Study Area

The Gaza Strip is located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea with an approximate length of 42 km and width between 8–12 km to give a total area of 365 km2 (Figure 1). The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) estimated the population in 2019 around two million (PCBS, 2019). The estimated population with the area of the Gaza Strip shows an overcrowded area, which is described among the most crowded areas in the world (Aufleger and Mett 2011).

The location of the Gaza Strip is in the transitional zone between the Sinai Peninsula that have an arid desert climate and the Mediterranean coast of the semi humid climate that affects the average temperature around the year. Whereas it ranges between 12–14 °C in the winter and 25–28 °C in the summer, the peak of the rainy season is in December and January (CMWU, 2012). The average rainfall ranges between 200–400 mm/year and the sustainable recharging rate of the coastal groundwater aquifer is 55 mcm/year. While the domestic use reaches around 90 mcm/year and the total use exceeds 170 mcm/year, the water withdraw massively exceeds the aquifers ability to sustainably recharge (PWA, 2018a).

Water Status in the Gaza Strip

The Gaza Strip depends on the coastal groundwater aquifer system which is fed primarily by the rainfall, and the continuous excessive withdrawal of the groundwater led to massive damage of the aquifers along with seawater intrusion into the coastal aquifer that result in an increase in the salinity, nitrates and chloride concentrations (Efron et al., 2018). The concentration of nitrates in the coastal aquifer ranges between 100-800 mg/L, and chloride concentrations range between 800–4000 mg/L depending on the depth of the well (PWA, 2018a). The WHO released a warning that the nitrate and chloride concentrations in the Gaza Strip violates the safe standards as they exceed the maximum safe levels which are 50 mg/L for nitrates and 250 mg/L for chloride (WHO, 2017; WHO, 2014). Therefore, citizens in the Gaza Strip depend on many primary sources of drinking water, with most of their dependence is on the purchased water from water vendors, along with other sources like humanitarian aids from local and international institutions and private wells (Ismail, 2003).

Waterborne Health Crisis in the Gaza Strip

The groundwater contamination along with the disposal of the untreated wastewater to the sea is causing many adverse effects on people health in the Gaza Strip in which 26% of the diseases are caused by water contamination (Efron et al., 2018). The reported diseases result from chemical and biological contaminants, whereas the chemical contaminants come from the seeping of the wastewater and the agricultural run-offs into the groundwater, which increase the chloride and nitrate concentrations (Efron et al., 2018). The high concentrations of chloride can cause corrosion of the pipelines and react with the metals to release soluble salts that is considered toxic in high levels. While the high concentrations of nitrate can cause methemoglobinemia, known as the blue baby syndrome, to infants of age under six months (Eran et. al., 2014). The problem of low water quality and quantity was partially solved by constructing several small-scale brackish water desalination plants, three seawater desalination plants, and purchasing potable water from the Israeli water company (Mekorot).

Water Desalination Plants in the Gaza Strip

According to the PWA report released in 2016, the total number of brackish water desalination plants in the Gaza Strip is 286 with different capacities, technologies and locations as shown in Figure 2 (PWA, GVC, and UNICEF, 2017).

The increasing number of desalination plants reflects the increasing needs for clean water. However, the report showed that 79% of the plants are unlicensed, 68% are pH outrange, 38% were detected violating the Standards of water quality and are not disinfected, all these problems are due to the political differences that hinder the ability to monitor all the plants.

The MOH makes regular tests on samples taken from different desalination plants to keep monitoring their performance, and the results showed that many desalination plants do not meet the standards set by the PWA and MOH. Table 1 shows the results of bacteriological analysis of desalinated water samples taken from different brackish water desalination plants in the five governorates.

Many of the tested water samples contain Total Coliform (TC) and Faecal Coliform (FC), which pose serious health problems. Also, the physicochemical characteristics of desalinated water in different private desalination plants had been tested regularly, and the results showed many violations of the WHO and PWA water quality standards in which the pH in many samples was below or higher than the accepted levels. Additionally, the Electrical Conductivity (EC) and nitrates levels exceeded the recommended levels stated by both the PWA and WHO. Table 2 shows the physicochemical water quality in samples collected by the Ministry of Health from 164 desalination plants (RO) in the five governorates and the standard levels stated by WHO and PWA.

The increasing number of private desalination plants increases the stress on groundwater along with the low water quality produced by many private desalination plants, thereby the PWA had constructed three Seawater Desalination Plants (SDP’s) in three different governorates with a total capacity of the three plants 35,000 m³/day (UNICEF, 2018). The southern Gaza SDP was constructed with a capacity of 6,000 m³/d in the first phase, and is planned to reach a total capacity of 20,000 m³/d in the second phase of construction. The Northern Gaza SDP was constructed to produce 10,000 m³/d, while the middle Gaza SDP produces 6,000 m³/d (UNICEF, 2018). The three SDP’s have common characteristics including the use of the Reverse Osmosis (RO) technology, 40–45% recovery rate, the overall energy consumption is around 4 Kwh/m³, the feed water is withdrawn from beach wells through using pressure pumps, and it has a Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) value about 40,000 ppm (CMWU, 2019).

A strategic plan set by the PWA and many other international institutions had been approved to construct Gaza Central Seawater Desalination plant (GCDP) with a total capacity of 110 MCM/year which is expected to cover the needs of two million citizens while enable the coastal aquifers to sustainably recharge and recover, and improve the economic development (PWA, 2014). The first phase of the project will produce 55 MCM/year, and reach the total capacity when finish constructing the second phase (UfM, 2011). The plan also includes the use of solar and wind energy to provide the plant with 15.1% of energy requirements (PWA, n.d.). The GCDP plan implementation is accompanied by Associated Works (AWs) which include constructing a north-south conveyance system with storage tanks, and lines to blend the desalinated water with groundwater, in addition to a Non-Revenue Water (NRW) reduction strategy to increase the efficiency of revenue collection to 80% (PWA, 2014; PWA, n.d.).

The Cost of Seawater Desalination per Cubic Meter

The costs of the desalination depend on many factors including the plant’s capacity, the quality of the feed water, the desalination technology used, the costs of energy consumption, capital cost, and the location of the plant (Ismail, 2003). The desalination process consumes high energy, which is responsible for 60% of the total desalination costs (Zotalis et. al, 2014). The cost of seawater desalination/m³ in the Gaza Strip is around 3.3 NIS/m³ equivalent to 0.95 US$/m³ (CMWU, 2020), while the water tariff/m³ is 1.8 NIS according to the Water Sector Regulatory Council (WSRC). However, the low water tariff is not enough to cover operations and maintenance (O&M), which increases the financial burden on the municipalities (World Bank, 2018).

Brine Management in the Gaza Strip

The desalination process produces two streams, the desalinated water and the concentrate, known as the brine, that contain concentrated levels of inorganic salts and chemicals (Lattemann and Hopner, 2008). The amount of the produced brine exceeds the desalinated water due to the low recovery rate and low feed water quality (Jones et. al, 2018). The physical and chemical composition of the brine causes many environmental problems especially in the site of discharge (Lattemann, 2010). Therefore, the sufficient brine disposal technique is essential for maintaining sustainable desalination processes. In the Gaza Strip, the brine disposal technique applied is the direct disposal to the sea through pipelines with diffusers as it is the most economically, environmentally, and technically feasible option (Mogheir and AlBohissi, 2015). Furthermore, many studies recommend mixing the discharged brine with treated wastewater to dilute it before discharging to the sea (Katal et. al, 2020).

The Impact of Applying the Integrated Management System on the Performance of Seawater Desalination Projects

The results of the questionnaire showed that applying the IMS in seawater desalination plants in the Gaza Strip would have positive impact on the financial, administrative, technical, environmental, and socio-economic performance. In which, the respondents unanimously agreed on the ability of the IMS in reducing the operational costs, improving the efficient use of funds, and increasing the profits. As well as, the improvement of the efficient use of resources, enhancing the requirements performance index, improving the project’s durability and the project’s life cycle, reducing and controlling office documents, ensuring the achievements of the desalination’s projects vision, mission and strategic objectives, and improving the communications between departments.

Regarding the technical aspects, the respondents also agreed on the ability of the IMS in improving the quality of water physically, chemically, and biologically, increasing the volume of the produced water, using the Best Available Technology (BAT), and the continuous improvements in the operations following the situation in the Gaza Strip. Also, the there was a major agreement on the positive environmental effects represented by reducing the stress on the marine environment by a better brine management, reducing the chemical discharges, reducing the emissions of polluting gases such as GHG to the atmosphere, and reducing the overall energy consumption. Finally, the respondents also agreed on the ability of the IMS in improving the socio-economic conditions in the Gaza Strip through reducing the risks of accidents that result from fuel storage and transport. In addition to increasing the access to clean water, increasing the satisfaction of the workers in the seawater desalination plants, improving the economic growth, preserving the natural water resources, and improving water usage and reducing its wastage.

However, applying the IMS in the Gaza Strip would face many barriers due to the sensitive situation; these barriers were summarized as follows:

1. The commitment of management
2. The lack of sufficient experience
3. The differences in the needs of workers, investors, and citizens.
4. The lack of knowledge and training among employees and management.
5. The existence of more important priorities.
6. The lack of awareness and concern about the importance of applying the system.
7. The existence of complexities and differences in the management systems between The Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
8. The blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip affects the entrance of the required materials.
9. The electricity blackout that results from the shortage of fuel.
10. The lack of funding and resources.
11. The political instability in the Gaza Strip.
12. The continuous Israeli attacks that cause the destruction of the infrastructure.

Analysing the SWOT Matrix

SWOT analysis is one of the simplest tools to evaluate the current situation of the organization represented by the strengths and weaknesses, and the future scenarios represented by the opportunities and threats. The analysis provides an insight to develop a business plan and formulate strategies to overcome the weaknesses and threats. In this study, the data obtained from the questionnaire and interviews were used as inputs to determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of applying the IMS in seawater desalination plants, and the SWOT analysis matrix is shown in Table 3.

Designing an External and Internal Factors Matrix (IFEM and EFEM)

After analysing the internal factors and the external environment, the internal and external factors that affect applying the IMS in seawater desalination projects in the Gaza Strip. Based on the managers’ opinions, each factor was evaluated by giving a weight and a rank to calculate the score of each factor and ultimately the total score for both internal and external factors.

External factor evaluation (EFE) matrix is a management tool used to evaluate and prioritize the opportunities and threats that hinder the business achievements. Riston (2008) summarized the benefits of the EFE matrix by:

1. Increase the attention to the environment surrounding the business.
2. Enhance decision making related to resources allocation.
3. Improve risk management processes.

Internal factor evaluation (IFE) is a management tool that focus on the evaluation of the internal environment. IFE and EFE were used in integration to evaluate the internal and the external conditions and determine the highest influencer on the potentiality of applying the IMS in seawater desalination projects. From the results shown in Table 4, the IFE and EFE equals 2.79 and 2.55, respectively.

Formulating TOWS Strategic Alternative Matrix

SWOT analysis is the basic step toward the formulation of strategies. The TOWS strategic alternatives matrix relates the Strengths and weaknesses with opportunities and threats to formulate four strategies that focus on the following:

1. SO strategies: focus on using the Strengths of the IMS by utilizing the opportunities.
2. WO strategies: focus on reducing the weaknesses that face the application of the IMS by utilizing the opportunities.
3. ST strategies: focus on using the strengths to overcome the threats.
4. WT strategies: focus on addressing the weaknesses that will make the threats possible to occur and minimize their impacts.

The four categories of strategies are summarized in Table 5.

Designing a Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM)

The Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) is a management tools that is used to prioritize the strategies in order to choose the best applicable strategies. Each key factor is given an Attractiveness Score which is multiplied by its weight in order to obtain the Total Attractiveness Score (TAS) for each factor and the sum of all TAS (STAS) is used to determine the priority of the strategy. Based on the results, the highest priority strategies were:

1. WT1: Building effective partnership and communication with UN institutions to obtain UN protection for projects against targeting the occupation and facilitate the process of bringing the necessary materials into the Gaza Strip.
2. ST3: Using part of the profits in the process of purchasing materials and fuel needed for projects in advance to avoid cases of closing the crossings.
3. WT2: Enhancing the interest and capabilities of senior management by applying risk management methodology.
4. ST4: Establish effective communication with the relevant authorities in the Gaza Strip and Ramallah to avoid conflicts between the authorities that might confuse the project.
5. SO1: Follow a cost leadership strategy to expand market share and obtain grants from donor institutions to implement projects.