By Dureid Mahasneh

Finally a concrete step towards starting the Red Sea Dead Sea Canal project (RSDSC) is being taken with donor countries, the World Bank and the riparian countries of the Dead Sea meeting today in Jordan.

The meeting, taking place at the Dead Sea, will discuss the timetable for the feasibility study and the criteria for qualification of interested consultants. Participants are also expected to discuss finding more funds to reach the $15.5 million needed for the study; $8.8 million has been donated by France, Japan, Holland and the US.

For many Jordanians the mere fact that the meeting is taking place is an indication of success, as it was not easy to overcome all the obstacles that faced the start of the project. Some were political, like in the 1990s, when the Palestinians were denied the right to be members of the Red-Dead Canal trilateral (Jordan, Israel and the US) committee then responsible for the development of the Jordan Rift Valley. Before that, the Israelis believed their plans to build a canal extending from the Mediterranean coasts to the Dead Sea, with a desalination plant that would sell freshwater to both Jordan and the Palestinians, was the project to be implemented.

Ironically, some critics in the Egyptian press misunderstood the canal project as a competitor to the Suez Canal. Moreover, many countries believed that the project would not be possible unless there is a comprehensive peace with Israel. Other objections came from environmentalists, chemists and geologists on both sides of the Dead Sea, who realised that the pre-feasibility study done by a group of consultants in the 1990s did not answer their questions and worries.

It took some time before many of these obstacles were overcome. The Palestinians are now full members of the project. Israel also seems more convinced that the Red-Dead Canal can replace the Med-Dead Canal and achieve same goals. In the meantime, answers to any scientific or environmental questions will be addressed in the soon coming, detailed feasibility study.

The alarming decline in the Dead Sea level, which loses almost half a metre a year, played the major part in supporting the idea of building the canal. This might not be the only and most important reason for Jordan, as the need for freshwater in the Kingdom are a first priority.

Jordan, which is considered one of the poorest countries in freshwater in the world, is facing an increasing water crisis, with shortages today amounting to 350 million cubic metres a year. The project, which would cost over $4 billion and last over ten years, will supply the Dead Sea with around 2 billion mcm a year, out of which Jordan would get 570mcm of freshwater through desalination. The Palestinians would also gain around 280mcm of freshwater a year. Israel, in the meantime, would be pleased and content that the level of the Dead Sea is saved, while falsely presuming that the desalinated freshwater for the Palestinians might replace the one they illegally obtain from the West Bank underground aquifers.

All this being said, the agreement if all concerned to conduct the project is not enough. The project needs that many details and procedures be worked out among the three parties, in harmony, as each (Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority) has different political and bureaucratic setups. This once led to the proposal to create a special commission for the project, while at the moment, the World Bank is to play the role of a joint platform for the study phase.

The World Bank is playing a major role in eliminating differences among parties, while at the same time securing finances for the project. This came at a time when the US’ role is timid, for fear probably of dealing with the Hamas government or opposing environmentalists. Some believe that the US wants other donors, like the EU and Japan, to help finance the project. It is then not strange that the French donation to the study exceeds that of the US.

However, securing the needed money for the project should not be a problem, as the desalination plant and the provision of water for consumers would be done on BOT basis.

One cannot either ignore the availability of cash in abundance in our region, and for a change, Jordan can steer investments towards vital water projects instead of the real estate spree spreading all over the country.

At the same time, Jordanians should not be led to believe that the RSDSC project is the only solution to their water shortage. The government has the duty to straighten its practices in water management and reduce water loss. A strong policy and actions towards preserving underground water resources are badly needed, while costly water practices in agriculture must be stopped and water usage priorities must be reviewed and set according to productivity and, in our case, to simply ensure survival.

One wishes that the results of the current meetings will be successful.