to December there was a period of scarcity.
Though first rains may begin in October, new grasses may not grow until January.
Historically, during the period of the year between October and December, the Awassi sheep lived, undernourished, from the fat stored in their tails. The diet of the animals was seldom augmented with grain (according to Hirsch, 1933, the Bedouin never gave grain to their flocks, even in periods of extreme scarcity), and Noy-Meir and Seligman (1979) attribute this to the low ratio between the prices of grain to the prices of meat in that time
(Rummel et al., 2003).
Under extensive grazing, most lambs were born in December and January. The lambs would be too weak to stay with the flock immediately, so the shepherd would take the lambs to his village for the first few days. Since the period of scarcity corresponded to the mating season, prolificacy (the rate of reproduction) was low. An ewe would usually give birth only ever two years, and would not give birth until she was 2 years old. Sicknesses were treated with ethno-veterinary practices; no vaccines were used. Lambs were suckled for two months, afterwards the ewes were milked for home consumption, and the milk was also processed into yogurt or cheese for sale in local markets. Male lambs were sold when they were between 3-5 months old. They were not fattened on concentrate feed (Rummel et al., 2003, Hirsch, 1933).
While the British Mandate government pursued some steps toward protecting land from grazing by declaring some lands off limits, in general the Bedouin were able to continue 41
their grazing practices as before. The strong central government under the Mandate and the relative prosperity in the period may have had indirect effects towards sedentarization of the Bedouin. By the end of the British Mandate period, practices were beginning to change.
The Establishment of the State of Israel and Beyond
At first the instability of the aftermath of the War of Independence caused the Bedouin to be placed under military rule, and confined to a small area in the Northern Negev, called the siag 16 . Many also fled to neighboring countries. During this period, the process of sedentarization was interrupted. In fact, when the Bedouin were confined to the siag area, they became nomadic again in their grazing:
"The Bedouin [while confined in the siag] were thus constrained to rely on the resources available in the reservation, and inevitably became nomadic pastoralists and cultivators. As they were not allowed to settle and to construct houses they lived in black goat- hair tents. To an external observer, unaware of the heavy coercion involved, this could appear like an ideal Bedouin society (Marx, 2000)." In 1967, restrictions on Bedouin wandering ceased (Abu-Rabia, 2003). After the interruption from 1948-1967, Bedouin continued the transition from an extensive to a semi- extensive grazing system.
16 The siag, Hebrew for “confinement” was an area of 1100 km 2 in the northeast Negev. See Falah (1989) for a map indicating the location of the siag area. 42
Changes in Sheep Grazing Techniques over Time
There are many similarities between the former and present practices. Both now and then,
Bedouin focus on meat production and their flocks have continued to engage in a long
season of grazing. Bedouin raising sheep under both systems have preferred the Awassi
breed although today’s flocks are made up of improved Awassi and crossbreeding is
common. The biggest change is that the grazing period has been shortened, and Bedouin
now purchase feed to give their flocks after the grazing season ends. Table 2 provides a
partial comparison of the two systems of livestock husbandry.
Trait Extensive Semi Extensive Semi Arid Negev, on a smaller scale in Negev, Bedouin areas, also in Location hilly parts of Judea, Samaria, Galilee Northern Arab villages in West Bank Grazing, farming not permitted but Mixed farming: flocks with rainfed fields of grazing is on stubble from farms of Farming Type grains such as wheat or barley kibbutzim and moshavim economic basis subsistence focus on "minimixing risk" flock size avg. 100; varied from 10-500 heads family dwelling tents tents, aluminum shacks simple shelter, may just be simple sheep dwelling outdoors, in the field fence fat tailed Awassi (mostly improved), fat-tailed Awassi (unimproved), often sometimes crossed with Assaf, breed mixed with goats in herd Merino or Romanov grazing, feed made from grain and feed grazing--stubble and natural grassland straw from Sept. to Feb. grazing season all year round, December-May February-September Supplementary feeding no yes breeding technique natural natural Birthing Season Most born December-January November-January taken to villages for a few days then joined fattened with concentrate and sold Lambs after birth grazing flocks near Passover mandatory vaccinations from Brucellosis, FMD, PPR, emergency veterinary care none, just ethnoveterinary care veterinary care Products meat, yogurt and cheese meat, not usually milk Table 2. Differences between Extensive and Semi-Extensive Grazing Systems among the Bedouin. Data from Rummel, 2003. 43
The tally of sheep in the Bedouin sector increased greatly during the 20 th century. In 1930, the livestock census showed that there were 252,773 sheep in Palestine. 57,000 were in
Beer Sheva (Hirsch, 1933). In 1961 it was estimated that there were 70,000 sheep in the
Negev, and in 1997 there were roughly 300,000 (according to figures estimated by researchers working with Bedouin--the number is higher than the officially reported number) (Degen et al., 2001). However, the amount of grazing taking place is harder to track. One of the major changes over time has been that instead of grazing their flocks year round, Bedouin herders now give them feed supplement during some parts of the year, and exclusively purchased feed during other parts of the year.
Semi-Extensive Grazing Among the Bedouin
Although a declining number of Bedouins engage in semi-nomadism, Rummel et al. estimate that 75% of the sheep in Israel are currently raised according to semi-nomadic husbandry (2003). This refers especially to the Negev region of Israel. The nomadism is horizontal, meaning that the sheep move to different geographic areas (which may experience a different level of rainfall). Transhumance implies changing altitude. The transhumant grazing season is between February and September. Between September and
February the animals are fed on a mixture of grain and straw.
Sheep raised under the semi extensive system do not have access to elaborate housing. The
Bedouin may build a series of simple fences to contain the sheep at night, and to separate the main flock from the ewes and lambs that are still suckling, and the weaned lambs.
Standard equipment includes a water tank, a tractor, and a personal vehicle. One person, either a family member or a hired shepherd, sleeps with the flock. The others live in the 44
home, which can be a tent or aluminum siding constructed hut in an illegal setting. This system is also present in Arab villages in Northern Israel. Most of the sheep kept in this manner are Awassi, although there is sometimes crossing (generally uncontrolled) with
Assaf, Merino or Romanov breeds (Rummel et al., 2003).
The sheep are kept principally for meat. The sheep are generally milked only for home consumption, and some are not milked at all (Rummel et al., 2003; Ginguld, 1997). When they are milked, it is done by hand. Degen suggests that at least in towns, a cottage industry of fresh milk may be able to emerge from female livestock holders milking sheep and goat on a small scale and producing dairy products (Degen, 2003). Whereas under an extensive system yogurt, cheese and other dairy products were produced, marketing these products requires sanitary standards mandated by the health department that would be difficult for Bedouin to obtain. There is also a risk of transferring brucellosis from the animal to the person milking (Rummel et al., 2003).
After lambs are born, they suckle for two to three months and are then weaned from their mothers. Rather than grazing, they are fed concentrated feed. They are generally sold when they weigh close to 40 kg. The lambing season is generally between the end of
November and January, and the lambs are usually sold close to the Passover holiday.
Bedouin generally sell the lambs at the market in Beer Sheva or to private customers
(Rummel et al., 2003). Large merchants may buy newborn lambs in order to fatten them before selling them for meat. The Bedouin have never benefited from or formed a marketing association (Ginguld, 1997; Personal interview with Yeela Ra’anan, the Bedouin
Sheep Growers Committee Coordinator, 2007). 45
Current Sheep Grazing Practices
The Bedouin’s most important livestock animal is sheep. As of 2005, the Israeli Veterinary
Service estimated that there are 675,963 sheep in Israel. Of these, 242,750 (36%) of those belong to the minority sector in the Beer Sheva district, i.e., the Negev Bedouin. Bedouin also account for 27,449 of the 116,110 total goats in Israel (24%). Their cattle holdings amount to roughly 6,204 heads, almost all for meat (12).
It was estimated that in 1997, 35,000 Bedouin were still engaged in pastoralism. Some
10,000-18,000 of them reported pastoralism as a full time occupation (Ginguld, 1997).
Stavi reported in 2006 that at the end of the twentieth century there were 1,395 flocks registered with the Ministry of Agriculture (Stavi, 2006). The number has risen since then, and the Ministry of Agriculture shows upwards of 1800 flocks of sheep in the minority sector in Beer Sheva for 2004 (13). It seems that the Bedouin are continuing to hold livestock as they move to towns (Degen, 2007), and the weak employment prospects in the
Bedouin sector prevent pastoralists who live outside of towns from giving up their flocks. 46
Percentage of Ownership by Sector of Livestock Types
100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % bedouin sector 30 % arab sector 20 % 10 % jewish sector 0% sheep goats cattle dairy beef cattle cattle Livestock Type
Figure 8. Ownership of Livestock in Bedouin, Arab and Jewish Sectors. Data from Israel Veterinary Services, 2005.
General Grazing Regulations
It is mandatory in Israel that sheep be vaccinated against the following illnesses: brucellosis, foot and mouth disease, and peste des petite ruminants (PPR) disease. The
Bedouin also typically have access to and utilize veterinary care if other needs arise
(Rummel et al., 2003). Sheep are tagged when they have their vaccinations, and must receive them by the time they are two months old.
Veterinary practices are now mandatory, which has lessened the occasion of the diseases against which the sheep and goats are vaccinated while at the same time reducing mortality. Now that the sheep are the improved Awassi and crossbreeds, and they don't 47
have a period of malnutrition 17 , the prolificacy (reproduction rate) of the sheep is better.
Grain is now consumed as a feed supplement for most of the year, making the industry less dependent on weather while increasing the system’s vulnerability to international market swings as the grain comes from outside the community. Whereas in the past, dung was used to make fires for the traditional bread, it is less common to make the bread now, so presumably the dung stays on the fields.
Many Bedouin welcome modern veterinary practices, and other technologies that can enhance the profitability of their operations (Rummel et al., 2003). Euda Abu Shiba, a general contractor who also holds sheep, although less every year, said that it was now accepted in his family and among the Bedouin to give their sheep medicines that enable them to give more than one lamb per year (personal interview, 2007). Mohamed Abed Abu
Farija, who works full time raising his flock, expressed frustration only that the programs that could help Bedouin have more prolific sheep were not arriving. I did hear complaints about the strict enforcement of animal transport laws. Most of the Bedouin I spoke with mentioned that in order for them to bring one sheep or goat as a wedding gift, they now need to go through a bureaucratic procedure and carry a permit.
17 Previously, under extensive grazing systems, sheep were never given supplemental feed. So during the lean season from October to January, there was a period of undernutrition. 48
Obtaining Grazing Land
During the grazing season, the Bedouin are told by the Bedouin Department of the Ministry of Agriculture where they may graze their flocks. They must present proof of vaccinations for their flock in order to get the permission, and then they must pay a small fee for access to grazing land and for access to water sources. Mohamed Abed Abu Farija estimated that he pays somewhere between 700-1000 shekels per month during the grazing season to graze his flock of 250 sheep and goats in an area near Kiryat Malakhi. This includes payments to the ILA, the Nature Reserves Authority, and to a farmer who has rights to agriculture there (Abu Farija, personal interview, 2007).
Over ten years ago, Abu-Rabia published an interesting study demonstrating the mixture of strategies used to obtain grazing land (Abu-Rabia, 1994). The authorities involved range from the Bedouin Affairs Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, the JNF, the Israeli
Defense Forces (IDF), Green Patrol, Israel Lands Authority, and the Veterinary Office
(Abu-Rabia, 1994 p. 10). Each authority has different requirements for granting grazing permission. The permission to graze is valid for one grazing season, and each location gives permission for several months of the grazing season 18 . Before the grazing season begins, the Bedouin department of the Ministry of Agriculture works to obtain the maximum possible area of land from the different authorities. Then the Bedouin line up to
18 Bedouin of the Regional Council for Unrecognized Villages are currently contesting this with the Ministry of Agriculture, and request permits good for the entire year, rather than a few months. 49
obtain their permit (Ra’anan, personal interview, 2007). Contacts and actions of intermediaries are important in order to secure access to good grazing areas (Ginguld, 1997,
Ra’anan, personal interview, 2007) 19 . The permits issued are time limited as well to prevent overgrazing 20 . Movement of flocks is sometimes done by foot, and in other cases it is by truck (Ginguld, 1997). Bedouin must obtain permits to transport livestock by truck
(Abu Farija, personal interview, 2007).
Most of the grazing lands that Negev Bedouin are permitted to use are located in military areas (Ra’anan, personal interview, 2007). Bedouin also graze the stubble from fields in moshavim and kibbutzim. Some Bedouin graze in forests maintained by the JNF. The
Bedouin themselves have traditionally engaged in mixed farming, in good years harvesting the grains and using the stubble for the animals, and in bad years leaving the harvest on the fields to be grazed. They are permitted to rent land on a yearly basis for farming in mixed systems (Ra’anan, personal interview, 2007).
19 One person I spoke with told me that the system for administering land was corrupt, and that it is necessary to give “money under the table” to the clerks who work in the Ministry of Agriculture in order to obtain grazing land. I was not able to corroborate this claim. Euda Abu Shiba told me that he never heard that the system was corrupt and never experienced that (personal interview, 2007). 20 The JNF allows grazing permits for a single season only so that herders do not develop feelings of ownership of the grazing land (this is true for all JNF grazing, land, not specific to Arab or Jewish utilization). Keeping the land in the JNF managers’ hands ensures that they will be able to protect it from overgrazing (Tal, personal communication, 2007). 50
Semi Intensive Grazing Among the Bedouin
Some Bedouin have intensified their production, and Rummel et al. argue that in general the Bedouin are moving towards increased intensification (2003). Yeela Ra’anan said that
“the government is pushing for intensification and the Bedouin are not resisting.”
However, the trend toward intensification is far from dominant. Ra’anan stated that currently she knows of only one Bedouin family (the Ziadna family) that currently engages in more intensive production. Mohamed Abu Farija said that while he has heard of emerging resources from the Ministry of Agriculture for the past twenty years, “maybe they'll do it but not today, not tomorrow, not next year not in two years (Abu Farija, personal interview, 2007).”
Nevertheless, for Bedouin who do engage in semi-intensive grazing, the profits from sheep grazing itself are usually secondary. Profits are chiefly made by renting machinery
(Rummel, 2003). Flocks under semi intensive systems are larger than in extensive systems, and they live in permanent housing. Rather than natural reproduction, artificial insemination is used, which increases the prolificacy of the animals. Also, rather than pure
Awassi sheep, crossbreeds of Awassi with Assaf or Merino are more common in Semi- intensive systems. Health care is similar as in semi-extensive systems. The sheep also graze for six months of the year under semi-intensive systems. Lambs are fattened to 55 kg, instead of the 40 kg common under semi-extensive systems (Rummel et al., 2003).
There is a currently a government program under the direction of Elisha Gootwine, a livestock geneticist at the Volcani Institute. He is investigating ways to increase the prolificacy of sheep in Israel. There are now Bedouin participants that he works with in 51
order to study how the technology may be introduced to Bedouin herders (this part of the project deals specifically with Awassi sheep). The program is still in its early stages, and right now there are less than 20 Bedouin participants. Gootwine described the goals of the project with Bedouin thus:
“In general, the idea is that the Bedouin have a low prolific animal, they don’t earn much, that is why they can not invest much in terms of better management. This affects the reproduction of the flock and the wheel goes on. We think that if we will have a prolific genotype, the income will increase, the standard of living will improve and the farmers will be able to invest more in the welfare and the conditions of the animals and there will be additional benefit from it, just turning the wheel around to the other side: The green revolution of sheep production in the Middle East. (Gootwine, personal interview, 2007).” The government is currently in the process of recognizing some Bedouin settlements formerly considered illegal. They are granting small plots of land along with the villages for use in agriculture. These plots are suitable only for intensive livestock husbandry
(Ra’anan, personal interview, 2007).
Arab Livestock Farming Today
Rummel characterizes sheep farming in the Arab, non-Bedouin sector as stationary, herding
(not zero grazing), and generally semi-extensive, focused both on lamb production and milk production. Semi-intensive production of lambs is also practiced to a large extent. Less common is intensive production of both milk and lambs (Rummel et al., 2003, p. 54). 52
In 2000 there were only seventeen herds of intensively raised Assaf flocks 21 ; most belonged to kibbutzim and moshavim.
According to a recent government census, today’s Arab non-Bedouin sector hold 161,331 sheep, roughly 24% of Israel's total sheep holdings, in 2005. They also own 34,008 goats, or 29% of the national stock. Their total cattle holdings were 32,407, which is less than
10% of the total cattle population. Of this cattle, the vast majority is sold as beef. The
Veterinary Service reports that only 57 dairy cows can be found in the Arab non-Bedouin sector. However, the Arab sector holds roughly 24% of Israel's beef cattle (Israel
Veterinary Service, 2007).
It would seem that today’s Arab livestock farmers are in a position somewhere between the
Jewish and Bedouin sectors. Only 10 Arab farms were given a quota for sheep and goat milk in 2003 (14). Their farm size tends to be smaller than Jewish farms. They lack much of the infrastructure that Jewish farms have; the shelters for the sheep and goats are not sufficient.
The Druze make up a large portion of the beef cattle holders. The beef cattle growers in
Israel are not a peaceful group. Theft is prevalent (as is poisoning), and many Jewish cattle growers suspect Arabs (Hassin, 2005). The Beef Cattle Growers Association (AMBAL)
21 In Israel, sheep raised for dairy are generally Assaf, which produce more milk and have a higher reproduction rate than the Awassi. 53
demonstrated in support of Shai Dromi by planting trees on his farm when he was arrested for killing a Bedouin would-be sheep thief in the Negev (Grinberg, 2007). Arab cattle farmers tend to have less access to natural pasture land than do Jewish beef cattle farmers
(Hassin, 2005; Shafran, personal interview, 2007).
Trends
In 1997 the Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages was formed. It started a
Bedouin Sheep Growers Committee, one of the elements that Rummel and Ginguld both mentioned was lacking in the past for better development of the Bedouin livestock sector.
The committee is focused on improving the economic viability of growing sheep and making the act of raising sheep “not a battle” (Ra’anan, personal interview, 2007).
In the past five years, the veterinary records show a fairly stable population of sheep among the Negev Bedouin. A questionnaire by Rummel to four Bedouin herders grazing in semi- extensive systems showed that they all saw their future prospects in sheep production as negative (Rummel, 2003). This was echoed in an interview with Mohamed Abu Farija, who said,
“Each year I see that I lose more and I don't stay on the same level as the year before. The feed is more expensive and the sheep go down in price. The feed is very expensive. This year the price is double, (personal interview, 2007).” In 2007, the Bedouin Sheep Growers’ Committee staged a protest because the IDF did not permit grazing on close to 50% of customary grazing lands. In response to this, part of the military areas were reopened to them and the Bedouin were unofficially allowed to “squat” 54
on others. But this provides no guarantee for the future. To combat this, the Bedouin
Sheep Growers Committee is working on legal action.
Over the past ten years, the JNF has begun to strongly encourage grazing in their forests.
This is due to a growing recognition of the efficacy of grazing as a method of fire prevention. The grazing on JNF forest lands is primarily by sheep.
Abu Rabia noted that many Bedouin continue raising livestock due to long term trends of job instability in the Bedouin sector (Abu Rabia, 2000). Maintaining a traditional lifestyle and herds also allows Bedouin to maintain their land claims (Ginguld, 1997).
Marx points out that the Israeli government is under continual pressure from various interest groups such as the army, the Nature Reserves Authority, and corporations to utilize lands to which Bedouin make claim. Continual plans to "develop" the Negev are also an obstacle for Bedouin. The dispersion of the Bedouin while grazing flocks for half of the year makes them a weak lobby for their land use claims (Marx, 2000).
Summary
From the Ottoman times until the present, the Arab sector of livestock growers in Israel has continued a fairly traditional form of production. Modern veterinary care has decreased mortality of Arab flocks, and lessened the rate of illness. Reduced prices for grains on the world market and regulations on access to grazing land have increased the dependence of 55
the sector on purchased feed, and hence provided some protection from drought 22 (although at the same time increased the amount of expenditure necessary). The scientific advances in automation that have made the Jewish sector a world leader have had little effect on the
Arab branch. Arab producers do not play a part in Israel’s high tech dairy sector.
Arab production is mostly for meat in Israel. The dairy produced by sheep and goats is expanding, although in the Jewish sector the dairy from sheep and goats is expanding more rapidly. The lack of dairy infrastructure in the Arab sector will make it difficult for them to play a part in this industry, and Bedouin political action groups are anxious to establish such an infrastructure (Ra’anan, personal interview, 2007).
22 see Bruins et al., (2003) Drought Planning and Rainwater Harvesting for arid zone pastoralists: the Turkana and Maasai (Kenya and the Negev Bedouin (Israel): NIRP Research for Policy Series 17, Amsterdam, KIT Publishers for a detailed study. 56
4. The Environmental Effects of Livestock Husbandry in Israel
Introduction
Livestock husbandry has significant effects on many of the most important environmental problems today, such as desertification, pollution, climate change, species loss, and water shortage. This chapter looks at previously published data pertaining to livestock in Israel and environmental problems. It tries to provide an overview of these effects, while at the same time separating the effects from livestock raised in industrial systems with those of livestock raised by grazing. The goal of this chapter is to clarify where livestock husbandry has its strongest effects on Israel’s environment.
Desertification
Land Degradation in Israel due to Livestock
Land degradation and desertification are chiefly ascribed to grazing systems of livestock production. Grazing affects ecosystems in many ways. Associated land degradation can include several factors: a decrease in biodiversity, including ecosystem services, a change in the “structure” of the ecosystem, biomass productivity and usefulness to society 23 .
(Perevolotsky and Seligman, 1998). Land degradation must be assessed on a case by case
23 i.e. how well it meets the needs of the local population. If land is bare, but produces runoff water used by local farmers, and changing conditions mean that plants begin to grow there and the fields are without water, the land may be considered degraded. If the local population wants a shady picnic spot, and instead they have a meadow, the land will be considered degraded. 57
basis. For some areas, an increase in primary productivity can be a sign of degradation. In addition, changes must be evaluated in terms of whether damage, when it occurs, is permanent, that is, what is the time frame for reversal? Scientists talk about whether the resilience of land is damaged. For grazing to be considered a driver of degradation, after grazing stops, the land should take a long time to revert to its pre-grazing state. If instead, grazing stops, and within a few years, the land is back to its pre-grazing state, then true degradation did not take place. 24
Haim Zaban, former Director of Israel's Soil Conservation Service, stated that soil erosion is the most important environmental issue in Israel’s semi-arid lands. He argues that the state of Israel's semi arid lands has improved from the 1960's until today. He credits the decrease in Bedouin flocks with this improvement, stating that "almost all" Bedouin made their living from livestock in the 1960's, compared to around 2% today (Zaban, personal interview, 2007).
Defining Overgrazing
24 This is the case in one of the most famous Israeli examples of desertification. On satellite photos it is possible to see the border between Egypt and Israel. This is because unrestricted grazing in the Sinai is allowed, but in Israel it is not (Otterman, 1977). The lack of grazing on the Israeli side allows for the growth of a biogenic crust that is absent on the Egyptian side (Karnieli and Tsoar, 1995). When Israel occupied the Sinai, the border disappeared quickly from satellite pictures. When Israel returned the Sinai, the border reappeared within a couple of years. Fencing an area within the Egyptian side achieved the same effect (Otterman, 1984). This rapid change indicates that the loss of crust may not constitute true “desertification.” 58
The discussion of land degradation and livestock should include a discussion of the relevant terms. The words “degradation” and “overgrazing” lack precise definitions. Each word implies a value judgment—that what it describes is bad. Degradation and desertification both imply that land gets worse. Overgrazing says that there is too much grazing; undergrazing that there is too little. But overgrazing and undergrazing are often applied without a precise measurement. Perevolotsky and Seligman assert that the heavy grazing typical to northern Mediterranean extensive grazing systems is popularly, but incorrectly, termed overgrazing (1998). A recent study by Henkin et al. (2007) showed that the preferences of people surveyed on their preferences for grazing levels in a park in the North of Israel were in favor of a moderate form of grazing. They preferred the combination of trees and brush found in moderate grazing systems. A livestock producer may prefer a more intensive stocking rate in preference to the combination of trees and brush. To say that overgrazing leads to degradation is self-evident, the word overgrazing states that there is too much grazing, so it is clear that it must have a negative consequence, i.e. degradation.
Overgrazing
Livestock grazing is often blamed for desertification, or land degradation in dryland areas.
Other ills caused by grazing include deforestation, replacement of palatable grass species with herbaceous vegetation, compaction of soil, decreasing water infiltration, decrease in organic matter, and a decline in water shortage.
But grazing also confers benefits, sometimes important ones. Grazing removes biomass that otherwise (particularly in Mediterranean environments) could be fodder for bush fires.
Grazing also controls the growth of shrubs, can foster the spread of seeds by trampling and 59
in manure. Trampling by livestock can assist the growth of grass and can break detrimental soil crusts (DeHaan et al., 1997). The right level of grazing can actually enhance biodiversity, because without enough grazing certain plants will become dominant
(Perevolotsky and Seligman, 1998).
The length of time an area has spent under grazing influences its resilience. Areas with no native herbivores that are harnessed for grazing typically show more damage than areas that have been under grazing systems for a long period of years. Because Israel has been inhabited continuously by humans for between 5-10,000 years, there is no natural state or
“climax state” to which it might possibly return (Shahar, personal interview, 2007).
A study was conducted over several years in the Bedouin Demonstration Farm looking at the effects of grazing on species richness and productivity in the semi-arid northern Negev.
It showed that in low productivity areas, such as hillsides and hilltops, grazing had a negligible or negative effect on both productivity and species richness. The opposite was found in high productivity areas, such as wadis (Osem et al., 2002).
Noy-Meir shows two different models of the effects of grazing. In the “worst case,” as grazing intensifies, the conservation value of the landscape drops following a square root curve 25 . He suggests that this is the case for lands such as Australia’s rangelands or
Patagonian steppe in Argentina, due to the absence of a history of grazing by herbivores
25 See appendix 2 60
there. The chart for Mediterranean rangelands is different. At a grazing intensity of zero, the conservation value of the land is low. The conservation value increases initially, reaching a peak. The initial increase in biodiversity is because in ungrazed lands, dominant species crowd out others. Grazing controls the population of the dominant species, and allows the other species to thrive. The level of biodiversity increases and reaches a peak at a certain level of grazing, below the level of grazing needed to attain a maximum value for animal production. On this chart, however, the decline in either conservation value or production value is not considerable between the two peaks. The production value for livestock decreases after the peak is attained in part due to the decline in value of the vegetation and pasture (Noy-Meir, 2005).
Avi Perevolotsky and Noam Seligman summarized the arguments surrounding grazing and land degradation in Mediterranean areas in a 1998 Bioscience article. They argue that most likely the “degradation” took place in the northern Mediterranean long ago, at some point after the domestication of animals in 7000 BCE. Since then the landscape has been in a dynamic flux that has never reached true “degradation (1998).”
It can therefore be concluded that damage to Israel’s environment by grazing in terms of land degradation and desertification is not currently a significant problem. Indeed, the environmental benefits of enhanced local biodiversity may outweigh localized degradation effects. Grazing intensity must be monitored, but the effects of grazing on land degradation does not presently seem to be a major environmental issue in Israel.
Desertification 61
Desertification can be caused by both natural and anthropogenic processes. Israel is now largely a success story regarding desertification because it has managed to make its drylands extremely productive, and its afforestation campaigns have restored woodlands throughout the country. But travelers to Israel before the state was established often commented on the erosion there 26 . New research suggests that desertification in Israel’s
Negev highlands may be caused by natural processes, and that humans may have retarded these natural processes by building check-dams for rainwater harvesting and continued use of these ancient systems for terracing (Bruins, 1986 27 ; Avni et al., 2006).
Land Use and Livestock in Israel
In 2000, 5.7 million dunams was used for agriculture in Israel. 1.42 million dunams of this land was used as natural pasture. 132,000 dunams of land was used for "auxiliary areas for agriculture: yards, structures for livestock and interior paths (Sternick, 2002)." That should encompass all land used for dairy cattle in Israel. Israel’s total land dedicated to natural pasture rose from 1.1 million to 1.45 million dunams in the ten year period between 1981 to
1991. The majority of this natural pasture area is on kibbutzim (627,844 as of 2000);
26 See Twain: "we pressed on toward the goal of our crusade, renowned Jerusalem. The further we went the hotter the sun got, and the more rocky and bare, repulsive and dreary the landscape became. There could not have been more fragments of stone strewn broadcast over this part of the world, if every ten square feet of the land had been occupied by a separate and distinct stonecutter's establishment for an age. There was hardly a tree or a shrub any where. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the contry. No landscape exists that is more tiresome to the eye than that which bounds the approaches to Jerusalem," (2003, p. 414). 27 Bruins provides an overview of the history of runoff farming in the Negev, from ancient until modern times (1986, pp. 36-38). 62
440,433 was located in moshavim in 2000, 253,756 dunams were located in other Jewish farm types, and just 100,203 dunams were located in non-Jewish farms. The amount of natural pasture in non-Jewish farms fluctuated between 100,000 dunams and 165,000 dunams during the 1990’s. In 1996 165,459 dunams were located on non-Jewish farms, and the number of dunams has declined since then to 110,170 in 1999, and to 100,203 in
2000.
Much of the grazing land in Israel is not “single-use.” For example, the JNF serves as
Israel’s forestry service, and welcomes livestock into their forest areas. The livestock serve the important purpose of controlling forest fires by eliminating flammable biomass on the ground that can spread fires. The benefits to ongoing management are sufficiently great to trigger JNF deliberations as to whether it should pay pastoralists to graze areas in the central region where recently they have not frequented as intensely. (Goldring, personal interview, 2007). As previously mentioned, pastoralists also utilize farmland after harvest, military training areas and nature reserves.
Thus, livestock husbandry is not currently a strong cause of land scarcity in Israel. Land used for grazing is multi use, and industrial systems of livestock management use little land. This is an important conclusion in Israel, since Israel’s small size and heated political context make access to land a particularly thorny issue. Land scarcity due to Israeli livestock husbandry will principally be felt abroad, in countries that export feed grains to
Israel.
63
Climate Change and Livestock in Israel
Israel has surprisingly high per capita carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions. Israel is not considered an Annex 1 country under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change so is not obligated to reduce its emissions, but it is creating a plan to reduce them voluntarily. Agriculture is responsible for 0% of Israel's carbon dioxide emissions28 but is a more important contributor to the generation of nitrous oxide (N 2O) and methane (CH 4), two more potent greenhouse gases 29 . Livestock is an important segment of the agricultural greenhouse gas emissions (Koch et al., 2000).
In 2000, livestock were responsible for 43.81 Gg of methane emissions, approximately
10% of Israel’s total methane emissions, which were 439.3 Gg. 38.33 Gg, or 87% of the livestock emissions, were from cattle, sheep and goats. Livestock production causes methane emissions by enteric fermentation (representing 75% of the total methane generated by livestock) and manure processing (which represents 25% of the total methane generated by livestock). Enteric fermentation occurs in the digestive system of ruminants.
90% of the methane emissions caused by enteric fermentation were caused by cattle, both dairy and beef branches. Dairy cattle in Israel make a high contribution probably because of their very high milk productivity. The emission factor for Israeli dairy cattle is 148 kg
28 Energy industries are responsible for 57% of the emissions. 29 While Steinfeld et al. attribute a high level of CO2 emissions to livestock production, these emissions are indirect, in a large part due to deforestation to clear land for pastures. This explains why the CO 2 emissions from livestock and indeed from agriculture in Israel can be 0. 64
CH 4 /head/yr. Of the methane emissions caused by manure management, the majority comes from poultry. Most cattle manure is stored in dry conditions, which do not lend themselves to the anaerobic decomposition that emits a high level of methane (Koch et al.,
2000).
Nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture in Israel are derived from the following: direct emissions from soil, livestock waste management, grazing, volatilization and leaching from fertilizer and waste. While clearly emissions from volatilization when manure is applied to fields are related to livestock, they fall outside the scope of this thesis. Grazing animals
30 produced 0.42 Gg of N 20 in 2000 from their droppings . Manure handling and storage made up 0.83 Gg (80% of that is due to storage). Of this, between 0.5769 and 0.6463 Gg is the contribution from cattle, sheep and goats 31 . (Koch et al., 2000; Koch and Shofet, 2002).
Sheep, goats and cattle’s contribution to Israel’s methane emissions in 2000 were equivalent to 804.93 Gg of CO 2, using a multiplication factor of 21. Their contribution of between 0.565 and 0.6314 Gg of N 2O represents between 8 and 9% of the total nitrous oxide emissions. This is equivalent to between 175.15 and 195.7 Gg of CO 2, using a multiplication factor of 310. This means that livestock was responsible for between 980.08
30 The data do not specify which type of livestock this refers to, but the principal grazing animals in Israel are sheep, goats and cattle. 31 Two of the categories in the emissions inventory do not specify goats individually. The range I give here is derived from including the other category, which presumably includes goats, camels and hogs, and possibly other animals. 65
32 and 1000.6 Gg of CO 2, or 1.4% of Israel's total greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 (figures from Koch and Shofet, 2002).
This figure constitutes an understatement. Agriculture also contributes to the other sectors of the economy that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture and Forestry used
4.2% of the energy produced in Israel in 2004 (15). Transport is needed to carry milk to dairies to be processed. Packaging materials are produced. Some of the nitrogen produced for fertilizers in Israel is produced to help the growth of feedcrops. Livestock production is accountable for much wastewater production and solid waste production. And manure spread on fields is a direct livestock product. Other emissions effects from industrial livestock systems come through energy use, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As Israel’s nascent programs to address greenhouse gas emissions develop, the livestock sector and agricultural production will need to be examined further.
Water Use in Israel
Globally, livestock uses 8% of freshwater resources (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. 24). Pimental et al. estimate that bovine meat requires 43,000 liters of water per kilogram and that the production of sheep meat requires even more, 51,000 liters/kg (these are estimates based on
US livestock husbandry practices). This dwarfs the water use per kg of monogastric livestock meat, like chickens (3500 ltr/kg) and pigs (6000 ltr/kg) (Pimental et al., 2004).
32 I calculated Israel’s total emissions to 72,436.4, using multiplication factors to gain the carbon dioxide equivalents for methane and nitrous oxide. 66
Most of the water used by livestock is used for irrigating feed crops. Very little of the water used is for direct consumption by livestock. This means that if the feedcrops are imported, the water used in meat production is not coming from Israel's supply. Because of the innovations in the livestock feed sector, the total feed requirements per head of livestock are decreasing, causing less of a drain on resources (DeHaan et al., 1997).
Grazing livestock clearly does not use the same amount of water as livestock raised under intensive conditions. While grazing, livestock consume plants that are grown with water that is not being captured for other use. The differing rates of consumption are made clear in Table 3, where the water use in the non-Jewish sector makes up only 16% of the total livestock water use in 1998, 10.4% in 1999, and 10.9% in 2000. This difference is also shown at later stages of production, including processing and packaging.
Water usage is of special concern in Israel. The agricultural sector is the chief consumer of water in Israel. In 2005, agriculture was responsible for 62% of Israel's total water consumption (16). This is less than the global statistic, 70% of freshwater (Steinfeld,
2006). Israel's livestock sector used 29,836 thousand m 3 of water in 2000, 30,849 in 1999, and 29,680 in 1998.
Water Use, in thousands m3 1998 1999 2000 Total Agricultural Use 1,225,251 1,254,690 1,159,992 Total Livestock Use 29,680 30,849 29,836 Non-Jewish livestock use 4,888 3,220 3,263 Moshavim livestock use 10,982 12,473 12,876 Kibbutzim livestock use 13,021 14,046 12,422 Other Jewish Farms livestock use 789 1,110 1,275 Table 3. Israel Water Use by Livestock. Data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (Sternick, 2002). 67
Considering livestock’s importance in Israel’s agriculture, it uses a minor amount of water, even in intensive systems. The water usage is increased in the processing stage, but there is no data available on this for Israel. The cultivation of feedcrops, especially if irrigated, consumes additional water. Since that chiefly does not come from Israel’s supply, Israel does not have to consider it with as much priority.
Water Pollution
The livestock sector also has been assessed as one of the primary drivers of water pollution on a global level. The pollution originates from animal waste, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals (tanneries), fertilizers, pesticides, and sediments (caused by erosion of pastureland). Other effects of livestock on soil conditions involve compacted soil, reduction of infiltration, land degradation near water flows, lower groundwater tables, and drying floodplains. Other water issues globally are caused by the deforestation that takes place in order to clear grazing land (Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. 24).
Water pollution is also an important issue in Israel. And livestock is a major contributor.
The Ministry of the Environment writes on their website that:
"The pollution generated by some 350,000 heads of cattle in Israel, including both milk and beef cows, equals the pollution generated by the entire human population of the country (17). 33 "
33 This refers to water pollution from organic content. 68
The Ministry of the Environment found that dairy cows were producing more than 300,000 tons of solid waste, with 7,000 tons of pure nitrogen, giving the potential for 31,000 tons of nitrates to infiltrate ground water supplies annually (Capua and Oren, 2001). Since this figure was first recorded, a major effort has been undertaken to reduce the damage done to
Israel’s water supply by cattle. The Ministries of Agriculture and Treasury, together with the Ministry of Environmental Protection enacted a major Reform of the Dairy Sector, which will be described further in Chapter 5.
Waste from livestock affects land, water and air. Wastes contain significant levels of
Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K). If animal waste is processed to include both the urine and feces, it is called slurry. The feces alone contain almost all of the P, 40-
60% of the N, and only 15-40% of the K. So when only solid waste is used as fertilizer, most of the K is lost, and a significant portion of the N is lost. While a large proportion of the nutrients that a pig excretes can be utilized as manure (80%), the manure from cows, goats and sheep contains far smaller proportions of the nutrients initially present. Cow manure contains 31%, goat manure contains 16%, and sheep manure contains 10% or the nutrients originally present (Sheldrick, 2003).
While manure is stored, close to 25% of the nitrogen evaporates as ammonia (NH 3) in a process called volatilization. During the 1980’s, it became clear that this process has a negative effect on the environment. It contributes to acidification of soil and surface water, to eutrophication, and to forest dieback. It is estimated that in Europe, agriculture accounts for 90% of the NH 3 in the atmosphere. Agriculture lends to NH 3 emission through manure 69
application, animal housing, manure storage, grazing, fertilizer application and crops.
Cattle farming is the largest contributor in terms of livestock husbandry (Bussink, 1998).
When manure is applied to the ground for agriculture, some of the nitrogen escapes as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas. Nitrates escape and can pollute groundwater, which takes many years to reverse. The phosphorus from manure builds up in soil and can leach out, causing eutrophication when it reaches the streams. Heavy metals 34 (primarily copper and zinc) also accumulate, contaminating the soil, crops, and eventual human consumers
(DeHaan et al., 1997).
The wastewater from the milking area, the wash pens and the milk house also presents a pollution source. In New Mexico, the water is usually sent to a lagoon, which may be unlined, or lined with clay, concrete, or synthetic material. Studies in New Mexico showed that near the lagoons, there were elevated levels of nitrate, ammonia, chloride, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen found together) and total dissolved solids (Arnold, 1999).
Endangered Species and Ecosystem Services in Israel
Livestock husbandry is a contributing factor to species loss in Israel, through a number of mechanisms including overgrazing, undergrazing, habitat destruction, hunting by foreign
34 Heavy metals are more of a problem with pig and poultry production. 70
workers, poisoning, changes in veterinary care, and water pollution (Dolev and
Perevolotsky, 2004). Species loss is Israel is especially important because Israel and the
Mediterranean have high species diversity. The whole Mediterranean region was classified as a "hotspot" by Mittermeier et al. in 1998. Medail and Quezel made a narrower definition of hotspots, but still included the northeastern region of Israel (the area between Israel,
Syria and Lebanon) as a "Biodiversity Hotspot" for its flora (Medail and Quezel, 1999).
The Mediterranean region contains 10% of the world's plant species and takes up only 1.6% of the world's land area (Medail and Quezel, 1997).
Yom-Tov and Mendelssohn characterized hunting by Thai agricultural workers as the
"most serious threat to Israeli wildlife today (2004) 35 ." The conversion of coastal sand dunes to agricultural land was a contributor to habitat loss for many species of fauna. The draining of wetlands, especially the Hula Swamp 36 , caused the disappearance of several species, among them the Migrogrex hulensis (fish), Nun galilaeus (fish), Tristramella simonies intermedia (fish), Discoglossus nigriventer (Israel painted frog) (although evidence indicates that it was already a relic before the drainage acc. to Gafny, 2004), and
Arvicola terrestris (Northern Water Vole) (Dolev and Perevolotsky, 2004). Water
35 No studies currently document in which branches of agriculture Thai workers are most commonly employed. Since some scientists consider this poaching to be the most critical threat to Israeli wildlife today, and livestock enterprises do employ a portion of Thai workers, it is important to mention this here. However, it is impossible to quantify exactly how much of the burden of species loss due to poaching must be borne by the livestock branch. 36 The economic base of Jewish settlers in the Hula Swamp area before it was drained was dairy farming; after drainage beef cattle production became important (Karmon, 1960). 71
pollution has caused severe threats to several fish species (Yom-Tov and Mendelssohn,
2004) and is also a threat for every amphibian species now considered vulnerable or endangered (Dolev and Perevolotsky, 2004). Livestock production has historically been a major water polluter in Israel, so shares the blame for the damage done to amphibian and fish species 37 .
Poison used by livestock owners to target predators is a serious threat to many species.
Carnivorous mammals, such as jackals, wolves, the red fox, the Egyptian Mongoose, the jungle cat and the wild cat, are affected. Poisons also have a secondary effect on birds of prey, particularly the griffon vulture (Yom-Tov and Mendelssohn, 2004), Egyptian Vulture,
Bonelli's Eagle, Lanner Falcon, the Raven and Golden Eagle (Dolev and Perevolotsky,
2004).
Cultivation by Bedouin on loess soils (often part of a mixed farming system) reduces reptile populations (Bouskila, 2004). Reptile populations can also be adversely affected both by intensive grazing and the lack of grazing in formerly grazed areas. Intensive grazing causes damage by trampling, which upsets soil crusts, in the southern Negev, and by changing the vegetation composition in the northern Negev. When grazing is absent, a soil crust can form that does not allow reptiles to dig burrows, or vegetation that is too dense for reptiles to penetrate can grow (Bouskila, 2004). The Testudo werneri (Negev
37 The following chapter will detail major efforts recently made to control water pollution by the dairy sector. 72
Tortoise) is currently critically endangered, and overgrazing is listed as one of six factors of disturbance. The Stenodactylus doriae (Middle Eastern Short Fingered Gecko) is also critically endangered, and overtrampling by both livestock and humans (hikers) are listed as one of three threat factors (Dolev and Perevolotsky, 2004). Bouskila (2004) recommends monitoring and limiting grazing in order to protect reptile populations.
Loess and sand flats in the Negev and Arava have been identified as the second most critical habitat area for birds (Mayrose and Alon, 2004). Savannization 38 here encourages the penetration of species suited to Mediterranean climate at the expense of native species.
Temporary grazing permitted on military lands damages native birds when they are breeding (particularly if the herds are accompanied by dogs). Species affected include
Cursorious cursor (Cream –Colored Courser), Pterocles coronatus (Crowned Sandgrouse)
(Dolev and Perevolotsky, 2004). Other causes not related to grazing are also significant in this area, such as the expansion of farmland, military activity, and increased human settlement (Mayrose and Alon, 2004).
Changes in the level of available veterinary care have had varying effects on animal species who prey on livestock or who scavenge their remains. The introduction of modern
38 Savannization refers to the conversion of land of another type to savanna. In the Negev and Arava this typically happens when human habitation develops and water is brought in, changing the vegetation and animal species present. 73
veterinary care has damaged populations of some birds of prey, but animal disposal practices have helped the populations of some mammalian scavengers.
Prior to the British Mandate period, livestock disease was more prevalent due to almost total reliance on ethnoveterinary care. Rinderpest was one of the biggest killers of livestock—no longer. Modern medicine has drastically lowered livestock mortality and a major food source of scavengers such as vultures, raptors, jackals, hyenas and wolves has nearly disappeared. Garbage dumps for animal carcasses continue to provide a food source for some of these animals (particularly the mammals) although vultures, particularly the griffon vulture, do not utilize them. The National Parks Authority runs a project to supply carcasses for scavenging birds (Yom-tov and Mendelssohn, 2004).
The Biodiversity Cost of Industrial Livestock Production
The breeding practices that industrial livestock husbandry systems employ also serve to diminish biodiversity. The FAO estimates that close to half of the genetic resources of domestic livestock exist at the breed level (FAO, 2003). Intensive breeding programs can drastically reduce the effective population of livestock breeds. In order to calculate the
39 effective population number, it is possible to use the equation N e = 4MF/(M+F) where Ne is the effective population number, and M and F represent the male and female breeding population respectively. When the number of breeding males is very small in comparison
39 This differs from the standard equation used to calculate effective population size because livestock do not mate randomly, and the number of breeding females is typically much higher than that of breeding males. 74
to the number of breeding females, the equation essentially works out to four times the male population (Cunningham, 1995).
It is not clear how Israel’s livestock industry manages these risks. The literature does not mention attempts on the part of Israel to ensure the viability of livestock populations. Israel does provide data to the FAO Domestic Animal Diversity Information System, and recorded that 12 breeds of livestock, including asses, cattle, sheep and goat breeds, were present. However, Israel has not provided complete information for the livestock, as shown in Table 4. In addition, Israel has not updated its account with the DAD-IS for many years. 75
Effective Breed Population # # of Females # of Males Population 40 Trend Year Ass Damascus no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Syrian no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Cattle Arab no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Israeli Friesian >105070 105000 70 280 stable ca. 1986 Simford no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Goat Israeli Saanen no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Mamber no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Negev no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Sinai 170000 120000 1000 3967 stable ca. 1993 Sheep Assaf no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Awassi no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Israeli Improved Awassi no information no information no information N/A not listed N/A Table 4. Israel's Livestock Breeds with the population information listed in the FAO Domestic Animals Diversity Information System.
Israel still retains much of the land formerly used as grazing land in a fairly undisturbed form. But it would do well to learn a lesson from Europe’s experience of diminishing pastures. In Europe, traditional systems of livestock husbandry have served to maintain ecosystem processes and services that human activity has already eliminated in their natural
40 Calculated using the aforementioned equation from the data provided to the Domestic Animals Diversity Information System. 76
forms, like fire. Pasturelands in Europe have been important as habitats in conservation efforts, and they are now disappearing as agriculture becomes more intensified. Grazing has held numbers of plant species constant or increased them, it is also helpful for animal biodiversity. When pasturelands are abandoned and grazing ceases, plant succession occurs and species are lost from the area (Pykala, 2000).
Off the Farm—Processing, Packaging and Transport
Although it is outside the scope of this thesis, it is important to at least mention that the environmental effects of livestock husbandry continue once the animals move off the farm, during processing, packaging and transport 41 . The Regional Activity Center for Cleaner
Production 42 published a comprehensive overview of the environmental impact of dairy processing in 2002. In dairy production (the processing of dairy products) the most important environmental effects are use of water and electricity, then the production of wastewater, then waste production and management. The generation of greenhouse gas emissions is not significant.
Processing butter, milk, cheese and yogurt each creates different levels of environmental effects. But the process of cleaning the equipment uses more water than any other stage.
41 Michael Pollan’s influential book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” cites several figures for the expenditure of fossil fuels for the production of even organic crops, and they are stunning. At one point he cites a calculation that the production, packaging and transport of a box of organic lettuce requires an input of 4,600 calories of fossil fuel energy, a rate of 57 calories of fossil fuel to 1 calorie of human nutrition (Pollan, 2005, p. 167). 42 Part of the United Nations Environment Program’s Mediterranean Action Plan. 77
The wastewater generation level is usually highest for milk processing, usually between 2-
6 liters of wastewater generated for each liter of milk produced.
Conclusion
The environmental issues in Israel most affected by livestock production are pollution
(primarily water pollution), loss of species, and greenhouse gas emissions. Intensive systems of livestock management rather than grazing are implicated. Regarding pollution, the next chapter will show that a major initiative began in 1999 to address the water pollution problem. Species loss is a very important but complex issue. Many of livestock’s effects on species loss are indirect or localized. Specific campaigns are needed to ameliorate these effects. Climate change is an issue of which awareness is now growing.
While livestock is not a major contributor to Israel’s emissions, it is worthy of mention.
Grazing can be an important factor for species loss and biodiversity issues. As discussed in the next chapter, the lack of a scientifically managed grazing policy in the south of Israel is unfortunate because a critical tool for managing protected species is lost. Much of the literature about grazing and the environment in Israel focuses more on land degradation and biodiversity loss. This turns out not to be very relevant, and paradoxically, livestock grazing often improves biodiversity in Israel.
As alluded to in this chapter, Israel also plays a part in the global problems of water shortage and climate change due to utilization of imported feedstuffs. While deforestation is not occurring within Israel, Israel imports feed crops to support its agriculture. Israel is a major importer of soy—16 th worldwide. Israel imported 26.9% of its soy from Brazil and
10% from Argentina in 2004 (Tips and AusAid, 2005). Brazil’s soy production is a 78
notorious contributor to deforestation of the Amazon region, and in Argentina soy production is a leading cause of deforestation in its Chaco region (Grau et al., 2005). Soy is used principally as livestock feed. The FAO’s very high estimates for livestock’s contribution to climate change are in large part based on the high greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation in the tropics. Israel’s dependence on feed crops grown in these areas may be contributing to this deforestation, and thus to global climate change. 79
5. Israeli Livestock Policy and the Environment
Introduction
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part looks specifically at policies designed to regulate the extensive systems of livestock husbandry in Israel from Ottoman times until the present. The second part looks at policies for the regulation of the intensive sector of livestock husbandry. Policies designed to regulate livestock husbandry went through many stages from Ottoman times to the present. In earlier times, the primary focus was on land tenure reform, through the Ottoman Land Laws, and then through a series of laws passed during the British Mandate period. Under the British Mandate the government sought to take a more active role, providing capital assistance and beginning to regulate access to certain lands. Under Israeli rule the government became even more involved, requiring registration of flocks, vaccinations, and almost completely regulating the access to grazing lands. Intensive agriculture in Israel developed with the aid of the Zionist infrastructure during the British Mandate Period, and then diverged in earnest from the more extensive systems once Israel gained its independence. Beginning in the 1980’s the government began to look also at the environmental effects of industrial livestock management.
As discussed in chapters two and three, livestock husbandry underwent drastic changes in
Israel during the 20 th century until the present day. At the beginning of the 20 th century goats were the major source of dairy products, and livestock production was mostly extensive. The Jewish livestock sector was transformed quickly during the British Mandate into an intensive system, and this change was heightened after Israeli Independence. The
Bedouin sector also underwent a drastic change. At the beginning of the 20 th century 80
extensive production systems were the mainstay of the Bedouin economy. By the end of the 20 th century, while the Bedouin continued to maintain livestock, the production system was semi- extensive/semi-intensive, and livestock was only a marginal factor in their economy.
Both the grazing and intensive production sectors of livestock are now heavily regulated in
Israel. Different types of policies are deemed necessary to control environmental damage from grazing and from intensive livestock systems. In grazing systems, access to land is regulated. Stock numbers are also regulated. In intensive systems, the infrastructure for waste control must be maintained in accordance to environmental standards. Animals in both sectors must receive a certain standard of veterinary care. While policies regulating intensive farming often include measures of support, those regulating the Bedouin sector focus on enforcement 43 . In addition, while Jewish farms are regulated as part of national policies, regulation in the Bedouin sector is more ad hoc. The Bedouin sector is treated separately 44 and is excluded from existing policy structures that seek to control environmental damage in an organized way 45 .
43 For example Israel’s dairy farmers, almost exclusively Jewish, benefit from the efforts of the Milk Marketing Board, the Dairy Board, and the Israel Cattle Breeders Association. There is nothing similar for the marketing of fresh lamb. The Grazing Authority, which provides infrastructure and some extension services, focuses on the Jewish grazing sector and considers the Bedouin to be outside their sphere (Personal interview with S. Friedman, Director of Israel’s Grazing Authority.” 44 As in the case of the Green Patrol, see Bailey 1999. 45 As in the case with the Grazing Authority, see note 33. 81
Land tenure policies are critical to understanding land degradation. In Israel, land tenure issues have been, and continue to be, extremely controversial. This chapter tries to address issues of land tenure as they affect the production of livestock. Land policies in Israel have tended to favor the intensification of animal agriculture and the land rights of Jews over those of Arabs (often due to nationalist and national security reasons) (Rouhana, 1998;
Yiftachel, 1999).
Grazing systems are regulated in Israel by the Ministry of Agriculture, which has a department of grazing, and also by the non-governmental body the JNF, which serves as
Israel’s de facto department of forestry. These authorities work both with Jewish and Arab systems, although the services requested and granted by the two communities may be different. Most Arab farmers engaged in grazing own sheep and goats, even as Arabs also hold roughly ¼ of the beef cattle herd. Most Jews engaged in grazing own cattle, although they do hold nearly 27,200 46 heads of the sheep and goats that are grazed. Generally, animals in grazing systems are being raised for their value as meat, not for dairy production. Land rights and grazing regulations are administered by the Grazing Authority and also enforced by the Green Patrol, a division of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.
Intensive farming systems are regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, but also by the
Ministry of Environment’s Agroecology Department (Capuah, personal interview, 2006).
46 Friedman stated that the Department of grazing works with a total number of 34,000 sheep and goats, and stated in an interview that Jews hold roughly 80% of each type of grazing animal. 82
In addition, TNUVA, the Dairy Board, and the Israel Cattle Breeders Association are very influential (Hojman, 2006). There is a smaller Sheep and Goats Breeders Association.
Most of the intensive systems for cattle, sheep and goats focus on milk production. Meat production is a byproduct, with the sale of males that are born and with older females
(Negev Foundation, 2004). Beef production is also intensive in the stage where cattle are fattened in feedlots. Recently the Israeli Government enacted a “Dairy Farm Reform,” in order to control the effects of the Dairy Industry on Israel’s water (Capuah, personal interview, 2007). The government has not intervened in feedlots for beef cattle (Eizhik
Shafran, personal interview, 2007).
Grazing Systems, Policy and the Environment
Ottoman Period
Before Jewish settlers had come back to Palestine, the grazing economy was mixed between the Bedouin nomads and the Arab fellaheen. The Bedouin grazed on a nomadic and sometimes a semi-nomadic basis. Grazing was the dominant form of subsistence, and sheep was the principal form of livestock, accompanied by the black goat. For the Arab fellaheen, farming was most important, although livestock keeping was also important.
They engaged in extensive herd movement although principally were stationary (Hirsch,
1933).
In the mid 1800’s, following the Egyptian conquest, the Ottoman Empire sought to follow the example of Western governments and strengthen state control of its territories. A series of reforms called the Tanzimat was begun, targeting different facets of policy in the
Ottoman territories (Ma’oz, 1968). The Ottoman Land Code was passed in 1858 (Gavish 83
and Kark, 1993). The Ottoman Land Code divided land into three classes and into five categories within those classes (Shehadah, 1982). The first class was consecrated land, called waqf, which was pledged to God, but held by a family. The second class was mulk, or privately held land—usually the land that was covered by housing (a low portion of the total land area). The most common class of land was state-owned land, divided into three categories:
• miri , or state held land to which individuals could hold rights of use and possession,
• matrouk , which was land used for the public good, for example streets, and
• mawat , or dead land, generally what might be called “waste lands”, difficult to cultivate.
The mawat lands could be acquired by anyone who was interested in cultivating them after paying a tax to the government (Shaw, 1946).
Land used for grazing, as in the Negev, was generally considered mawat (Shehadah, 1982;
Kedar, 2001). Holders of state land (miri) were required to register their usage and would receive usage rights in perpetuity as long as they could demonstrate that the land was cultivated, that it had been in the holders possession (undisputedly) for 10 years, and that the tax was paid (Home, 2006) 47 . Land rights were invalid if the land was left uncultivated
47 Ma’oz (1968, pp. 161-163) provides a good description of the process by which farmers became dispossessed of their livelihood under the Land Reform. The Tanzimat failed to eliminate and even enabled the exorbitant taxation of the peasant farmer, who was then ultimately forced to borrow money at a higher rate, until he would have to sell his land to the moneylender. Other farmers, afraid of further taxation and 84
for at least three years (they were then considered mahlul, or abandoned) and were then available first to certain people, and if the option was not taken, were put up to option. If the highest bid was deemed too low, they reverted to state control (Home, 2006; Shaw,
1946). Prior to passage of the Land Code, the Bedouin and Fellaheen were often engaged in conflicts. The fellaheen’s need for protection from the Bedouin made them prefer to settle in areas that the Bedouin did not use (Reilly, 1981).
Along with the Land Code, the Ottoman government began mapping Palestine, although the maps created were not referenced or associated with a cadastral system48 . The new maps principally showed state land held by the sultan (called jiftlik) state land that was to be sold or purchased, and land that was involved in governmental projects of land reclamation, improvement and engineering (Gavish and Kark, 1993). The Ottoman Land
Reform took power away from Bedouin who had formerly been employed as tax collectors.
Nevertheless, it was not successful in creating a genuine land registry as it was not accompanied by a land survey. There were no efforts by the state at this time to monitor the condition of the land, prevent soil erosion, or improve the husbandry techniques of the farmers. The Land Reform was also not intended to make the distribution of land more equitable; its principal aims were to increase taxation and locate potential conscriptees for
conscription registered their lands in the name of nobles. Ma’oz notes that “the Land Law of 1858 which originially aimed at checking the rise of large landownership, in fact reinforced this tendency.” 48 A cadastral system is one that references property holdings; as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary online, cadastral is “having reference to the extent, value, and ownership of landed property (strictly, as a basis of distributing taxation).” 85
military service (Shaw, 1946). Possibly because of those aims, Bedouins tended to avoid the Registry 49 ,50 .
Under the land code, at first foreign citizens were not allowed to acquire immovable property in Ottoman domains. This changed in 1867, although Jews were still excluded.
This meant that Jewish and Christian settlers at this time created their own unofficial policies of land registration. By 1882 the restrictions had been relaxed still further, but
Jews from some countries and Jewish organizations were still not allowed to register land
(Gavish and Kark, 1993). By the end of the period of Ottoman rule, the Jewish settlers were still just learning how to grow livestock in Israel’s difficult conditions.
The Negev was sparsely populated until the mid nineteenth century. The inhabitants were
Bedouin, and they resolved claims to land with violence (Kressel, 2003, p. 34) 51 . They developed their own system of marking land claims, by laying piles of rocks on their agricultural areas 52 . By the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Bedouin devised a system of recording land transfers. Land transfer was done on the basis of camels, and written down
49 “Only a small proportion of transactions was recorded, and these chiefly concerned elderly persons, females, foreigners and those sufficiently influential to be able to avoid military service, (Shaw, 1946 p. 238).” 50 Kressel writes that the fear of privatization of communal land was a threat to tribal unity and the authority of the sheikh, leading the Bedouin sheikhs to avoid registering their land claims (2003, p. 37). 51 Ma’oz notes that the Ottoman government was not able to gain effective control over the Negev during the period of the Tanzimat (1968, p. 148) although during this period they did experiment with policies aimed at settling the nomads, which would eventually be fruitful. 52 Kressel has an interesting description of Bedouin practices of demonstrating claims to land in this area. He writes that tenants were willing to recognize Bedouin ownership of land based on the relative size and strength of the Bedouin kin group rather than because they recognized a prior claim to the land on behalf of the Bedouin (2003, p. 35). 86
on a piece of paper that served as a bill of sale called the sanad. The sanad included the boundaries of the land, a description, and the signatures of the seller, buyer and witnesses.
While sanads were stamped by the official revenue service, they were not recorded in the land registry (Kressel, 2003, p. 42) 53 . The city of Beer Sheva was founded at the beginning of the 20 th century, and the Ottoman government offered an incentive of a dunam of land to
Bedouin who agreed to settle there (Abu-Rabia, 2005).
The end of the Ottoman period coincided with World War I, which took a heavy toll on agriculture in Israel. Livestock numbers were drastically depleted, due to disease and conscription. The British Mandate government was to enter an area in need of assistance
(Shaw, 1946).
Grazing Policy during the British Mandate Period
During the British Mandate, the government took an active role in managing the settlement of the land and in monitoring degradation. Their land policy aimed at fostering development and fostering “settlement” of land. This involved creating a standardized registry, surveying land and emulating the British system of land ownership (Forman,
2006). The Jewish lobby was successful in receiving support from the government at this time for their initiatives in improving farming methods. The government began without any
53 The practice of issuing sanad continued into the British Mandate period. Forgeries were also not unknown. As cash became more important during the British Mandate period, mortgages based on the sanad became prevalent. 87
organized development plan regarding agriculture (El Eini, 1996). As Jews became more successful in their initiatives to grow livestock, their methods began to diverge from those of the Arab population, and intensive farming systems began to emerge.
Due to the losses in agricultural productivity due to World War I, the British Mandate government offered loans to farmers in the amount of 576,319 pounds (Shaw, 1946). The government would continue to offer loans during periods of drought, as in the Beer Sheva region in 1927 (to Bedouin) 54 . Typically the majority of the loan monies were recovered and part was written off. The loans were offered at interest rates of between 5-6%, which was much lower than the rate paid by the average fellah farmer, and the system of making loans available also served to reduce the debt burden on the rural Arab population (Shaw,
1946). The availability of capital, first by the Ottoman Empire in the development of Beer
Sheva, and then by the British Mandate government (and also by the Zionists), was an important cause for the spread of agriculture among the Bedouin (Kressel, 2003, p. 39).
Once the British Mandate government came into power, it shut down the Ottoman Empire system of land registration and prevented transfers of immovable property until 1920, when it opened its own secular land courts (Home, 2006; LeVine, 1998). The “Transfer of Land
Ordinance” of 1920-1921 required all transfers of land to be recorded (Gavish and Kark,
1993). It’s primary raison d’etre was to prevent tenants from being evicted if their
54 Shaw offers an accounting of various government loans extended to cultivators (1946: 349-356). 88
landlords sold the land where they lived and worked (Shaw, 1946) 55 . The Mahlul Land
Ordinance (1920) and the Mawat Land Ordinance (1921) required prior consent by the authorities for the cultivation of these lands (Atran, 1986).
The Hebrew land registers were incorporated into the legal system and in 1928 the Land
Settlement Ordinance was passed, which required the completion of a cadastral survey of
Palestine (Gavish and Kark, 1993). The survey was to meet many obstacles due to political unrest, and only the northern part of Israel, not including Judea and Samaria, would be completed by 1947 (Gavish and Kark) 56 .
The Land Settlement Ordinance of 1928 (followed by the Land Settlement Amendment
Ordinance in 1930) was an attempt to facilitate the settlement of title to land. The idea was
55 This policy did not achieve its aim, as most tenants were willing to sell their right to be treated as protected tenants, sometimes due to pressure from their landlord, who had a somewhat feudal position for the tenant, and also due to debt, which was pervasive (Shaw, 1946 p. 289). In 1929 (and amended in 1931), the Protection of Cultivators Ordinance was passed, replacing the section of the Land Transfer Ordinance that protected tenant’s position on the land. In 1933 a comprehensive Cultivators Ordinance of 1933 was passed. The law required the High commissioner to provide displaced tenants with an area of land capable of providing subsistence, and applied to those involved in grazing for 5 consecutive years as well. By the end of the British Mandate period, this series of laws were under serious scrutiny. While at first the government’s opinion had been that the landlords were taking advantage of their position in regards to tenants, they began to believe that tenants were more likely to take advantage of their position, to the extent of causing some landlords to refuse to accept tenants. The protection of grazing rights did not agree with the government’s priority of development. During World War II the laws were amended to exclude areas owned by the State from the regulation, and to exclude any tenants from the protection of the law whose cultivation had begun after the passage of the ordinance. 56 Gavish and Kark suggest that the lack of survey in the West Bank is part of the reason for continual disputes over land ownership and lack of development in the area. 89
to adapt the Torrens system, used successfully in Australia, to Palestine. 57 The laws would also change the system of landholding in the Arab sector (Atran, 1986) 58 . Land held by
Arabs in Palestine was typically under a communal tenure system called mash’a (Atran,
1986). This system began to end during the British Mandate period. 59 Atran ascribes this demise to two factors: the refusal of the British Mandate government to allow settlement to continue into the mawat land outside the settlement, and the acquisition of mash’a land by
Jews (Atran, 1986) 60 .
In 1931 a General Agricultural Council was established, chaired by the Director of
Agriculture and Fisheries. The Council focused mostly on determining the agenda for agricultural research in Palestine, and later on the marketing of agricultural products.
Animal husbandry had its own committee. The Council did not meet after August 1942, due to the war (Shaw, 1946).
The British Mandate government operated an experimental farm, which expanded as time went on, becoming more important during World War II. But it focused on issues related
57 The settlement system involved performing a cadastral survey to divide land into parcels, which together make up blocks; investigating existing title claims; and creating a new register with all existing claims, where new claims and transfers will also be recorded (Shaw, 1946). 58 This is also mentioned explicitly in Shaw’s Survey of Palestine (1946): “Other aims served by the operations under the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance are… better development from greater security of title and from the partition of land formerly held in common and periodically divided for the purpose of cultivation (p. 234)”. 59 The Ottomans had begun trying to privatize mash’a land as well, since 1880 (Kressel, 2003, p. 35). 60 Under the new Land Settlement Ordinance mash’a land was divided into parcels, and the holder of a parcel in that year was considered to have title to it, although under the mash’a system the land use would be transferred in the next year. This meant that the holder could sell the land, whereas under mash’a it did not belong to the individual owner. 90
to cultivation of crops (Shaw, 1946, pp. 345-346). The Jewish Agricultural research center in Rehovot was the more important center of research at the time. Various agricultural schools were also open, including two Kadoorie Agricultural Schools, one for Jews and one for Arabs, and the Mikve Israel School, located near Tel Aviv.
The Jewish population during the Mandate was dominated by Ashkenazi Jews, who considered themselves part of Europe. Volcani’s 61 writings show that he consistently compared Israel’s livestock systems to those of European countries, and strove to import their practices. His ideal was actually that of establishing farming systems in Palestine similar to Europe’s during the Middle Ages, but with productivity equal to that of contemporary Europe. The British Mandate’s Agricultural Ministry responded to the
Jewish requests for assistance. Imports of cattle were subsidized; agricultural experiment stations were funded. New knowledge and techniques were not, however, effectively transferred to the Arab population.
At the same time, the British Mandate government was concerned about the preservation of soils and forests. To European eyes, the land that was Palestine seemed a wasteland. And indeed, the landscapes then were much different than they are today. Under the British
Mandate, a cadastral survey of Palestine was carried out, in a furtherance of the attempts to
61 See Chapter 2 for an explanation of Volcani’s role in the history of Israeli agriculture. 91
establish land tenure records. A land tenure bill was passed in 1921, again giving landholders the opportunity to register their land.
In 1926, the British Mandate Government passed a Forestry Ordinance. The Ordinance allowed the Ministry of Agriculture to declare any area a forest reserve, which would require persons wishing to graze livestock there to obtain a permit (18; Tal and Cohen,
2006). The Forestry Department split from the Department of Agriculture and Forestry in
1936. By 1945, Palestine’s total forest reserves covered 750,696 dunams (or 187,172 acres), just under 10% of which were closed to grazing, covering 73,333 dunams or 18,358 acres (Shaw, 1946).
A Soil Conservation Board was created in 1939 as part of the Department of Forestry
(Shaw, 1946). Tal and Cohen also describe the Sand Erosion Ordinance shortly after the end of World War I (2006). Tal also describes the Soil Erosion Ordinance of 1941 (2007).
These laws gave the central government the power to determine the landscape of the country, to protect and add forests, although it is questionable to what extent the ordinances were enforced (Tal, 2006). Towards the end of the British Mandate Period, there was a sentiment that black goats were detrimental to the plants, and a Shepherd Ordinance was passed in 1946, placing draconian restrictions on where goats could graze. The British position on the subject was passionate.
In 1928, Colonel E.R. Sawer, the then Director of Agriculture and Forests in the British
Mandate Government, said the following in an address to the Palestine Economic Society:
“There remains the outstanding and distasteful problem of the goat—the alleged evil genius of the Mediterranean, against whom 92
has been directed a larger body of legislation than has honoured, or otherwise, any domestic animal.” Sawer mentioned that at the time there were half a million goats in Palestine, and they provided the country’s principal milk supply. At that time there were also efforts made to encourage goat owners to replace them with sheep. The British mandate government instituted a policy of issuing grazing licenses to restrict the herders’ range. Nevertheless, even then, the benefit of grazing as an effective strategy against fires was recognized. As early as 1928, Sawer called grazing a “definite and valuable forest product.”
Sawer recommended restricting access to regenerating forests for grazing but cited a contemporary example for the usefulness in grazing goats for alleviation of risk of forest fires and reducing demand for soil moisture (by clearing undergrowth). He did see a use in having goats graze regenerating forests, noting that they were the only milk bearing animal that could graze there. He predicted a very profitable dairy industry emerging from grazing goats on well -forested land.
By the end of the British Mandate period, much land held as miri was still not registered legally (Shaw, 1946 p. 231). The dead, or mawat land, was legally considered as vacant land, since cultivating it was legally trespassing (Shaw, 1946). During the British Mandate
Period, the grazing practices of the Bedouin and Arabs remained similar to what they had been. But land transactions among Bedouin increased in the British Mandate period
(Kressel, 2003, p. 30). Sedentarization of Bedouin had already begun.
93
Grazing Policy from the Establishment of the State of Israel until 2007
Since the establishment of the State of Israel, policy towards grazing can by characterized by two major goals: establishing state sovereignty over land and protecting the quality of the environment. Kressel notes a change away from encouraging private ownership of land in the southern region of the country, and a steady encouragement of traditional authority structures (2003, p. 60). There have also been efforts toward improving grazing techniques. Intensive farming has become very important to Israeli agriculture. The
Ottoman Land Code remained in force in Israel until 1969 (Forman, 2006) 62 . The Israel
Lands Administration (ILA) was established in 1960 (Forman, 2006), providing an active body to oversee management of the state’s land.
A recent study analyzes the actions of the ILA and determines that to a great extent, nationalist and national security motives govern the allocation of rural land (Bar-Eli, 2007).
This does not work in favor of the Arab population, and represents a change in the active regulation of land ownership. Under the British Mandate, it was a priority of the
62 Kressel draws a timeline of the status of Bedouin lands in the Negev. During the Ottoman period, the land they used for grazing became defined as mawat with the passage of the 1858 Land Code. The Transfer of Land Ordinance in 1921 put restrictions on the use of mawat land, and required users to register their claims within two months. With the passage of Israel’s Land Law, the mawat land was definitively considered as state land (2003, p. 31). 94
government to prevent the emergence of “landless Arabs,” however ineffectively policies in pursuit of this aim may have been pursued 63 .
The War of Independence itself, and effects thereof, were instrumental in making changes to grazing practices. After the war, the Bedouin were placed under military administration and forced to remain in an area called the siag, which represented only 10% of the area where they were used to live, graze and cultivate (Degen et al., 2000). Kressel writes that the drop in Bedouin population in the Negev and their subsequent confinement were key in the expansion of agriculture among Bedouin (2003, p. 39). Flock sizes were not regulated at this time, so they increased. As the Bedouin required extra pasture, and it was granted, conflicts arose between Bedouin and the Jewish settlers in the Negev, which led to further restrictions on grazing. The Military Administration ended in 1966 (Degen et al., 2000) and Bedouin began to expand their rangelands throughout the south of Israel.
The Soil Conservation Division was established in 1948 as part of the Ministry of
Agriculture. It performed the country’s first range survey in 1956. Arie Shahar, who worked in the Soil Conservation Division from 1950-1994, reflecting on his experiences, said that ultimately the issues they had faced returned to the question of control over land.
"This is the Middle Ages," he said, explaining that as in the Middle Ages, questions in
Israel revert to who is politically stronger rather than rule of law (Shahar, personal
63 I do not have access to this research, a Ph.D. thesis by Hananel under the direction of Alterman, but it was summarized in Haaretz on September 10, 2007 by Avi Bar-Eli. 95
interview, 2007) 64 . His statement was echoed by Yeela Raanan, the coordinator of the
Bedouin Sheep Growers Committee, who stated that “Israel views pasture as a means of claiming land,” (personal interview, 2007).
In 1950, the Plant Protection Law, also colloquially called the “Black Goat Law,” was passed. This law limited the number of goats allowed to graze on public lands (19). 65 The
Ministry of Agriculture was empowered to confiscate goats found in violation of this rule 66 .
The law was not enforced (until much later, starting in 1977) 67 .
1977 saw the formation of two important entities in Israel’s grazing administration: the
Grazing Authority in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Green Patrol. The Grazing
Authority was formed to promote conservation of land. It was a joint initiative between the
JNF, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Israel Lands Administration (ILA). These institutions continue to maintain good communication with the Soil Conservation Service,
(Friedman, personal interview, 2006) which is no longer active in grazing issues (Arbel,
64 Haim Zaban, former Director of Grazing at the Soil Conservation Service, agreed that control over land was the overriding issue (Zaban, 2007) 65 The goats were limited to one per 40 dunams in unirrigated land, and one per 10 dunams in irrigated land. The law did not apply to goats grazing in private yards. 66 There is some controversy as to the extent of livestock confiscation that takes place. The Green Patrol confiscates animals that it finds without vaccinations and grazing without permission in firing zones. They hold them in a closed area and administer vaccinations. In order to retrieve the animals, the owners must pay the costs of their lodging and vaccinations (personal interview with Ehud Abutbul, Inspector Ramat haNegev, Green Patrol, 2007). 67 Portnov and Safriel credited the Black Goat Law with the decrease of the Negev goat population from 185,000 prior to 1948, to 71,000 in 1950, and the revival of area vegetation (Portnov and Safriel, 2004). It is actually more likely that the decline in the number of goats was due to the flight of Bedouin with their flocks from the area—the Bedouin population also declined immediately following Israel’s war of Independence. 96
personal interview, 2007). The Grazing Authority has engaged in projects with the following aims:
• “Effectively utilizing grazing areas.
• Development of grazing zones and increasing their capacity.
• Ensuring grazing for all kinds of animals.
• Prevention of illegal land utilization.” (Friedman, unpublished presentation, 2006).
The Grazing Authority currently works with 300 cattle farms, 130 sheep farms and 70 goat farms, constituting 60,000 heads of cattle, 30,000 ewes, and 10,000 goats (Friedman presentation, 2006).
Most of the animals being grazed in Israel do not fall under the authority of the Department of Grazing. “The Bedouin in the south with 200,000 sheep—they have no contact with the administration,” (Friedman, personal interview, 2006). The Department of Grazing is concerned, rather, with the herds of the 500 stationary farmers, Jewish and Arab, in Israel.
The Grazing Authority claims to have contributed to the rehabilitation of 1,000,000 dunams of grazing land. It provides a subsidy to grazers to encourage appropriate levels of grazing.
Its staffers visit farmers and provide guidance, in addition to running professional training courses (Friedman, unpublished presentation, 2006).
The Green Patrol was also a joint initiative, of the Ministry of Agriculture, Land Authority,
JNF and the Nature Reserves Authority. The Patrol was established to prevent illegal encroachment and settlement on state lands (Tal, 2003). The Green Patrol was empowered to negotiate only over the timing of the displacement of squatters. The Green Patrol is best 97
known for their efforts against unrecognized Bedouin settlements 68 . The workings of the
Green Patrol were at first partially justified by referring to the Black Goat Law, which they were enforcing. In fact, the Black Goat Law was reinforced in 1977 with a Plant Protection
Declaration (Damage by goats), which stated that goats would not be allowed in natural reserve areas (20). A letter to Haaretz by leading local ecologists was published by
Michael Even-Ari, Emanuel Noy-Meir and Ze’ev Naveh on June 15, 1978, stating that the black goats actually have a positive effect on the ecosystem and that the black goat law should be overturned. This did not stop the passage of an additional bill, providing a policy for goats confiscated while in violation of grazing statutes. In 2007, however, all signs point to a change in orientation among authorities who now ignore the draconian provisions and are more accommodating towards goats, whose presence in flocks is tolerated. 69 .
Heavy losses, mostly economic in terms of stock confiscated, have ensued to the Bedouin due to the work of the Green Patrol (Tal, 2003). Also harassment, injuries, and even some deaths have been attributed to them. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in Israel mentioned "systematic harassment and persecution by the Green Patrol" as
68 According to Clinton Bailey, an expert on Bedouin affairs, the Nature Reserve Authority (NRA) sees the Bedouin as "enemies of the state (Bailey, January 1999)." Bailey states that this has been the case since the founding of the "Unit for Overseeing Open Spaces" (colloquially the Green Patrol) in 1977. Bailey notes that the Green Patrol was founded specifically to force the Bedouin out of the desert lands that they occupied illegally. To justify their actions from an ecological standpoint, they invoked the 1950 Black Goat law.. 69 Zvika Avni and Yoram Goldring of the JNF said that they no longer enforce the Black Goat Law on their lands (personal interview, 2007); a visit to the flock of Mohamed Abed Abu Farija showed that his goats grazed alongside of the sheep. He said that “the law is still there but no one is enforcing it. (personal interview, 2007).” 98
a cause for concern in a set of observations in November, 1998 (Unrecognized Villages of the Negev, 2003).
While tensions between the Negev Bedouin communities and the Green Patrol have diminished in recent years, the Green Patrol is still resented by the Bedouin. Recently the
Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages met with the Ministry of Agriculture to discuss concerns regarding how the Bedouin community is affected by laws. One of their three major requests was that the Green Patrol stop harrassing them.
Juma Greymi of the Azazmi tribe, an employee of Ben Gurion University, remarked that the Green Patrol has told his family that they are trespassing on firing zones, even putting up a misleading notice on a water tank on university property, which stated that the water tank was the property of the military and it was forbidden to graze there (Greymi, personal interview, 2007). Mohamed Abed Abu Farija, a herdsman, said “there’s no purpose to the
Green Patrol. They are just a burden on taxpayers,” (personal interview, 2007).
The year 1978 also saw the passage of an Animal Diseases Regulation, which implemented the Animal Diseases Ordinance of 1945 (21). This bill set out provisions for marking animals to demonstrate that they comply with required vaccinations. It also prohibits possessing unmarked sheep ten months or older. This bill has partially caused the increase in the number of Bedouin sheep in official government records.
In 1980 the issue of Bedouin tenure of land was again addressed with the Law of Land
Acquisition in the Negev (Kressel, 2003, p. 31). This law set the compensation for
Bedouin tribes who were forced to evacuate the area near Tel-Malhata to make way for the 99
construction of an airport. Kressel notes the importance of this law in the government’s recognizance of the Bedouin’s de facto right to the land where they were living 70 .
Currently, farmers involved in grazing must pay low fees to utilize public land for grazing.
However they may also receive subsidies, which cancel out those fees. It can be argued that the subsidies support a public good, because grazing provides an important service in preventing forest fires and maintaining certain landscapes. But Eizhik Shafran of Kibbutz
Ein HaShofet argues that the subsidy’s chief inspiration was political “land that we don't use will be taken by Arabs, with everything that goes along with that,” (Shafran, personal interview, 2007).
Kressel notes that in the south, almost all grazing land is state owned and not managed professionally as rangeland (Kressel, 2003, p. 173). He notes that there is no comprehensive plan for the future of either Bedouin or Jewish flocks. Flocks are increasingly held in pens and fed on concentrate instead of grazed in the fields (Kressel,
2003, p. 174).
Ben Gurion University ecologist Bert Boeken notes that while the Ministry of Agriculture operates an extension service that carries information two ways, there is nothing similar with ecologists. They do research on the effects of grazing on the environment, but that
70 The Bedouin were not compensated on the same scale as Jewish settlers leaving Yamit, in Sinai, when Israel returned the area to Egypt. 100
research is not disseminated to the ground level (Boeken, personal interview, 2006). The
Department of Grazing’s staff does include ecologists, although as previously mentioned they do not work with the Bedouin.
Intensive Livestock Production Systems, Policy, and the Environment
Introduction
As with grazing, the major motivation for most policy regarding intensive livestock is not environmental preservation. Intensive livestock production has been encouraged by the state, and by the British Mandate government before the state, as a way of improving the nutrition and increasing food security. In Israel the trade in meat and dairy products has a cultural component as well. For the majority Jewish population, the availability of kosher products is important. For the minority Arab population, meat should be halal, although the kosher designation is usually enough.
During the 20 th century, most of the regulations affecting intensive livestock production were associated with these goals—nutrition, food security, and provision of kosher products. Towards the end of the twentieth century, Israel, like other countries, began to make efforts to control the environmental damage caused by livestock farming. The policies have focused on controlling waste. In 1999, Israel initiated a sweeping reform of its dairy sector. The feedlots for beef cattle have not been similarly addressed, nor has the intensive sheep and goat production sector.
101
British Mandate Period
Jewish intensive farming practices began to emerge during the British Mandate period
(Shaw, 1946). The Mandate government did not invest heavily in facilities for agricultural research. The government operated a farm in Acre, veterinary laboratories in Tel Aviv, and associated stations. But the main center for conducting agricultural research was the Jewish agricultural station in Rehovot, established in 1921 (Shaw, 1946).
From the beginning of Jewish settlement in Israel, Jewish agriculture tended to benefit from subsidies—Baron de Rothschild bore many early costs from Jewish farming, and as time went on, would-be farmers could benefit from land owned by the JNF or PICA. During the
British Mandate, most of the subsidies came from Jewish organizations, although Jewish farmers as well as Arab farmers benefited from British Mandate policies granting capital and loans to farmers. When Israel was declared a state, the push towards food security made the State itself the source of protection and subsidies to agriculture. Intensive livestock production benefited from these subsidies.
State of Israel Since 1948
Israel’s Dairy Board was established in 1956 (2). Quotas for milk production were introduced in 1962, and subsidies were given to encourage production and food security.
Subsidies were given for the production of milk as part of a desire to ensure Israeli food security. In 1985, the Israeli government embarked on a policy of trade liberalization
(Sachs et al., 1995). The subsidies on dairy products were eliminated by 1991 (Rummel,
2003). All the same, prices for dairy products are still set by the government. The 102
government also engages in other protective measures, by which the dairy and meat sectors benefit, such as tariffs and an agricultural water subsidy.
The dairy industry in Israel is governed by a system of quotas. Each year, the Ministry of
Agriculture establishes a quota of milk production for the country, with input from the
Dairy Board and the Israel Cattle Breeders Association. In order for an individual entity to produce milk, it must first be assigned a production quota. New would-be producers must first be assigned a quota, and this has often been a mechanism for the Ministry of
Agriculture to encourage settling in certain areas, like the Negev.
The Ministry of Agriculture passed an Animal Diseases Ordinance in 1981/1982. In 1981 it addressed the treatment of animal carcasses and waste from slaughterhouses by publishing regulations governing the establishment of waste plants and the disposal of carcasses (22). In 1982 it addressed chemical preparations for controlling animal diseases.
Public health regulations on pesticides in food were passed in 1991 (23). In 1994 Israel passed a “Israeli Kosher Meat Import Law” requiring that all meat imports be kosher.
In 1991 the Agroecology division of the Ministry of the Environment was established.
Very little was known at that point about the environmental effects of agriculture in Israel
(Capuah, personal interview, 2006). Achieving well organized disposal of manure and other organic waste is one of the main goals of the Agroecology program. In terms of the livestock studied here, its efforts to catalyze changes in practices of disposal of cow manure, cow carcasses, and slaughterhouse wastes have been influential. The accumulation of manure and slurry has led to soil contamination, polluted groundwater, bad smells and ugly aesthetics. Farmers can be prosecuted or fined for failing to adhere to the standards 103
set by the agroecology division. Education and incentives are also used (Capuah, personal interview, 2006). Other technologies developed as a response to waste production can also bring environmental benefits, such as biogas (DeHaan et al., 1997).
After some time to establish priorities, the agroecology division initiated a major reform of its dairy industry in 1999, called the Dairy Farm Reform. Its goals were twofold: to encourage the consolidation and increased efficiency of producers due to increasing liberalization of trade, and to address environmental concerns (Kimhi and Rubin, 2006).
The program was a joint venture between the Ministry of Finance, the Dairy Board, and the
Ministry of Agriculture, with cooperation from the Ministry of the Environment. The reform sought to address the environmental impacts of dairy farms, particularly soil and water contamination from nutrients, nitrates, brines, organic matter, and pathogens; bad odors, flies, and ugly aesthetics.
The Dairy Reform provided the Dairy industry with guidelines to prevent discharge and groundwater pollution. In order to receive their business licenses, suppliers must adhere to guidelines on waste treatment and disposal, roofing, flooring, drainage, manure collection and storage, separation of solids and sewage treatment. The reform provided grants to enable dairy farmers to make the necessary infrastructure adjustments.
Close to two billion shekels have been spent on the Dairy Farm Reform, and 57% of that sum was used specifically on measures for environmental protection. The major part of that was for improvements in the infrastructure in the farms themselves, with additional sums being spent on waste treatment. It is still underway—approximately half of Israel’s dairy farms were fully compliant with the new regulations by the end of 2006. 98% of 104
Israel’s dairy farms were either fully compliant or in the process of compliance. The deadline for compliance was extended until the end of 2007 for farms in special circumstances, among them farms near the Gaza Strip affected by falling rockets and instability, and farms in the north affected by the second Lebanon War in 2006. Regional waste treatment centers have also been established as part of the reform, among them the biogas treatment center in Emek Hefer, which produces renewable energy used in the treatment process and in the local area (24).
It is possible that a southward movement of dairy producers will be an unintended consequence of the Dairy Farm Reform. Miri Shachaf, holder of a dairy farm near
Nizzana, stated that the Reform was a motivator for her and her husband to leave the north central region. They realized that with the increased attention on waste, it would not be possible to run a profitable farm there. They began looking for viable areas for dairy farming and were able to gain a governmental grant to establish a farm. They now have
300 cows (Shachaf, personal interview, 2007).
Marjorie Strom, former manager of dairy operations in kibbutzim Samar and Lotan, criticized the reform because of its failure to differentiate between climatic regions. She noted that in the Arava, the waste from cattle is dry, and does not leak into watersheds
(Strom, personal interview, 2007). Yet the infrastructure requirements for dairy farmers are the same from north to south.
Feedlots for beef production have not been addressed by environmental regulation. Eizhik
Shafran, the herd manager at Kibbutz Ein Hashofet, admitted that the changes needed to prevent the waste corrupting the local water supply are too expensive to be attempted 105
without government aid. The cheapest method of avoiding damage would be to remove cattle from feedlots during the winter (Shafran, personal interview, 2007).
Jewish farmers engaged in intensive farming of sheep and goats face difficulties due to the stringent kosher requirements. The cost of koshering was estimated in 1989 as tripling the price of the meat from sheep (Kressel, 2003, p. 149). Kressel notes that in 1989, Yaacov
Golan, the then secretary of the Sheep Breeders Association recommended trying to work with the rabbinical authorities to adjust halakha to make it easier for Jewish producers. 71
Conclusions
Over time the government became more involved with the practices and lives of livestock growers. The governmental regulations and bodies became more and more separate for
Jews and Arabs as the Jewish sector intensified. Jewish growers were able to take advantage of the lack of interference from the British Mandate government to create their own institutions and greatly intensify production. Throughout the twentieth century, and particularly in the latter half, extensive growers of livestock faced major changes to their way of life.
Only in the past twenty five years have policy makers begun to take into account the major environmental issues caused by intensive livestock farming. In the past decade a major
71 The Ashkenazi Orthodox kosher tradition requires “porging” or removing the hind legs from sheep after slaughter. 106
reform of the dairy sector made a big difference in the water pollution levels caused. Such a reform is still lacking for the beef cattle sector. 107
6. Summary and Conclusions
In this research I examined Israel’s systems of livestock husbandry over the past hundred years. I also sought to examine their environmental effects and the policies used to regulate livestock husbandry in reference to the environment. I first conducted a detailed literature review, supplemented with some archival research. I visited different types of farms where livestock is raised, including Jewish dairy farms, Jewish goat farms, Jewish sheep farms, a
Bedouin grazing area, and a Bedouin confined livestock area. Then I conducted interviews with Jewish and Bedouin livestock growers and policy makers involved in the field of livestock husbandry and agroecology. The information I gathered helped me to characterize the state of Israel’s livestock husbandry practices, environmental effects, and policy, and how they have changed over time.
The main findings are that 1) Jews and Arabs have different and separate systems of livestock husbandry in Israel. Jewish farmers grow all of Israel’s cow milk and most of
Israel’s dairy from sheep and goats, usually in intensive, mechanized production systems.
Arabs grow most of Israel’s sheep and goat meat, and a large portion of Israel’s beef.
Much Arab production is extensive in nature. 2) The major environmental problems to emerge from Israel’s livestock husbandry over the past century were water pollution, which may have harmed some animal species, and contributed to green house gas emissions.
Grazing provided important benefits to the environment such as aiding biodiversity and assisting in fire control. Threats to the environment in terms of land degradation from overgrazing have been exaggerated and have been largely controlled over the past half- century due to Israeli regulation. 3) Water pollution from dairy production has been 108
addressed on a large scale via the Dairy Farm Reform, although feedlots still need to be addressed in a similar manner. Climate change is not yet being addressed. 4) Policies directed at Jewish and Bedouin livestock growers tend to be very separate. While Jews have been able to benefit from policies that aid the intensification of livestock growing,
Bedouin often see the government only as an enforcer who has no stake in their economic prosperity.
Nomos, Choice and the Environment
Charles Mann, in his groundbreaking work about the Americas before Columbus' voyage, wrote that the debate between preserving a pristine environment versus development is akin to the Greek philosophical struggle between nomos and physis.
"Physis says, Let Nature be our guide; step out of the way of the environment, and it will know how to keep itself healthy. Nomos is the postmodern philosopher who argues that the entire landscape is constructed--that it has no essential, innate qualities, but is simply a reflection of chance and human action. Nomos says that no one ecological state is inherently preferable to any other, but that all of them are a product of human choices (even the ones with no people, since we will have made the choice not to go there), (Mann, 2005, p. 365). The idea of nomos in environmental issues is very pertinent to the discussion of complex issues like regulation of livestock. Each choice is bound to have affects in several arenas.
We have to choose our ideal situation and try to mitigate the damages to the other arenas-- reducing greenhouse gas emissions may have an adverse effect on biodiversity, or land degradation. Nomos is also pertinent to the discussion of extensive systems of grazing, because we choose the landscape we prefer. Israel’s afforestation campaign is an excellent 109
example of this. It is impossible to leave out questions of culture when discussing environmental decisions, because culture shapes the choices.
Agricultural policy is also inextricably linked with landscape preferences. In Israel’s early years, and before the state was founded, the Jewish leadership wanted to form a country with a strong rural base. As the population increased, and as farming became more and more intensified, the country has also become much more urbanized. Former farming communities have been assimilated into urban areas or have shrunk (Sofer and Applebaum,
2006). The U.S. passed through a similar stage, as family farms began to fail, and the rural landscape became dominated by shrinking towns and massive stretches of farmland. Public polices that opt to grow most of the food in a country, or to create a strong rural class, are political decisions. There is a growing movement in the U.S. towards buying local foods, which is tied up in a desire for renewal of rural areas (Voting With Your Trolley, 2006;
Pollan, 2006). This movement is still in its infancy in Israel, and Slow Food Upper Galilee started its organization in December of 2006 (25).
Cultural Preferences
In Israel cultural preferences represent a particularly thorny issue. Israel is highly diverse country, with an Arab population and Jewish population whose inability to get along is notorious. Within the divisions of Arab and Jew there are further divisions. Arabs include
Palestinians, Bedouin, Druze, Muslims and Christians and Circassians. Jews include
Ashkenazi and Sephardim, as well as many immigrant groups that still retain their own languages (most notably Russians, who comprise roughly 1/7 of Israel’s population, most 110
of whom arrived in the past 20 years). These ethnic and sectarian divisions present obstacles even in the unlikely realm of livestock and environmental policies.
Much of early environmental criticisms levied against the extensive grazing common throughout then Palestine were partisan and anecdotal—attempts to create Europe in
Israel 72 . (A section from Shaw’s survey of Palestine shows the thinking of his time.
“The practice of extensive grazing, a tolerable and even sound practice in temperate regions, is in the Palestine climate and conditions the greatest single bar to rural prosperity. In the time of Abraham a few pastoral nomads roamed through great areas of forests and scrub and found an easy livelihood. Since then the population has vastly increased, the area and volume of vegetation has correspondingly dwindled, and it is now an inescapable fact that the destruction of vegetation by the grazing of animals is severely damaging the economy of the plains and bringing ruin to the hill country… The remedy lies in the curtailment of the numbers of animals to be grazed and in radical change of the present regime, familiar to scores of past generations. The instinctive and traditional methods of a peasant population are not easily altered and persistent attempts to give practical instruction in this matter by precept, demonstration and persuasion must be continued for a considerable period (Shaw, 1946, p. 428-429).” Shaw’s quote reveals someone anxious for the prosperity of Palestine, and critical of the contemporary food systems. Yet in looking more closely at the quote, some elements stand out. First, Shaw states that extensive grazing is beneficial in temperate regions, but not under the climatic conditions of Palestine. This has since been shown to be false, assuming
72 Perhaps this was best summed up by M.G. Ionides in 1946, when he said “Stories of raging torrents carrying all the soil down to the sea provide bad quantitative evidence, and it is quantities that matter, not the colour of the streams.” (Rennell et al., 1946). 111
that land carrying capacities are respected. He then defines the population of herders that is appropriate for Palestine as “a few pastoral nomads” as in the time of Abraham. And yet,
Shaw offers no scientific basis for this assumption. He then states that since the time of
Abraham, the population has increased and the animals have destroyed the vegetation. 73
Ironically, the research of Perevolotsky and Seligman (1998) indicates that the most severe degradation of Palestine’s landscape probably took place at the beginning of human habitation, when intensive grazing would have first begun. Shaw’s words provide a good example of a statement that seems reasonable, but which is not evaluated on the basis of empirical data. Shaw sees the solution to the “problem” of extensive grazing as a “radical change of the present regime.” He wants to teach the nomads how to do things right. Shaw does not specify an example of correct livestock husbandry, but it is possible that he had a model in line that is comparable to contemporary Jewish farms and what he knew from elsewhere in Europe.
It is natural for settlers and colonial officials to bring their own experiences to bear on a new land. Culture is an often overlooked component to scientific understanding.
Ecologists throughout the twentieth century tried to combat the perception that the existing intensive grazing was disastrous, which lay behind Shaw’s remarks. Despite that the Black
73 This destruction of vegetation is not quantified, and leads me to believe that it was based on assumptions on Shaw’s part of how Palestine’s landscape “should” look. 112
Goat Laws were passed, and even some scientists continue to blame the black goats for natural woes 74 .
The view of the the Jewish settlers toward agricultural production varied greatly from the
Bedouin and Arab experience. They quickly differentiated their own production systems, and did not incorporate many lessons in farming techniques from the other occupants. This was partially because Jewish settlers came to Palestine mainly from Europe, and wanted a standard of living similar to what they had known there. This required higher earnings than the fellah farmer was able to obtain (Shafir, 1996). Whereas the subsistence farmer evaluated her surroundings on the basis of production, aesthetics were an important component of the European gaze. It is also important to bear in mind that the production systems that Shaw was witnessing were unique. The Bedouin had been nomadic during most of their history, until shortly before the British Mandate period began.
New work on aesthetic preferences in grazed landscapes by Henkin et al. (see Ch. 4) demonstrates this—the preference for his survey participants was the landscape created by mixed grazing. However if mixed grazing does not create a sufficient income for the producer, his opinion will be different. It makes little sense to allow the tourist’s opinion equal weight with that of the farmer whose livelihood depended on the grazing system.
74 See Portnov and Safriel, 2004. 113
The transformation that the land of Israel underwent during the past century is remarkable.
The Negev was a loosely settled area, devoid of water, governed by whoever was strongest.
Now it is part of an industrialized country, with access to water and electricity. The infrastructure of the country has been intensively developed and the standard of living, while lagging slightly behind the center of the country remains very high by international standards.
It is not possible to directly compare the environmental effects of the intensive and extensive livestock production systems in Israel. The major reason for that is productivity.
With the intensive systems of dairy and meat production, Israel is now able to supply a major portion of its meat consumption and all of its dairy consumption. Extensive systems are responsible for a much more marginal proportion of consumption. Cultural importance therefore constitutes the key differentiating factor. The primary reason that the Bedouin continue raising livestock is cultural. The Arab semi-extensive systems are also culturally relevant. It may not be possible to completely replace that their holistic contribution to quality of life with an intensive system and it may not be desirable to do so.
Extensive Production Systems
In summary, the extensive livestock production systems utilized by the Bedouin and Arab populations in Israel offer two important types of benefit. The first is as a cultural good, and the second as a viable means of production. There is, of course some overlap between these categories. Traditional systems of livestock husbandry in Israel are changing, and in the future may begin to disappear (Rummel et al., 2003). The positive effects that grazing 114
can bring to the Bedouin, to Israel, and to the land warrant some attempts at preservation and assistance.
The Bedouin Culture
The Bedouin system of grazing is an Israeli cultural resource. Pastoralist systems of livelihood are disappearing all around the globe. The Israeli Bedouin are a remnant of a type of culture that once dominated large areas of the globe. But no longer. Increasingly westernized countries cannot tolerate the structure of nomadic groups, and they are becoming sedentarized or disappearing.
Protecting these systems will also be beneficial to the environment, because they can be used to protect the breed biodiversity of small ruminants (see Ch. 4). Their grazing is also frequently beneficial in nature preserves in supporting biodiversity and in forests where it prevents conflagrations. Israeli settlers and British governors were anxious to incorporate new European models of livestock husbandry. Restrictions and enforcement were put in place over time. But as discussed in chapter four, recent ecological studies have shown the importance of grazing (Perevolotsky and Seligman, 1998). Other Arab systems of farming may offer similar cultural benefits.
Research on the Bedouin of the Negev shows that in 1961 they generally ate a well balanced diet, and western diseases like heart disease were rare (Groen et al., 1964).
However, with the adoption of a more western style diet and lack of activity, diseases such as diabetes and heart disease are spreading in the Bedouin community at a rapid rate (Abu-
Saad et al., 2001; Abou Rbia and Weitzman, 2002). Other research shows that this increase in diabetes, which generalized across the Bedouin population, is particularly strong in 115
Bedouin who live in recognized settlements (Cohen et al., 2005). Bedouin living a more tribal lifestyle have lower rates of obesity and diabetes (the smoking rate is the same)
(Fraser et al., 1990). While Bedouin also reap the benefit of a more westernized lifestyle
(higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality), the high rate of diseases such as diabetes is typical of “populations in transition 75 ” and requires attention, since following some traditions regarding nutrition and activity can help ward off these diseases.
In many parts of the world, European cultures have wiped out native cultures, sometimes by design and sometimes by chance. Israel has a unique opportunity to learn from these mistakes, and surmount them. There is a place for grazing in these efforts, since methods of food production can bring special benefits in terms of nutrition and provide a source of livelihood. Further development of cottage industries related to grazing is also possible, as in Bedouin hospitality tents and the Bedouin restaurant on Rte. 40 between Beer Sheva and
Kiryat Gat.
Bedouin are also interested in intensification. Intensification will present new challenges to
Bedouin growers because exotic livestock breeds require a different level of care
(Gootwine, personal interview, 2007). The comparative advantage among Bedouin is
75 Diabetes now is becoming a major health issue among the Bedouin, and this is similar to a phenomenon that has occurred in many “populations in transition (Fraser et al., 2005).” Gary Nabhan writes about this among the Papago Indians in Arizona and Mexico, and posits that their traditional diet meant that at times they were overnourished and at times they were undernourished. People who survived were the ones who could live in times of undernourishment. Now that undernourishment is not a problem, those same people are prone to obesity and to diabetes (Nabhan, 1987). 116
found in extensive systems, with its seasonal migrations and sustainable foraging. For them to enter intensive systems, assistance will likely be necessary.
Productivity in arid regions
The other benefit that can be attributed to the grazing practiced by the Bedouin communities in particular is its efficient use of solar energy to create human sustenance 76 .
As time goes on there may be more compelling uses for the land they utilize. It is hard to tell because there have been no large-scale studies assessing the use of land for grazing by
Bedouin in Israel. But herders have subsisted in arid areas for millennia because they have a sustainable and efficient livelihood there. The land use by the Bedouin has changed;
Olsvig-Whittaker et al. (2006) estimate that the historical number of heads grazed in the
Negev hovered around 100,000, now 300,000 heads of sheep are present. But while in historical times the herds were fed exclusively by grazing, now feed concentrate supplements their diet (and provides their diet for a good part of the year).
Bedouin usage of unrenewable energy, and even such valuable resources as land and water, is trivial in comparison to intensive animal production systems, and yet they raise a large proportion of the livestock in Israel 77 . Still, their contribution to Israel’s food supply is minor, even as it remains largely unstudied. But grazing systems bring other environmental
76 Deserts have long been considered wastelands. The resources present there are often left unused. Bedouin in Israel by living in the desert take advantage of the solar energy, which allows the growth of brush, and convert it into something useful for human sustenance. 77 See figure 8 for the exact proportions. 117
benefits, not least of which is the suppression of forest fires, as well as an increase in biodiversity in some cases 78 . The following suggestions offer a beginning path to realizing the benefits of the Bedouin and Arab systems of food production.
Simplification of Land Tenure
De Soto’s influential work “The Mystery of Capital” describes the importance of granting extralegal structures legal weight, in order for marginalized communities to gain more wealth, and to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy (De Soto, 2000). The Bedouin seem to offer a good opportunity for Israeli society to bring this into play. Currently a Bedouin shepherd must undergo a complicated set of procedures in order to graze his flock for one season (personal interview with Euda Abu Ashiba, 2007; also see Abu Rabia, 1994) In addition she is prevented from making some intensifying practices, like permanent shelters for livestock, due to the illegal status of many Bedouin settlements.
The current Israeli policy rests on moving Bedouin into planned communities, which over time have become more responsive to Bedouin culture. While this is understandable, it seems that more effort could be made to recognize some portion of Bedouin claims to land.
This is a very complex issue, but has been sensitive since the foundation of the State of
78 There have been a variety of studies showing a relationship between biodiversity and the presence of a human population. For example Gary Nabhan writes in “The Desert Smells Like Rain” of the creation of the Organ Pipe National Monument in the Sonora Desert, near the US/Mexico border. When the National Park Service acquired the land, and the native Papago Indians moved away, what had been an important natural oasis with high biodiversity of birdlife began to stagnate. Now the birds have moved to a Papago settlement nearby (Nabhan, 1987). 118
Israel, and only limited progress has been made. The land the Bedouin request is some of the least desired in Israel. In fact, the Israeli government is sponsoring several initiatives to foster development in the Negev, but they are almost unavailable to the Bedouin. It has been possible for familes to be approved for a land grant from the Ramat Negev regional council to set up a single-family farm, ensuring that the land will be used for agriculture.
Only one Bedouin family has been a recipient, in an area that was historically dominated by
Bedouin. Part of the reasoning behind this involves security concerns and demographic competition, but it is hard to justify at this stage in the country’s history.
In fact, policies toward the Bedouin have focused on enforcement, rather than on development. The treatment of Bedouin is a strong instance where environmental concerns have not always been prime motivators for environmental policy. As described in Chapter two, Israelis who worked as senior officials in senior conservation feel in retrospect that control over land rather than concern over environmental issues was behind many of
Israel’s historic soil conservation policies. Much attention is placed on the ecological effects of grazing in dryland areas. Numerous articles have been written, in Israel as well, on this topic. However, it is not clear who their intended audience was. Because in Israel, grazing policy is set primarily to enforce state sovereignty over the land. The Grazing
Authority, which works on ecological issues associated with grazing and seeks to provide 119
services to herders, concentrates on a population of grazers that is 80% Jewish (despite the
Arab majority engaging in grazing if the Bedouin are included).
Government officials also agree that the regulation of grazing land in the South is not always based on scientific and systematic analysis 79 . Because Bedouin are so frequently charged with overgrazing, establishing carrying capacities and stocking rates should be done on a transparent and far more scientific basis, by the Grazing Authority.
Intensive Livestock Systems
Jewish livestock production is responsible for a large portion of Israel’s meat and all of
Israel’s dairy consumption. Israel is now self sufficient in its production of dairy products.
Intensive production systems characterize Jewish livestock management in Israel. There are serious environmental concerns connected to these systems that now begun to be addressed. Intensive agriculture is a major cause of water pollution, which impacts the availability of water and species loss, two other major environmental issues. An important first step has already been made in combating water pollution in Israel. The Dairy Farm
Reform, implemented from 1999-2006, has ensured that the wastewater from Israel’s dairy farms, equivalent to the wastewater from all human inhabitants, will enter Israel’s sewer systems for treatment. Other achievements of the Dairy Farm Reform were the upgrading of regional water treatment areas; upgrading of manure storage areas on dairy farms; water
79 Izik Moshe, Southern Chief of the JNF mentioned that much land that is grazed is managed by the ILA, and the grazing is not professionally managed (personal communication, 2007). 120
conservation measures were put in place; new odor controlling technologies were employed; living conditions for the cattle were improved (26).
The effects of intensive agriculture on the environment have not been so aggressively fought, nor so thoroughly studied in Israel, at least in the academic press. But it is clear that most of the true environmental impact is coming from the intensive sector of livestock production. This being said, further policies to combat water pollution would seem to be the next major priority in regulating livestock, particularly on feedlots.
Climate change is a hot topic, and one that Israel is interested in addressing. Livestock’s influence on greenhouse gas emissions is not yet being addressed. In Chapter 4 it was shown that livestock (specifically cattle, sheep and goats) in Israel provided roughly 1.4% of Israel’s carbon dioxide emissions. However, this figure refers only to direct emissions.
It does not include livestock’s contributions in the forms of energy use, transport, manure application, and fertilizer production (for use in growing feedcrops). Livestock production has serious opportunities to reduce its carbon footprint and they should be pursued voluntarily or through government incentives.
121
Areas for further consideration
Israel does not grow most of its livestock feed requirement, but rather imports it 80 .
However, the livestock that feeds Israel’s population is responsible for large areas of crop cover, both in the country and abroad, which may also imply a contribution to the deforestation of tropical areas and use of water in areas where it is scarce. This would be an interesting area for further consideration.
The Israeli environmental experience in livestock production offers a fascinating
“laboratory” for the world as it begins to address land degradation, water contamination and green house gas emissions in far larger systems. Many of the most pernicious environmental impacts caused due to livestock production have been mitigated through consistent public policies. Very little has been written about Arab non-Bedouin systems of livestock production, or about Bedouin production outside of the Negev. This should not be surprising, as little academic work has been dedicated to the classification of Jewish systems of livestock production. Further research in these areas would make it easier to ascertain the environmental conditions and the precise impact of public policies and the magnitude of progress in addressing an ancient, but still critical environmental challenge.
80 See (23) for a breakdown of Israel’s livestock feed supply. 3,063 thousand tons of feed was imported in 2005, and 2,082.1 thousand tons were produced in Israel. Of the feed produced in Israel, the majority comes from byproducts from oil processing, grain mills and citrus production. An estimate from AMBAR, the largest feed processor in Israel and maker of Taruvet, said that 90% of the ingredients for Taruvet are imported (personal communication, 2007). 122
7. References
Books
Abu-Rabia, Aref (1994). “ The Negev Bedouin and Livestock Rearing: Social, Economic and Political Aspects .” Oxford, Short Run Press.
Bruins, H. (1986). “ Desert Environment and Agriculture in the Central Negev and Kadesh-Barnea during Historical Times .” Nijkerk, Netherlands : Midbar Foundation.
Darin-Drabkin, H. (1962). “Patterns of Cooperative Agriculture in Israel.” Tel Aviv, Department for International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
De Haan, C., Steinfeld, H., Blackburn, H. (1997). “Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance.” Brussels, European Commission.
De Soto, H. (2000). “ The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else .” New York, Basic Books.
Diamond, Jared. (2005). “ Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed .” New York, Viking.
Dolev, Amit and Perevolotsky, Avi, Eds. (2004). “The Red Book: Vertebrates in Israel.” Jerusalem, Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel.
Elazari-Volcani, I. (1930). “The Transition to a Dairy Industry in Palestine.” Tel Aviv, The Jewish Agency for Palestine.
Granott, A. (1952). “ The Land System in Palestine: History and Structure .” London, Eyre and Spottiswoode.
Halperin, Haim (1957). “Changing Patterns in Israel Agriculture.” London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hirsch, Siegfried (1933). “Sheep and Goats in Palestine.” Tel Aviv, Palestine Economic Society.
Institute of Farm Income Research in cooperation with Central Bureau of Statistics. (1967). “ The Profitability of Various Farm Branches in Israel in the Agricultural Year 1956-1964: 1) Dairy Farming; 2) Poultry Farming; 3) Sugarbeet Growing; 4) Cotton Growing .” Tel-Aviv, Institute of Farm Income Research.
123
Koskas, Yifat, ed. (2005). “Agriculture in Israel. The Industry Account. Price Index of Output and Input 2002-2004.” Jerusalem, Central Bureau of Statistics. (Prepared by the Agriculture Division Staff).
Kressel, G. (2003). “ Let Shepherding Endure: Applied Anthropology and the Preservation of a Cultural Tradition in Israel and the Middle East .” Albany, State University of New York Press.
Ma’oz, Moshe. (1968). “Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine.” London, Oxford University Press.
Mann, Charles. (2005). “ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus .” New York, Knopf.
Marx, Emanuel. (1967). “The Bedouin of the Negev.” Manchester, Manchester University Press.
McCarthy, J. (1990). “ The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate .” New York, Columbia University Press.
McGuire, B., Mason, I. and Kilburn, C. (2002). "Natural Hazards and Environmental Change." New York, Oxford University Press.
Metzer, Jacob (1998). “The Divided Economy of Mandatory Palestine.” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Nabhan, Gary (1987). “ The Desert Smells Like Rain: A Naturalist in Papago Indian Country .” San Francisco, North Point Press.
Rummel, T., Gootwine, E., Valle Zarate, A. (2003). “Analysis of Sheep Farming Systems in Israel.” Gottingen, Cuviller.
Shafir, Gershon (1996). “ Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882-1914 .” Canada, University of California Press.
Shaw, J. V. W. (1946). “ A Survey of Palestine: prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry .” Jerusalem, Government Printers.
Smith, K. (1996). "Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster." London, Routledge.
Sternick, Zeev, Eliav, Michael and Goldfus, Dalit. (2002). “Agriculture in Israel 2000: Area and Livestock.” Jerusalem, Central Bureau of Statistics.
124
Tal, A. (2002). “ Pollution in a Promised Land: An Environmental History of Israel .” Berkeley, University of California Press.
Twain, M. (2003). "The Innocents Abroad or the New Pilgrim's Progress." New York, The Modern Library.
Weitz, R. (1963). “Agriculture and Rural Development in Israel: Projection and Planning.” Rehovoth, National and University Institute of Agriculture. 125
Papers
Abou-Rbiah, Y., and S. Weitzman. (2002). “Diabetes among Negev Bedouins.” The Israel Medical Association Journal , 4:687-689. Retrieved September 23, 2007 from http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar02sep-5.pdf .
Abu-Rabia, Aref. (2000). "Employment and unemployment among the Negev Bedouin." Nomadic Peoples 4(2):84-94.
Abu Rabia, A. (2005). “Bedouin Health Services in Mandated Palestine.” Middle Eastern Studies . 41(3): 421 – 429. Retrieved September 17, 2007 from http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/K716345332155635.pdf.
Abu-Saad, K., Weitzman, S., Abu-Rabiah, Y., Abu-Shareb, H., and D. Fraser. (2001). “Rapid lifestyle, diet and health changes among urban Bedouin Arabs of southern Israel.” Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, 28. Retrieved August 9, 2007 from http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/Y0600M/y0600m06.htm .
Arnold, S. and Meister, E. (1999). “Dairy Feedlot Contributions to Groundwater Contamination – A Preliminary Study in New Mexico.” Journal of Environmental Health . 62(2): 16. Retrieved July 11, 2006 from http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC- Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=ITOF&docId=A55884900&source=gale &srcprod=ITOF&userGroupName=gurion&version=1.0 .
Atran, S. (1989). “The Surrogate Colonization of Palestine, 1917-1939.” American Ethnologist 16(4): 719-744. Retrieved July 12, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094- 0496%28198911%2916%3A4%3C719%3ATSCOP1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H
Australian Delegation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), (1975). “Notes on the World Trade in Beef.” Retrieved June 3, 2007 from http://www.wto.int/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/92010242.pdf
Avni, Y., Porat, N., Plakht, J., and G. Avni. (2006). “Geomorphic changes leading to natural desertification versus anthropogenic land conservation in an arid environment, the Negev Highlands, Israel.” Geomorphology , 82: 177-200. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V93-4K9C52F- 2&_user=32401&_coverDate=12%2F15%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort =d&view=c&_acct=C000004078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=32401&md5=664 8560ea9ef4ad6d23beabfdea45844 .
126
Azar, C. and Schneider, S. (2002). “Are the economic costs of stabilising the atmosphere prohibitive?” Ecological Economics. 42(1-2): 73-80. Retrieved December 8, 2007 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-45F8Y29- 1&_user=32401&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000004078 &_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=32401&md5=e46328242dd72eaac3da8a4966c48a4 8.
Bailey, C. (1985). Dating the arrival of the Bedouin tribes in Sinan and the Negev. J. of Economic and Social History of the Orient . 28: 20-49. Retrieved December 8, 2007 from http://pao.chadwyck.co.uk/journals/displayItemFromId.do?QueryType=journals&ItemID= 6133 .
Bar-Gal, Y. (2003). “The Blue Box and JNF Propaganda Maps, 1930-1947.” Israel Studies . 8(1):1-19. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2007 from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/israel_studies/v008/8.1bar_gal.html .
Bouskila, A. (2004). “Reptiles in Israel”. In A. Dolev and A. Perevolotsky, Eds. The Red Book: Vertebrates in Israel (pp. 73-83). Jerusalem: Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel.
Bussink, D.W. and Oenema, O. (1998). “Ammonia volatilization from dairy farming systems in temperate areas: a review.” Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 51: 19–33.
Capua, S. and Oren, E. (2001). “The Agricultural Environment - Conservation and Sustainable Development 1999 (in Hebrew).” Ministry of Environmental Protection. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/index_pirsumim/p0157_1.pdf .
Choveaux, A. (1927). “The New Palestine.” Geographical Review . 17(1): 75-88. Retrieved Jan. 2, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016- 7428%28192701%2917%3A1%3C75%3ATNP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U.
Code, J. and Shofet, S. (2002, December). “An updated inventory of emissions and absorption of greenhouse gases in Israel for the year 2000 (in Hebrew).” Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved August 27, 2002 from http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/index_pirsumim/p0108_1.pdf
Cohen, A., Gefen, K., Ozer, A., Bagola, N., Milrad, V., Cohen, L., Abu-Hammad, T., and Y. Abu-Rabia. (2005). “Diabetes control in the Bedouin population in Southern Israel.” Med Sci Monit , 11(8): 376-380. Retrieved September 23, 2007 from http://medscimonit.com/pub/vol_11/no_8/6877.pdf .
Cunningham, E. P. (1995). “Global Impact Domain - Animal Genetic Resources.” Retrieved June 14, 2007 from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/nonfao/lead/x6112e/x6112e00.pdf.
127
Degen, A. (2003). “Roles of Urbanised Negev Bedouin Women Within their Households.” Nomadic Peoples . 7(2): 108-116.
Degen, A. (2007). “Sheep and goat milk in pastoral societies.” Small Ruminant Research , 68: 7–19. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921448806002616 .
Degen, A., Nunow, A., Zaal, A.F.M., Otieno, D.A. and Hoorweg, J.C. (2001). “Market dependence of pastoralists in Kenya and Israel.” NIRP Research for Policy Series 8. Retrieved May 12, 2007 from http://www.nuffic.nl/pdf/os/nirp/nirp08.pdf.
Degen, A. A., R. W. Benjamin and J. C. Hoorweg. (2000). “Bedouin households and sheep production in the Negev Desert, Israel.” Nomadic Peoples 4: 125-147
El Eini, R. (1996). “The Implementation of British Agricultural Policy in Palestine in the 1930’s.” Middle Eastern Studies, 32(4), 211–50. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.informaworld.com/index/763029263.pdf .
Evenson, R. and D. Gollin. (2 May 2003). “Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000.” Science, 300(5620): 758-762. Retrieved December 8, 2007 from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5620/758 .
Falah, Ghazi. (1985). “How Israel Controls the Bedouin in Israel.” Journal of Palestine Studies . 14(2): 35-51. Retrieved October 1, 2006 from www.jstor.org .
FAO. (2003). “A Call to Action: What you need to know.” Retrieved June 14, 2007 from http://dad.fao.org/cgi- bin/getblob.cgi?sid=a704876d35edebb743762e7be99d2059,50005953
Finkelstein, I. and A. Perevolotsky (1990). “Processes of Sedentarization and Nomadization in the History of Sinai and the Negev.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 279: 67-88
Forman, G. (2006). “Law and the historical geography of the Galilee: Israel's litigatory advantages during the special operation of land settlement.” Journal of Historical Geography , 32(4): 796-817. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJN-4JVSWX1- 1&_user=32401&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort =d&view=c&_acct=C000004078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=32401&md5=23a 77d283478f1d33932fd45d5978326
Forni, Nadia. (2003). “Land Tenure Policies in the Near East.” Land Reform . 2003(1), 69-81. Retrieved May 14, 2006 from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/Y8999T/Y8999T03.pdf .
128
Fraser, D., Weitzman, S., Blondheim, S., Shany, S., and Y. Abou-Rbiah. (1990). “The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among male Bedouins: A population in transition.” European Journal of Epidemiology . 6(3): 273-278. Retrieved September 23, 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/xr855662086t4250/.
Gafny, S. (2004). “Amphibians in Israel.” In A. Dolev and A. Perevolotsky, Eds. The Red Book: Vertebrates in Israel (pp. 55-64). Jerusalem: Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel
Galon, N. (2005). “Hahaklait – Mutual Society for Clinical Veterinary Services .” Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 60:1. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.isrvma.org/article/60_1_6.htm .
Galor, Oded and Weil, David. (1999). “From Malthusian Stagnation to Modern Growth (in Population and Economic Growth).” The American Economic Review , 89(2): 150-154. Retrieved December 8, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002- 8282%28199905%2989%3A2%3C150%3AFMSTMG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Gavish, Dov and Kark, Ruth. (1993, March). “ The Cadastral Mapping of Palestine, 1858- 1928.” The Geographical Journal . 159(1): 70-80.
Geisler, C., and Lyson, T. (1991). "The cumulative impact of dairy industry restructuring." BioScience 41(8): 560-567. Retrieved July 11, 2006 from http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC- Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=ITOF&docId=A11244004&source=gale &srcprod=ITOF&userGroupName=gurion&version=1.0
Ginguld, M., Perevolotsky, A., and E. Ungar. (1997). “Living on the Margins: Livelihood Strategies of Bedouin Herd Owners in the Northern Negev, Israel.” Human Ecology , 25(4), 567-591. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/m76453562v540348/ .
Goering, Kurt. (1979). “Israel and the Bedouin of the Negev.” Journal of Palestine Studies . 9(1), 3-20. Retrieved 25 January 2006 from http://www.jstor.org.
Grau, H., Gasparri, N., Aide, T. (2005). “Agriculture expansion and deforestation in seasonally dry forests of north-west Argentina.” Environmental Conservation. 32(2): 140- 148. Retrieved June 20, 2007 from http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FENC%2FENC32_02%2FS03768929 05002092a.pdf&code=7fd0a70024b5df4a6ca4bcf617ba24df .
Green, R., Cornell, S., Scharlemann, J., and Balmford, A. (2005). “Farming and the fate of wild nature.” Science. 307: 550-555. Retrieved November 1, 2006 from http://www.sciencemag.org .
129
Groen, J., Balogh, M., Levy, M. and E. Yaron. (1964). “Nutrition of the Bedouins in the Negev Desert.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition . 14: 37-46. Retrieved August 9, 2007 from http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/14/1/37 .
Harris, M. (1996). “Environmental economics.” Australian Economic Review . 4: 449-465. Henkin, Z., Hadar, L., Noy-Meir, I. (2007). “Human-scale structural heterogeneity induced by grazing in a Mediterranean woodland landscape.” Landscape Ecology . Retrieved May 9, 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7m13841550g2441/fulltext.pdf .
Hojman, D. and Malul, Y., (2005). “The Dairy Industry in Israel 2004.” Retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://www.icba-israel.com/dairy-industry-2004.pdf
Hojman, D. and Malul, Y., (2006). “The Dairy Industry in Israel 2005.” Report by the Israel Cattle Breeders Association and the Israel Dairy Board. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.israeldairy.com/info/dairy-farming/annrep2005.pdf .
Hojman D, Malul, Y. and T. Avrech. (2007). “The Dairy Industry in Israel 2006.” Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.israeldairy.com/info/dairy- farming/annrep2006.pdf .
Home, R. (2006) “Scientific survey and land settlement in British colonialism, with particular reference to land tenure reform in the Middle East 1920-50.” Planning Perspectives , 21(1): 1 – 22. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665430500397048 .
Jongbloed, A. W. and Lenis, N. P. (1998). “Environmental Concerns About Animal Manure.” Journal of Animal Science, 76:2641–2648.
Karmon, Y. (1960). “The Drainage of the Huleh Swamps.” Geographical Review , 50(2): 169-193. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://www.jstor.org/cgi- bin/jstor/printpage/00167428/ap010215/01a00020/0.pdf?backcontext=page&dowhat=Acro [email protected]/01cc99331500501bf226b&0.pdf
Karnieli, A. and Tsoar, H. (1995) “Spectral reflectance of biogenic crust developed on desert dune sand along the Israel-Egypt border.” International Journal of Remote Sensing , 16(2): 369–374. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.informaworld.com/index/778710616.pdf
Kedar, A. (2001). “The legal transformation of ethnic geography: Israeli Law and the Palestinian landholder 1948-1967.” New York University Journal of International Law and Policy, 33: 923. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from http://www3.law.nyu.edu/journals/jilp/issues/33/pdf/33x.pdf
Kimhi, A. and Rubin, O. (2006). Assessing the Response of Households to Dairy Policy Reform in Israel. Discussion Paper 15.06. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://departments.agri.huji.ac.il/economics/kimhi-rubin.pdf . 130
Koch, J., Dayan, U., Mey-Marom, A., (2000, October 1). “Inventory of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in Israel.” Water, Air, & Soil Pollution . 123(1): 259-271. Retrieved May 29, 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/v1522301822p2788 .
Koch, J. and S. Shofet, (2002). “Greenhouse Gases in Israel: An Updated Inventory of Emissions and Absorption for the Year 2000 (in Hebrew).” Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/index_pirsumim/p0108_1.pdf .
Lehn, W. (1974). “The Jewish National Fund .” Journal of Palestine Studies . 3(4) 74-96. Retrieved Jan. 2, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0377- 919X(197422)3%3A4%3C74%3ATJNF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F.
Leichter, J. (1971). “Lactose tolerance in a Jewish population.” Digestive Diseases and Sciences . 16(12): 1123-1126. Retrieved August 7, 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/lh25036588434651 .
LeVine, M. (1998). Conquest Through Town Planning: The Case of Tel Aviv, 1921-48. Journal of Palestine Studies , 27(4): 36-52. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0377- 919X%28199822%2927%3A4%3C36%3ACTTPTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
Marx, Emanuel. (2000). "Land and Work: Negev Bedouin Struggle with Israeli Bureaucrats." Nomadic Peoples , 4:2.
Médail, Frédéric, Quézel, Pierre (1999). “Biodiversity Hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin: Setting Global Conservation Priorities.” Conservation Biology 13(6): 1510–1513. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1523- 1739.1999.98467.x/full/
Médail, Frédéric, Quézel, Pierre (1997). Hot-Spots Analysis for Conservation of Plant Biodiversity in the Mediterranean Basin. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 84(1): 112-127. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www.botanicus.org/item/31753002674841
Metzer, J. (1978). “Economic Structure and National Goals—The Jewish National Home in Interwar Palestine.” Journal of Economic History . 38(1): 101-119. Retrieved Jan. 2, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022- 0507%28197803%2938%3A1%3C101%3AESANGJ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification Synthesis.” World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Mittermeier, R., Myers, N., Thomsen, J., da Fonseca, G., Olivieri, S. (1998). “Biodiversity Hotspots and Major Tropical Wilderness Areas: Approaches to Setting Conservation Priorities.” Conservation Biology , 12(3): 516-520. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from 131
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0888- 8892(199806)12%3A3%3C516%3ABHAMTW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T.
Negev Foundation (2004). “Israel’s Beef Industry: An Overview.” Retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/FSMIP/FY2003/OH0402A.pdf .
Noy-Meir, I. (2005). “Produccion ganadera y conservacion de la biodiversidad: conflictos y soluciones.” Paper presented at the 3 rd Congreso de la Asociacion Argentina para el Manejo de Pastizales Naturales. Retrieved September 29, 2007 from http://congresopastizales.com.ar/conclusiones/NoyMeir-Fina- Producci%F3n%20ganadera%20y%20biodiversidadl.doc.
Noy-Meir, I. & Seligman, N. (1979). “Management of semi-arid ecosystems in Israel.” In B. H. Walker (ed.) Management of Semi-Arid Ecosystems (pp. 113-160). Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.
Olsvig-Whittaker, L., Frankenberg, E., Perevolotsky, A., Ungar, E. (2006). “Grazing, overgrazing and conservation: Changing concepts and practices in the Negev rangelands.” Science et changements planétaires/Sécheresse . 17(1): 195-199. Retrieved September 19, 2007 from http://www.jle.com/fr/revues/agro_biotech/sec/e- docs/00/04/1F/12/article.md?type=text.html .
Osem, Y., Perevolotsky, A. & Kigel, J. (2002). “Grazing effect on diversity of annual plant communities in a semi-arid rangeland: interactions with small-scale spatial and temporal variation in primary productivity.” Journal of Ecology 90 (6): 936-946. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from http://www.blackwell- synergy.com/action/showFullText?submitFullText=Full+Text+HTML&doi=10.1046%2Fj. 1365-2745.2002.00730.x
Otterman, J. (1977). “Anthropogenic impact on the surface at the Earth.” Climatic Change , 1: 137–155.
Otterman, J. and C.J. Tucker. (1984). “Satellite Measurements of Surface Albedo and Temperatures in Semi-Desert.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology . 24: 228- 235. Retrieved September 23, 2007 from http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520- 0450/24/3/pdf/i1520-0450-24-3-228.pdf.
Perevolotsky, A. and Seligman, N. (1998). “Role of Grazing in Mediterranean Rangeland Ecosystems.” Bioscience , 48(12): 1007-1017.
Pimentel, D; Berger, B., Filiberto, D., Newton, M., et al. (2004). "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues." Bioscience . 54(10): 909-918. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=27&did=724646741&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6 &VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1180551301&clientId=11 909&aid=1 132
Portnov, B.A. and Safriel, U.N. (2004). “Combating desertification in the Negev: dryland agriculture vs. dryland urbanization.” Journal of Arid Environments . 56(4): 659-680. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH9-49BS9SX- 9&_user=32401&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort =d&view=c&_acct=C000004078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=32401&md5=fe5 57e26d733792b8b4ccf8eac76e2c6
Pykälä, J. (2000). “Mitigating Human Effects on European Biodiversity through Traditional Animal Husbandry.” Conservation Biology 14: 705-712. Retrieved September 16, 2006 from www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99119.x
Regional Activity Centre for Cleaner Production (RAC/CP) (2002). Prevention of Pollution in the Dairy Industry. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from http://www.cpc.org.il/go/cpch/files/3274274528.pdf
Reilly, J. “The Peasantry of Late Ottoman Palestine.” Journal of Palestine Studies , 10(4): 82-97. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from http://www.jstor.org/view/0377919x/di009601/00p0326l/0
Rennell of Rodd, Lord, Bennett, M.C., Dajani, S., Ionides, M., Wilson, P., Moodie, A., Easte, W., Willatts, E., Whyte, R. (1946). “Some Geographical Factors in the Palestine Problem: A Discussion.” The Geographical Journal , 173-179. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.jstor.org/cgi- bin/jstor/viewitem/00167398/ap020626/02a00030/0?frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=8449 [email protected]/01cce4405e00501ca2a7e&backcontext=page .
Rouhana, N. (1998). “Israel and its Arab citizens: predicaments in the relationship between ethnic states and ethnonational minorities.” Third World Quarterly , 19(2): 277-296. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=4&did=30355194&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=3& VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1191186190&clientId=1190 9&aid=1 .
Sachs, J., Warner, A., Aslund, A., and S. Fischer. (1995). “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , 1995(1): 1-118. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007- 2303%281995%291995%3A1%3C1%3AERATPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G.
Sawer, E.R. (1928). “The Restoration of Palestine’s Hill Country: An Address to the Palestine Economic Society on 25 th October, 1928.” Government of Palestine. (CZA Box 94, 3630).
Shehadeh, R. (1982). “The Land Law of Palestine: An Analysis of the Definition of State Lands.” Journal of Palestine Studies , 11(2): 82-99. Retrieved July 12, 2007 from 133
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0377- 919X%28198224%2911%3A2%3C82%3ATLLOPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
Sheldrick, W., Syers, J. K. and Lingard, J. (2003). “Contribution of livestock excreta to nutrient balances.” Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 66: 119–131.
Sofer, M. and L. Applebaum. (2006). “The rural space in Israel in search of renewed identity: The case of the moshav.” Journal of Rural Studies, 22: 323-336. Retrieved September 23, 2007 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VD9-4HJS592-2- 5&_cdi=5977&_user=32401&_orig=browse&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2006&_sk=9997 79996&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlz- zSkWA&md5=167cfb08251adf57c82de323dd8d8e08&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Stavi, I., Kressel, G., Gutterman, Y. and A. Degen, (2006). “Flock Use among Bedouin in `Spontaneous' Settlements in the Negev Desert, Southern Israel.” Nomadic Peoples , 10(1): 53-69. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berghahn/nomp/2006/00000010/00000001/art0000 4.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C. (2007). "Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options." FAO. Retrieved February 13, 2007 from http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/a0701e/A0701E00.pdf
Tal, A. (2006). National Report of Israel Years 2003-2005 to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.unccd.int/cop/reports/otheraffected/national/2006/israel-eng.pdf
Tal, A. (2007). “To Make a Desert Bloom: The Israeli Agricultural Adventure and the Quest for Sustainability.” Agricultural History , 81(2): 228-257.
Tal, A. and J. Cohen. (2007). “Bringing 'Top-Down' to 'Bottom-Up' : a New Role for Environmental Legislation in Combating Desertification.” Harvard Environmental Law Review , 31(1): 163-218.
Tips and Ausaid (2005). “Trade Information Brief: Soya Beans.” Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.sadctrade.org/files/soybean_final_draft1.pdf .
Troen, S. Ilan. (2000). "Frontier Myths and Their Applications in America and Israel: A Transnational Perspective." Israel Studies 5(1): 301-329. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/israel_studies/v005/5.1troen.html .
Tucker, C. and S. N. Nicholson, (1999). “Variations in the size of the Sahara Desert from 1980 to 1997. ” Ambio, 28: 587 134
The Unrecognized Villages in the Negev; Update: 2003. Submission by:The Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages in the Negev. The Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA) Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://www.arabhra.org/publications/reports/PDF/HRA- RCUVCESCRReport.pdf
Waxman, C. (1987). “Messianism, Zionism, and the State of Israel.” Modern Judaism . 7(2): 175-192. Retrieved Jan. 2, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276- 1114%28198705%297%3A2%3C175%3AMZATSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
Yiftachel, O. (1999) “'Ethnocracy': The Politics of Judaizing Israel/Palestine.” Constellations 6 (3), 364–390. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2007 from http://www.blackwell- synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-8675.00151 .
Yom-Tov, Toram and Mendelssohn, Heinrich, (2004). “Changes in status, distribution and abundance of vertebrates in Israel during the 20 th century.” In A. Dolev and A. Perevolotsky, Eds. The Red Book: Vertebrates in Israel (pp. 26-38). Jerusalem: Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel
135
Websites
(1) “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development” from the website of the United Nations. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm .
(2) Excerpts from the Basic Law: The President. http://www.president.gov.il/chapters/chap_3/_content_3_2_2_en.asp
(3) Basic Law: The Government (2001). http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic14_eng.htm
(4) Israel in Brief: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/facts%20about%20israel/israel%20in%20brief/
(5) National Background of Israel, Clearing House Mechanism on Desertification for the Northern Mediterranean Region (CLEMDES). http://www.clemdes.net/national_background.cfm?nat=isr
(6) The website of the Israel Cattle Breeders Association retrieved January 28, 2007 http://www.icba-israel.com
(7) Website of the Institute of Evolution, University of Haifa http://evolution.haifa.ac.il/html/html_eng/Structure.html (Retrieved August 8, 2007).
(8) The statistical databases of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/es/english/index_en.htm
(9) “Israel Herdbook, 2005” website. Retrieved January 28, 2007 from http://www.icba- israel.com/cbase/herdbook2005/intro-2005.pdf ,
(10) “Annual Report FAO/OIE/WHO Questionnaire – 2002 Israel” from the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.vetserv.moag.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/7648B0A4-4437-495C-BFE4- 1B788DFD60EC/1282/oieq02.htm .
(11) “Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (Mad Cow Disease)” from the website of the Food and Dairy Administration of the US. Retrieved June 2, 2007 from http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/bse.html
(12) “Animal Census Publication 2005.” From the website of Veterinary Services and Animal Health in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://www.vetserv.moag.gov.il/VetServEng/Files/Advertising 136
(13) “Graph farm animal distribution 2004.” From the website of Veterinary Services and Animal Health in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2007 from http://www.vetserv.moag.gov.il/VetServEng/Files/Advertising .
(14) “Ahali Center for Community Development: Annual Review 2003” from the Ahali website. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.ahalicenter.org/reports.html#a2 .
(15) “Electricity/Heat in Israel in 2004” website. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=IL
(16) “All Demands for Water by Purpose in Israel, 2005” from the website of the Israel Water Authority. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www.water.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/B66A6B13-DF47-4DA6-8692- 2DD13B930746/0/aims2005.pdf .
(17) “Dairy Farm Reform” from the website of the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www.sviva.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=e_BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat= Zone&enDispWho=dairy_farm&enZone=dairy_farm .
(18) “Forest Ordinance, 1926 (Summary),” from the website of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Communiques/1998/Forest%20Ordinance-%201926
(19) “Plant Protection (Damage by Goats) Law, 1950 (Summary)” from the website of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved May 13, 2007 from http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Communiques/1998/Plant%20Protection%20- Damage%20by%20Goats-%20Law-%201950
(20) “ISRAEL: Plant Protection Declaration (Damage by goats) (Prohibited Goats grazing areas), 1970. 11 March 1977.” Retrieved July 22, 2007 from http://faolex.fao.org/cgi- bin/faolex.exe?rec_id=025678&database=FAOLEX&search_type=link&table=result&lang =eng&format_name=@ERALL, and ://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/isr30644.pdf.
(21) “Animal Diseases Regulation (Sheep Marking), 1978.” Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://faolex.fao.org/cgi- bin/faolex.exe?rec_id=026103&database=FAOLEX&search_type=link&table=result&lang =eng&format_name=@ERALL .
(22) “Animal Diseases Regulations (Waste), 1981.” Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://faolex.fao.org/cgi- bin/faolex.exe?rec_id=017719&database=FAOLEX&search_type=link&table=result&lang =eng&format_name=@ERALL .
137
(23) “ISRAEL: Public Health Regulations (Food) (Pesticide Residues), 1991.” Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://faolex.fao.org/cgi- bin/faolex.exe?rec_id=049137&database=FAOLEX&search_type=link&table=result&lang =eng&format_name=@ERALL
(24) “The Reform of the Dairy Sector (in Hebrew)” from the website of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Israel. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/ModulKvatzim/milk_reform_2006_n_ 1.pdf .
(25) “Slow Food Upper Galilee” website. Retrieved September 29, 2007 from http://www.slowfood.org.il.
(26) “Major Accomplishments” from the website of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Israel. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from http://www.sviva.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=e_BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat= Object&enDispWho=Articals^l3646&enZone=dairy_farm .
(27) “Agriculture in Israel: The Industry Account, Price Index of Output and Input, 2004- 2005,” from the website of Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved September 23, 2007 from http://www.cbs.gov.il/publications/haklaut05/haklaut05_e.htm .
138
Periodicals
Bailey, Clinton, (1999, July 19). Barak, Shas and the Beduin. The Jerusalem Post, p. 8.
Bailey, Clinton, (1999, January 1). Thoughts on the murder of a Beduin. The Jerusalem Post, p. 9.
Bar-Eli, Avi. (2007, Sept. 10). A puzzle within an enigma. Haaretz. Retrieved Sept. 10, 2007 from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=land&itemNo=902522.
Derfner, Larry. (2007, March 2). The Wild South. The Jerusalem Post , p. 14.
Glick, Caroline. (2007, January 23). The Rule of Lawyers. www.townhall.com. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CarolineBGlick/2007/01/23/the_rule_of_lawyers
Grinberg, Majil. (2007, February 1). Man charged in farm burglary in which accomplice was killed. Haaretz. Retrieved June 6, 2007 from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/820838.html
Hassin, Tal. (2005, October 11). The Range Wars. Haaretz. Retrieved June 6, 2007 from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485925
Ilani, Ofri. (22 May, 2007). "White Noise." Haaretz. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/862353.html
Manski, Rebecca. (2007, March). "The Scene of Many Crimes: Suffocating Self- Subsistence in the Negev." News from Within, Bustan. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://bustan.org/2007/03/bustan_article_news_from_withi_2.html.
Manski, Rebecca. (2007, April 22). "The Nature of Environmental Injustice in Bedouin Urban Townships: The End of Self-Subsistence." Published by the Life & Environment NGO coalition in: "Environmental Injustice Report 2007" Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://bustan.org/2007/04/bustan_published_in_prominent.html
Voting with your Trolley. (2006, Sept. 7). Economist. Retrieved September 23, 2007 from http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8380592 139
8. Appendices
Appendix 1: Early chart showing the growth of Israel’s Jewish Dairy Industry, from Elazari, 1930.
140
Appendix 2: Model of the conflict between livestock husbandry (grazing) and conservation in productive pastures with a long history of grazing (Mediterranean Basin). Taken from Noy-Meir, 2005.
Valor de producción ganadera sustentable por ha Carga óptima Valor para conservación de la biodiversidad Carga óptima
Pérdida de especies: exclusión por dominantes Pérdida de especies vulnerables al pastoreo
Degradación del recurso forrajero y del suelo; Aumento de insumos para mantener la producción Reducción de la producción por cabeza por restricción de forraje
Zona de soluciones integradoras Valorde producción ($ por ha) Valor Valor de conservación (# especies nativas) Carga (animales por ha)