The Ecological Impacts of Homestead Settlements in the Negev: Final Report Daniel Orenstein, Elli Groner, Omrat Lihod, Wamuyu L. Muithui, Eitan Krukowski, Ofer Arnon, Alon Tal The Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben Gurion University of the Negev The Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, The Technion, Israel Institute of Technology Submitted to: The Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem November, 2009 2 Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their support during the course of the research project: Academic advice: Dr. Yoram Ayal, Prof. Pua Bar, Mr. Sol Brand, Professor Amnon Frenkel. Dr. Irina Khokhlova, Prof. Moshe Shachak, Dr. Georgy Shenbrot Permits: Tzur Magen, Dr. Bertrand Boeken and the staff of Even-Ari experimental farm. Background information: Hila Akerman, Shai Takhnai Field work and assistance: Yishai Hoffman. Volunteers: Huda Al Beiruti, Christian Schneider, Yoel Vierba, Lior Zamir Administration and technical issues: Marc Goldberg, Yael Kaplan, Iris Musley and Reut Berger-Tal And especially the many good people living in the homesteads of the Negev who provided access to their homes and assisted in the conducting of the field research. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements: ……………………………………. 3 Executive Summary / ………………………תקציר בעברית.. 5 Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………… 9 Chapter 2: Homesteads in the Ramat Negev Region….. 24 Chapter 3: Rodent Activity Along a Distal Gradient From Homesteads (Havot Bodedim) in Har-Hanegev Region…. 36 Chapter 4: Impacts on reptile and darkling beetle diversity………………………………….. 50 Chapter 5: General Environmental Impact……………. 55 Chapter 6: Conclusions - The Aggregate Picture of Homestead Development in the Negev………………. 67 Appendix………………………………………………… 72 4 Executive Summary in Hebrew: דו"ח מסכם -ההשפעות האקולוגיות והסביבתיות של חוות הבודדים בנגב תקציר דו"ח זה מסכם מחקר דו-שנתי בנושא ההשפעות הסביבתיות והאקולוגיות 1של חוות הבודדים ברמת הנגב ,כחלק ממחקר עתידי רחב יותר שיכלול צורות התיישבות נוספות בנגב .בעוד הנגב מכסה כ60%- משטח מדינת ישראל ,רק 8%מתושבי המדינה גרים בו .גם היום ,כמו בעבר -הנגב מהווה פתרון אפשרי לסוגיית האוכלוסייה ההולכת וגדילה במדינת ישראל .גישה זו זוכה לתמיכה מתמשכת של ממשלות ישראל בעבר ובהווה. כיום מתקיים בנגב מגוון רב של צורות התיישבות -ערים ,עיירות הפיתוח ,ישובים קהילתיים וחקלאיים ,קיבוצים ,עיירות ,וכפרים בדואים מוכרים ולא מוכרים .בשנות ה 90-התבססה צורת התיישבות חדשה בנגב -חוות הבודדים .הקמתן התאפשרה הודות ליזמים פרטיים ולתמיכה ממשלתית עקרונית ,אך התהליכים המנהליים השונים לא תמיד עלו בקנה אחד עם לשון החוק ותכניות המתאר הארציות ,כדוגמת תמ"א 35שעוגנה בחוק בשנת .2005עד שנת 2003הוקמו בנגב 59 חוות בודדים .חלקן אושרו כבר באופן רשמי וחלקן לא הוכרו כחוקיות ,וככאלה -בעליהן קיבלו צווי פינוי. אנו מעריכים כי כל צורת יישוב בנגב אוחזת בהשפעה סביבתית ישירה )חקלאות ,רעייה( ועקיפה )זיהום אור ורעש( הייחודית לה .מיקומן של חוות הבודדים בנגב המרכזי הפחות צפוף ומופרע ,מרחקן הניכר מכל ישוב אחר וקיומם של שטחים טבעיים סביבן מאפשרים ללמוד על ההשפעות הייחודיות להן ,אם ישנן .בחירת שטח המחקר והחוות עצמן נעשתה במשך שנה שלמה של סיורים באזורים שונים בנגב ,ניתוח GISשל פיזור חוות בכל הנגב ,למידה של אופי החוות וסיורים רבים באזור התחנות לפני שהוחלט לרכז את המחקר בהר הנגב ובחוות הבודדים שם. בכדי לאמוד את ההשפעות הסביבתיות של חוות הבודדים ,אם ישנן ,נעזרנו בשיטות מחקר אקולוגיות ,דהיינו :אמדן שפע ומגוון מכרסמים ,זוחלים וחיפושיות בסמיכות לחוות ,בסקירת השפעות סביבתיות א-ביוטיות וביוטיות קיימות ופוטנציאליות ,ובמיפוי היתכנותן של ההשפעות בהווה ובעתיד .רב הנתונים נאספו במהלך החודשים אוגוסט-אוקטובר ,2009וקדמו להם סיורים בשטח שנתקיימו בתחילת השנה .סיור הכנה ובדיקת שטח נוסף נערך במהלך .2008 - 1השפעות אקולוגיות במסמך זה מיוחסות להשפעות על הטבע הביוטי והשפעות סביבתיות מיוחסות להשפעות על מפגעים אביוטים. 5 הנתונים נאספו בשיטות שונות .כל הלכידות בוצעו באישור רשות הטבע והגנים. המכרסמים נלכדו באמצעות מלכודות שרמן מתקפלות ,בבתי גידול שונים -ואדי ואיזור סלעי, ובמרחקים 50מ'100 ,מ' ו500-מ' מהחוות 120 .מלכודות ) 40בכל יחידת מרחק ,חצי מתוכן בשתי חלקות ואדי וחצי מתוכן בשתי חלקות מסולעות( הונחו לעת ערב בכל חווה לתקופה של שניים-שלושה לילות רצופים .המלכודות נאספו מדי בוקר עם הזריחה ,המכרסמים זוהו למין ,נקבע זוויג ,גילם, משקלם ,והם סומנו בטוש על בטנם בזיהוי אישי .לאחר מכן שוחררו במקום הלכדם. עבור החיפושיות והזוחלים נחפרו בואדיות מלכודות נפילה -דליים בינוניים שהושקעו בקרקע כך שהעוברים באקראי יפלו לתוכן .המלכודות כוסו באבן על מנת להצל על השוהים בהן ,ונבדקו אחת לשבוע .המלכודות מוקמו גם כן במרחקים 50מ'100 ,מ' ו500-מ' ,לכל מרחק שתי חלקות ובכל חלקה 5מלכודות .זוחלים שנתפסו זוהו ונקבע זוויג ,ושוחררו במקום .חיפושיות זוהו ושוחררו גם כן. כמו כן נערך סקר השפעה הסביבתית בסיסי .הסקר מתבסס על סקר ספרות ,מפות ותצלומי אוויר, שיחות עם בעלי החוות ובעיקר סיורים ותצפיות בשטח ,צילום ממצאים ועריכת מדגם אקראי קווי )טרנסקט( בפיזור פסולת בשטח ,לדוגמא. דו"ח זה מחולק לשישה פרקים המתארים את הממצאים העיקריים של המחקר .פרק ההקדמה עוסק בהתפתחות ההתיישבות בנגב מקום המדינה ועד היום ,סקירת ספרות מדעית בנושא ההשפעות האקולוגיות והסביבתיות של התיישבויות וייעודי קרקע שונים .כמו כן ,נביא בפרק זה את הרקע לקיום המחקר הנוכחי ומטרותיו .נרחיב על תהליך קבלת ההחלטה למיקוד המחקר לחוות הבודדים, כך שישרת בעתיד גם את מטרת העל -בחינת צורות התיישבות נוספות בנגב. הפרק השני עוסק ברקע הפוליטי-חברתי להקמתן של חוות הבודדים ברמת הנגב ,במעורבות הרשויות והמוסדות השונים כמו גם דעת הציבור בנושא .נרחיב גם על אופיין הייחודי של החוות המעצב את יחסי הגומלין בינן לבין המערכות האקולוגיות המדבריות סביבן ,ועל הבעיות שעשויות להיווצר. הפרק השלישי עוסק באוכלוסיית המכרסמים ,המשמשים כביו-אינדיקטורים ,ופעילותם במרחקים משתנים מ 13-חוות ושטח ביקורת אחד .פרק זה קובע כי אין מגמה מובהקת כלשהי .עם זאת ,נמצאה פעילות גבוהה יותר של מכרסמים סמוך לחוות עם חקלאות צומח ,ביחס לחוות מסוג אחר )בע"ח, תיירות( ,ובכוונתנו להמשיך לבדוק מגמה זו. הפרק הרביעי עוסק במגוון זוחלים וחיפושיות במרחקים משתנים מ 7-חוות בודדים .פרק זה קובע כי קיימת נוכחות רבה יותר ,הן בשפע והן בעושר המינים של זוחלים בקרבת החוות .בכל הנוגע לחיפושיות -נמצא כי עושר המינים זהה בסמוך ובמרחק רב מהחוות ,אך קיימת נטייה )לא מובהקת( לירידה בשפע החיפושיות בקרבת החוות. 6 הפרק החמישי עוסק בניתוח ההשפעות הסביבתיות הקיימות והפוטנציאליות ,בהתחשב בהיבטים ובממצאים הא-ביוטיים )לדוג' :פסולת ,טיפול בביוב ,דרכי עפר( והביוטיים )עקבות שונים של בע"ח, נוכחות חיות בית( במטרה ליצור סקר ראשוני של השפעה סביבתית .בשלב זה ניתן לומר כי מידת ההשפעה הסביבתית של כל חווה היא בעיקר פועל יוצא של יעוד הקרקע ,מידת עיבודה ומידת המודעות הסביבתית של בעלי החווה .מטבע הדברים זה יוצר שונות רבה בין החוות .יחד עם זאת, בעיות כגון פסולת מוצקה בשטחים הפתוחים הסמוכים ,דליפות ביוב ,ריכוזים של זבל והפרות ופגעיות בקרקע בסביבה היו יחסית נפוצות .בכדי לשפר את המצב הקיים יש צורך אמיתי בפתיחת ערוץ תקשורת ושיתוף פעולה בין בעלי החוות לבין גופי הממשל .יש צורך בקביעת סטנדרטים לניהול תקין וסביבתי של כל חווה עפ"י יעודה .לשם כך ,יש להיעזר במומחים החוקרים השפעות סביבתיות ואקולוגיות ולשלב זאת עם הכרת השטח העמוקה של בעלי החוות. הפרק השישי מסכם את הדו"ח ודן בניתוח מרחבי עתידי של ההשפעה הסביבתית של החוות .הערכה זהירה מאד היא כי לחוות השפעה סביבתית של 21,000דונם .בהתחשב ביחס היקף לשטח גדול שקיים בחוות ,הרי שאפקט השוליים היחסי שלהן משמעותי ועשוי להגדיל את שטח ההשפעה הסביבתית הכולל. כיום ,כל ההתיישבויות בנגב נמצאות במגמת התרחבות וגדילה ,בעיקר באיזור באר-שבע .עיר הבה"דים המתוכננת להיבנות תוסיף אף היא להתרחבות הדמוגרפית ולפיתוח האיזור .לצד שינויים חברתיים ,התרחשויות אלה ישפיעו ללא ספק גם על מערכות אקולוגיות שונות באיזור ייחודי זה. התיישבויות קטנות בכלל וחוות בודדים בפרט עשויות להשפיע על סביבתן בכמה מישורים :הפרעה מרחבית בשטחים פתוחים; נזק אקולוגי המתבטא בהרס בתי גידול ,קיטוע בתי גידול ,הקטנת שטח בתי הגידול ,חדירת מינים פולשים ובכללם גם חיות בית; השקעה רבה בתשתיות שיגיעו לעומק השטח; אי-צדק סביבתי על רקע הפרטת קרקעות והפקעתן מהציבור הרחב .מאידך ,יש הטוענים כי התיישבויות מסוג זה מטפחות מערכות אקולוגיות בסביבתן ולכן בעלות השפעה חיובית על המגוון הביולוגי .מצב זה מתאמת כאשר ההתיישבות החדשה באה במקום שימוש אינטנסיבי אחר בקרקע, כגון :חקלאות אינטנסיבית ,חציבה ,אימון צבאי תכוף ועוד. בהתבסס על הנתונים שנתקבלו במהלך שנת ,2009נוכל לומר כי קיימים שלושה גורמים המשפיעים על קיומן ועצמתן של השפעות סביבתיות על ידי החוות .הראשון הינו הפעילות הכלכלית של החווה; לדוגמא -נצפתה מגמה )לא מובהקת( של תפוצת מכרסמים )גרביל סלעים וקוצן מצוי( רבה יותר סמוך לחוות העוסקות בחקלאות צומח לעומת חקלאות צאן .מפגעים סביבתיים כגון ערמות צואת בע"ח, ביוב לא מוסדר וטיפול לא נאות בגופות בע"ח נצפו בחוות העוסקות בחקלאות בע"ח ובגידולם לצרכי תיירות .השפעות סביבתיות נוספות כגון פתיחת שבילים לרכבים ולרכיבה על בע"ח )גמלים( נצפו בחוות העוסקות בעיקר בתיירות. 7 הגורם השני הוא רמת המודעות הסביבתית של בעלי החווה ,המשפיעה באופן ישיר על התנהלותם בכל הנוגע למפגעים סביבתיים אפשריים וקיימים .לאור מספרם הנמוך יחסית של החוות ,קיים פוטנציאל לפעול מול בעליהן כדי למזער נזקים סביבתיים באופן ניכר. הגורם השלישי הוא המיקום הגאוגרפי-טופוגרפי של החווה ,המשפיע על זרימת הביוב ועל תפוצת פסולת קיימת ממנה והלאה .לדוגמא ,חווה הממוקמת בערוץ נחל ,חוסמת מחד כל זרימת מים טבעית במורד במקרה של גשם ,ומאידך -עלולה להזרים מי ביוב אל המדרון ,להם הרכב כימי בעל השפעה סביבתית .כך גם לגבי פיזור של פסולת מוצקה ,היכולה לעוף ולהתפזר באם לא סולקה כראוי. שלושת הגורמים חוברים יחדיו ויוצרים ,בהשפעה הדדית ,את אופיה הייחודי של כל חוות בודדים ואת מידת ההשפעה הקיימת או הצפונה בה. בשלב ראשוני זה של המחקר ניתן להעלות שתי הצעות ,שנראה כי עלו באופן טבעי מהתצפיות בשטח: הראשונה מבקשת לראות חשיבות בעבודה משותפת של מקבלי ההחלטות ואוכפיהן עם בעלי החוות. אפשר בהחלט לצמצם את ההשפעה הסביבתית השלילית ,החל מביסוס מודעות סביבתית ,טיפול ראוי בביוב ובפסולת ,הגבלת תנועת חיות הבית ,וכלה במינהל תקין וברור בכל הנוגע למצבן החוקי הנוכחי והעתידי של החוות. ההצעה השנייה נוגעת לרשויות התכנון .קיומן של ההשפעות הסביבתיות הנידונות בדו"ח לצד השפעות מרחביות של התיישבויות קטנות אך מפוזרות עשויות ליצור שינוי ונזק בלתי הפיך לשטחים פתוחים בנגב .הנכונות והיכולת ליישב את הנגב צריכים לעלות בקנה אחד עם הצרכים הסביבתיים הייחודיים לאיזור זה ,ובה בעת לשרת את הציבור והחברה הישראלית ככלל .יש להפנות את תשומת לבם של קובעי מדיניות התכנון להשלכות האקולוגיות והסביבתיות המצטברות שצפויות להתקיים באם תפוצתו של סוג התיישבות שכזה תגדל. חזון פיתוח הנגב לצד רצון לשמור ולשמר את המערכות האקולוגיות והסביבתיות בו ,מצריך המשך למידה ותכנון של ההשפעות הייחודיות הללו .שיקלול הנתונים יאפשר תכנון מושכל ומיטבי לעתיד האיזור ,לשוכניו ולתושביו. 8 Chapter 1: Introduction This report summarizes the findings of a two year investigation into the environmental and ecological implications of residential development in the Negev. The study was conducted with generous funding from the Chief Scientist of the Israel Ministry for Environmental Protection. The original intent of the study, which changed over the course of the two years as explained below, was to study the major impact of residential settlement in the Negev as a function of community (e.g. settlement) type and spatial distribution of communities. As the study progressed, we opted for depth in lieu of the originally intended breadth, and we instead studied the impact of one of these community types – the single-family homestead – in Israel’s Central Negev desert. The introduction is divided into four parts. First we provide an overview of the recent history of settlement in the Negev, from 1948 through the present. Next we provide a foundation of theoretical and applied research for considering the environmental / ecological impact of residential settlement. We then elaborate on the objectives of the proposed and adapted (current) research, and provide background and explanation as for why and how the research objectives shifted during the project. We conclude the introduction with an explanation as to how the current report is nested in a much broader investigation of residential settlement in the Negev – one that revisits the original proposal goals. Residential development in the Negev The Negev covers an area of 13,000 km2 and contains a population of 600,000. Thus, as of 2008, 60% of the country’s land area is home to less than 8% of its population (CBS 2009). While density is very low, at 46 persons/km2, present plans for Negev development suggest that this density may be on the verge of rising markedly (Government of Israel 2005, 2006; Schechter & Palmer 2005). The Negev is perceived today, as it always has been in the recent past, as having great potential for providing residential solutions for Israel’s growing population. Thus, the population is relatively 9 small despite the fact that successive governments throughout Israel’s history have expressed commitment to economic and residential development in the Negev. Successive development programs have varied with regard to regional planning in the Negev, based on learned experiences and changing economic and demographic realities. The 1950s and 1960s were marked by the establishment of “development” towns (populated by new immigrants who had little choice in their residential destination) alongside of collective agricultural settlements. Simultaneously, Beer Sheva was developed to be the metropolitan capital of the Negev, providing government services and a commercial center for the region (Gradus 1996; Kellerman 1993; Razin & Shachar 2007). Those Bedouin that remained in Israel following 1948 lived under military government and were restricted to the Seig region between Beer Sheva, Dimona and Yerucham (Ben David 1999). From the 1990s, the major developments in Jewish settlement in the northern Negev were the new residential communities of Lehavim, Omer and Meitar. These communities primarily provide low-density living quarters and a small amount of public and commercial services. Meanwhile, in the Bedouin sector, villages proliferated in the Seig and beyond towards the northern and central Negev, which were considered illegal and therefore unrecognized by government agencies (Kliot & Medzini 1985; Yahel 2006). In response to this proliferation of building, new towns were designed to provide permanent and officially sanctioned communities for that quickly growing population (Ben-David 2001; Meir 1996). By 2008 approximately half of the Bedouin population settled in these towns (Goldberg 2008). While design of the towns has improved since the first experiment in Tel Sheva, they continue to be rife with social and economic problems. Despite the establishment of the new towns, due to a continually growing Bedouin population, their unrecognized settlement continues to proliferate (Goldberg 2008; Yahel 2006). 10 In the 1990s, a new settlement type appeared in the Negev: single family farms, or homesteads. These homesteads began at the initiative of individual entrepreneurs and were often established before completing official planning processes (Alfasi 2006). While they were integrated into some regional plans (e.g. The Wine Trail in the central Negev), there legality was challenged on the basis that they contradicted the spirit of overarching national planning guidelines (e.g. National Outline Plan 35, which was made statutory in 2005). By 2003, there were 59 such homesteads in the Negev (Hahn, Sagi, Boral, & Darom 2003); by 2009 some were officially recognized, while others were deemed illegal and have been given eviction orders. The overall picture in 2009 is that all types of settlement in the Negev are growing, particularly the Beer Sheva metropolitan region, the surrounding residential communities, the recognized and unrecognized Bedouin settlements, and the single family farms. The planned “Army Base City” is also underway for area between Beer Sheva and the Negev highlands to the south, which will have tremendous consequences for both human development and ecology. Residential Development, Conservation and Environmental Quality in the Negev The Negev is cited by conservation biologists as a unique ecological corridor, where the Mediterranean ecosystem converges with the more arid Saharo-Arabian desert ecosystem (Frankenberg 1999). Yet, several ecosystem types in the Negev are on the verge of being completely lost to development. For example, the loessal plains in the Northern Negev and Kurkar ridges are being fragmented and lost to development and degradation (Rinat 2003). In fact, much of the public controversy regarding low-density settlement in the Negev (Bedouin and Jewish) centers around the discussion of its environmental impact. In their 2003 position paper, “New Settlement, New Communities and New Homesteads,” the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (Hahn et al. 2003) summarizes the potential environmental impact of the homesteads: • Damage amount and continuity of open space 11 • Ecological damage, including destruction of natural habitat, disruption of ecological corridors, introduction of exotic and weedy species, introduction of domesticated species • Inefficient use of infrastructures, as individual settlements require high per-capita investment in roads, electric wires, and water pipes • Environment injustice, in that public lands become effectively privatized and the broader public loses access to land While far more politically sensitive, the environmental impact of Bedouin settlement may be considered similar to that of low density Jewish homesteads and arguably far broader in scope due to sheer numbers. In general, the conflict between land ownership and the people who live on the land, together with insensitivity in managing marginal, economically and politically repressed minorities leads to rapid depletion of species and destruction of habitats (Findlay 1996). In Israel, the proliferation of illegal building within the Bedouin sector is a striking and environmentally significant outcome of this conflict and it underlies the importance of linking environmental management to broader issues of social and environmental justice. Most theoretical and applied work in the field supports the notion that residential settlement harms ecological systems and has other negative environmental impacts. The most extreme human transformation of landscapes with respect to natural ecosystems is the creation of urban environments (Marzluff & Ewing 2001; McKinney 2002; Theobald 2004). Such transformations result in direct habitat loss and replacement with an entirely dissimilar environment, or the fragmentation of open spaces with dispersed settlement, transportation networks and other infrastructures. Habitat destruction, habitat change and fragmentation are implicated among the primary reasons for loss of global biodiversity (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981; Meffe & Carroll 1994). Indirectly, landscape transformation for human use also brings humans in closer contact to undisturbed habitats (Williams, Morgan, McDonnell, & McCarthy 2005). This increases potential for other major causes of biodiversity loss, including hunting and harvesting, introduction of exotic and feral species, and pollution (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981; Meffe & Carroll 1994). All of these 12 processes contribute to another major cause of biodiversity loss, declining population paradigm, which posits that for genetic, behavioral and stochastic reasons, small populations cannot persevere (Hedrick, Lacy, Allendorf, & Soule 1996; Meffe & Carroll 1994; Soule 1985). Human settlement is often closely followed by synanthropic species, which compete with the native species for resources or predate on them. Such species include crows, pigeons, starlings, rats, cockroaches, domesticated cats and dogs and many others. Domestic and feral cats and dogs have been particularly effective hunters of birds, reptiles and small mammals in the vicinity of human settlement in Israel (Brickner 2003a, 2003b; Perry & Dmi'el 1995). Dispersed settlement brings humans, domesticated animals and synanthropic species in close contact to wild populations. Thai agricultural workers, living in and around peripheral agricultural communities, have been reported to supplement their income by hunting a wide array of birds, mammals, rodents and reptiles for consumption (Yom Tov 2003 and D. Hawlena, pers. comm. 2005). Further, nonnative animals have been imported into Israel that have spread into open spaces and compete with local species for resources. These include ring-necked parakeets, turtles, and various fish species bred for food (Yom Tov & Mendelsohn 1988). Many plant species have likewise been introduced to Israel – either through forestry, agriculture or gardens – to the detriment of local species. Each new community or homestead created in a previously open space becomes a potential locus for the proliferation of such species and other impacts. Despite the widespread assumption that the environmental impact of low density settlement, some debate exists in the academic literature. Some claim that the impact of human settlement on open spaces can have a positive impact on ecological systems and biological diversity (Czamanski et al. 2008). This may be true in areas where residential development replaces a more harmful land use, like intensive agriculture, mining, intensive military activity or general misuse and neglect (off-road vehicles, dumping of waste). Indeed, anthropogenic ecosystems can also include a variety of unique habitats that support their own species assemblages (Eversham, Roy, & Telfer 1996; Godde, 13 Richarz, & Walter 1995). Furthermore, since aesthetics are a profoundly subjective notion (“Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder”), the public may have equally profound differences in opinion regarding the aesthetics of residential neighborhoods (or homesteads) versus the aesthetics of open space. In order to assess the precise impact of residential settlement, it is important to note that defining the type of residential settlement in crucial. This crucial nuance is strikingly absent from the literature. One important exception is Portnov and Safriel’s (2004) analysis of preferred development trajectories from an environmental perspective. They conclude that dense urban settlement is preferred, in particular when compared to agricultural settlement. The authors write: “Since agriculture and livestock grazing are the major contributors to desertification, replacing them with urban development may lessen the risk of desertification in the future. In contrast, urban development, if properly planned and regulated, may reduce the spatial extent of the area affected by agricultural development, and thus minimize the anthropogenic impact on the desert environment” (Portnov & Safriel 2004, p. 659). We hypothesize that each of the predominant settlement types in the Negev - city, agricultural collective, exurban/residential community, homestead, Bedouin town, and unrecognized Bedouin village – each have a unique and characteristic environmental impact on their surroundings (Orenstein 2006). We suggest, for example, that some communities have a direct impact on their surrounding environment because residents use the land surrounding residential areas intensively, as in the case of agriculture around kibbutzim or grazing and off-road vehicle use around Bedouin towns and villages (Fig. 11) On the other hand, around the city of Beer Sheva, the impact on surrounding areas seems to be more often indirect, consisting of light pollution, noise and urban runoff (Fig. 1-2). 14 Fig 1-1: Bedouin unrecognized village Fig 1-2: Beer Sheva, bordering Negev open spaces Content of the Current Report With current and future plans for Negev development in mind, we sought to define the environmental/ecological impact of residential settlement types in the Negev. We proposed to conduct a “nuanced and quantitative assessment of various settlement types in the Negev.” Our objectives were to elucidate the impact of settlement in general, and then to compare the diversity of impacts (if any) displayed by settlement types and then to develop scenarios based on our observations such that future impact can be calculated and, if possible, mitigated. The depth of the current analysis has been increased in comparison to the original proposal, although the breadth of the project has been reduced. For the reasons outlined below (and the understanding the decision making process is crucial to understanding the nature of environmental impact), we chose to select a single settlement type, namely single-family homesteads. We have not studied the other six types of settlements in the Negev. In this document, we report on two years of research including: • Two sets of ecological investigations around the farms (one on rodent distribution in proximity to the homesteads, and the second on reptiles and darkling distribution) • An inventory of observed and potential environmental impacts. • A spatial mapping of current and potential future impacts 15 Research on the homesteads was initiated in early 2009. We have since collected one year of ecological data (to be supplemented with a second year, in 2010). We have conducted a demographic, economic and environmental profile of 28 homesteads between Mitzpe Ramon and Meshabe Sade, and collected geographic coordinates for each. While each subject is the focus of ongoing graduate-level research conducted by the authors, results of the first year of investigation are presented here. Each is given a chapter in this report. A Change in Plans – Negotiating Breadth for Depth The justifications for the change in research focus became immediately obvious upon our first set of field visits and mapping exercises. For the first stage of the project (January – April, 2008) we set out to select a research site that would include a sample of each of the six settlement types (that is, an area with common ecological features that included a city, a residential community, a Bedouin town, an unrecognized Bedouin village, a kibbutz/moshav and a homestead). An additional criterion was that the settlements were separated enough from one another that their impacts could be attributed to settlement in closest proximity and not due to a nearby community. We mapped out five areas where such criteria might be met and conducted a one-day field survey to assess the sights. From our observations, we concluded that land use in the northern Negev was so intensive that the impact of settlement was not discernable over the impact of forestry activity, military training, waste disposal sites and agriculture. There were few, if any, areas that approached natural condition such that the more subtle effects of proximity to human settlement might be measured (Figs. 1-3 to 1-5). A secondary complication was that human settlement was relatively dense in the northern Negev, such that we could scarcely find communities that were spatially isolated from neighboring communities. Finally, there is a great amount of spatial separation between community types, so that a representative sampling of each of the six types within close proximity to one another was difficult to find. Jewish agricultural settlements are concentrated in the NorthWestern Negev, unrecognized Bedouin settlements are concentrated in the North-Eastern 16 Negev, and the greatest concentration of homesteads is in the Central Negev (Fig. 1-6). Fig. 1-3: Fields adjacent to a homestead in the northern Negev surrounded by cultivated agriculture. Most communities in the northern Negev – Bedouin and Jewish alike – are surrounded by cultivated agriculture, as are the residential communities of Omer, Lahavim and Meitar. (a) (b) Fig. 1-4: The Bedouin town of Tel Sheva (a) and the Jewish residential town of Omer (b), separated by a field of cultivated agriculture. Fig.1-5: A homestead in Nachal Ashan north-west of Beer Sheva. Note surrounding hills, heavily used for army training, grazing, cultivation, afforestation (“Savannization”), and in close proximity to Duda’im landfill. 17 Fig. 1-6: Residential communities in the Northern and Central Negev, defined by demographic and/or economic profile. The conclusion resulting from these preliminary field investigations were that in order to reach the goals specified in the original proposal, we would move the focus of our research to the central Negev, where human settlement is more isolated and where land use outside of human settlement is less intensive. Once we decided to relocate our investigation site to the central Negev, we came to realize that the scope of our proposed research was far broader than the one year and small research team we had assembled. We decided at this point to both expand the research by adding additional M.Sc. students to the research team, and to narrow the scope of the research by choosing a single type of settlement to investigate. This report reflects this decision. 18 The “Settlements of Human Impact on Negev Ecology (SHINE)” project This report represents the first in a series of investigations into the ecological and environmental impact of human settlement types in the Central Negev. Later research will use the same theoretical, experimental and assessment frameworks developed in this report to the range of settlement types in the Central Negev. References Alfasi, N. (2006). Planning policy? Between long-term planning and zoning amendments in the Israeli planning system. Environment and Planning A, 38, 553-568. Ben-David, Y. a. A. G. (2001). The Urbanization of the Bedouin and Bedouin-Fallakhin in the Negev. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies. Ben David, Y. (1999). The Bedouin in Israel: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Brickner, I. (2003a). The impact of domestic cat (Felis catus) on wildlife welfare and conservation: a literature review. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.tau.ac.il/lifesci/zoology/members/yom-tov/inbal/cats.pdf Brickner, I. (2003b). The impact of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) on wildlife welfare and conservation: a literature review. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.tau.ac.il/lifesci/zoology/members/yom-tov/inbal/dogs.pdf Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel. (2009). Statistical Abstract of Israel. Jerusalem. Czamanski, D., Benenson, I., Malkinson, D., Marinov, M., Roth, R., & Wittenberg, L. (2008). Urban Sprawl and Ecosystems - Can Nature Survive? International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 2(4), 321-366. Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. (1981). Extinction. New York, NY: Random House. 19 Eversham, B. C., Roy, D. B., & Telfer, M. G. (1996). Urban industrial and other manmade sites as analogues of natural habitats for Carabidae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33, 149156. Findlay, A. M. (1996). Population and Environment in Arid Regions. Liege, Belgium: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population. Frankenberg, E. (1999). Will the Biogeorgraphical Bridge Continue to Exist? Israel Journal of Zoology, 45, 65-74. Godde, M., Richarz, N., & Walter, B. (1995). Habitat conservation and development in the city of Dusseldorf,Germany. In H. Sukopp, M. Numata & A. Huber (Eds.), Urban Ecology as the Basis for Urban Planning (pp. 163–171. ). The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing. Goldberg, E. (2008). The Report of Judge Goldberg's Commission Regarding Settlement of the Bedouin in the Negev. Retrieved. November 16, 2009. http://www.moch.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/770ABFE7-868D-4385-BE9A96CE4323DD72/5052/DochVaadaShofetGoldbergHebrew3.pdf. Government of Israel. (2005). Tokhnit Le'umit Astrategit L'pituakh HaNegev (National Strategic Plan for Negev Development). Retrieved November 15, 2009. from http://www.pmo.gov.il/pmo/archive/decisions/2005/11/des4415. Government of Israel. (2006). Plan for Negev Development. Retrieved. November 16, 2009, http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Government/Decisions/2006/11/des747.htm Gradus, Y. (1996). The Negev Desert: the transformation of a frontier into a periphery. In Y. Gradus & G. Lipshitz (Eds.), The Mosaic of Israeli Geography (pp. 321-334). Beer Sheva, Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. 20 Hahn, I., Sagi, Y., Boral, R., & Darom, Y. (2003). New Settlement, new communities and new homesteads - Position paper of the Society for the Protection of Nature. Tel Aviv, Israel: Department for Protection of Environment and Nature and the Deshe Institute for the Protection of Open Space, the Society for the Protection of Nature. Hedrick, P. W., Lacy, R. C., Allendorf, F. W., & Soule, M. E. (1996). Directions in conservation biology: Comments on Caughley. Conservation Biology, 10(5), 1312-1320. Kellerman, A. (1993). Society and Settlement: Jewish Land of Israel in the Twentieth Century. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Kliot, N., & Medzini, A. (1985). Bedouin Settlement Policy in Israel, 1964-1982: Another Perspective. Geoforum, 16(4), 428-439. Marzluff, J. M., and Ewing, K. (2001). Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: A general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecology, 9(3), 280-292. McKinney, M. L. (2002). Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience, 52(10), 883-890. Meffe, G. K., and Carroll, C. R. (1994). Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Meir, A. (1996). The Negev Bedouin: A Semi Nomadic Society in Transition. In Y. Gradus & G. Lipshitz (Eds.), The Mosaic of Israeli Geography (pp. 335-344). Beersheva, Israel: The Negev Center for Regional Development. Orenstein, D. (2006). The Drivers and Ecological Implications of Land Use/Land Cover Change in Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University, Providence, RI. 21 Perry, G., and Dmi'el, R. (1995). Urbanization and sand dunes in Israel: Direct and indirect effects. Israel Journal of Zoology, 41, 33-41. Portnov, B., and Safriel, U. (2004). Combatting desertification in the Negev: dryland agriculture vs. dryland urbanization. Journal of Arid Environments, 56(4), 659-680. Razin, E., and Shachar, A. (2007). Deconcentration in a context of population growth and ideological change: The Tel-Aviv and Beer-Sheva metropolitan areas. In E. Razin, M. Dijst & C. Vasquez (Eds.), Employment Deconcentration in European Metropolitan Areas (pp. 179-207). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Rinat, Z. (2003). Loss of loess. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=270111. Schechter, Y., and Palmer, R. (2005). National Strategic Plan for the Settlement of the Negev; Part 4 - Residences and Settlement. from http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Archive/Decisions/2005/11/des4415.htm. Soule, M. E. (1985). What Is Conservation Biology. Bioscience, 35(11), 727-734. Theobald, D. M. (2004). Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(3), 139-144. Williams, N. S. G., Morgan, J. W., McDonnell, M. J., & McCarthy, M. A. (2005). Plant traits and local extinctions in natural grasslands along an urban-rural gradient. Journal of Ecology, 93(6), 1203-1213. Yahel, H. (2006). Land Disputes Between the Negev Bedouin and Israel. Israel Studies, 11(2), 1-22. 22 Yom Tov, Y. (2003). Poaching of Israeli wildlife by guest workers. Biological Conservation, 110, 11-20. Yom Tov, Y., & Mendelsohn, H. (1988). Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Vertebrates in Israel. In Y. Yom Tov & E. Tchernov (Eds.), The Zoogeography of Israel: the Distribution and Abundance of a Zoogeographical Crossroad. Dordrecht: DRW Junk Publishers. 23 Chapter 2: Homesteads in the Ramat Negev Region The Origins of Negev Homesteads In an effort to establish a Jewish presence in the Negev that would slow the proliferation of Bedouin land squatting, in the late 1990s Jews were encouraged to establish private homesteads on national lands (Israel State Comptroller Report, 2000). The Ramat HaNegev (Negev Highland) Regional Council, the largest regional council in Israel was the most enthusiastic advocate of this settlement policy. The Ramat HaNegev regional council (Fig. 2-1) covers an area of 4.3 million dunams, which constitutes 22 percent of the land mass in the state of Israel. It is located between the Negev Junction in the north and the Ramon Crater in the south, highway 10 and the Egyptian border on the west, and the Large Crater to the east. Two development towns are surrounded by the regional council - Yeruham and Mitzpe Ramon). While the Ramat HaNegev regional council may be rich in territory, it is sparse in population. Some twelve permanent residential communities are located in the council including four kibbutzim (Revivim, Mashavei Sadeh, Tlalim and Sede Boqer), five communal settlements (Midreshet Ben Gurion, Eshalim, Ezuz, Merchav Am, and Ratamim) and three moshavim (Kadesh Barnea, Kamhin and Beer Milkah). The Council is also home to an educational community (the Nitsana Youth Village), and two similar projects (Ruach Midbar- Desert Spirit and Shanti in the Desert) in the process of being established. The number of permanent residents in the region, as of 2006 numbered only 4500 (Ramat Negev, 2009). 24 Figure 2-1: Ramat Negev Regional Council While the regional council boasts a broad range of professional activities by its residents and its proximity to Beer Sheva, it has not yet been successful in creating large occupational opportunities for residents, beyond the traditional agricultural ventures. The Regional Council lists “demographic growth” as its paramount objective in its publications and it is actively involved in creating residential and employment opportunities to encourage Jewish citizens to come south. The impulse to settle the geographical “frontiers” of the state, including the Negev, has always been part of the Zionist ethos and it has received an additional boost in recent years with the proliferation of Israel’s Bedouin population in the Negev region. In both the national government and the local council there is concern about the growing size and number of “unrecognized villages,” many of which are located within the 25 jurisdiction of Ramat HaNegev. According to a 2004 report, the overall Bedouin population in the Negev increased 50% in only seven years. The numbers of Bedouin living in the unrecognized villages increased even faster: from 47,500 in 1995 to 82,700 in 2002 according to one study, translating into growth of 74.1% (Ben Gurion University, 2004). The Bedouin community has a long history of disputes with the state over land ownership in the region (Krakover, 1999, Yahel, 2006). As they perceive that they lack legal means to obtain land, members of this community often build homes and small farms to provide their burgeoning population without official consent or permits. As of 2006, some 42,000 illegal structures were identified in the southern region of Israel, the vast majority of which belonged to the area’s Bedouin population. The perception of pervasive lawlessness has created an increasing sense among the Jewish population that the state was losing control of the Negev. In 1997 the head of the “Green Patrol”, the government enforcement unit with a mandate for protecting open spaces (often from unrecognized Bedouin settlement), proposed a plan to then Minister of Agriculture Refael Eitan, which included five measures for protecting the country's lands from trespassing. These measures included settlement, land usage, grazing, forestation and enforcement. Two days later, both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for National Infrastructures at the time, Ariel Sharon, decided to support the strategy and promote single settlements/homesteads, to these ends. The issue was not raised and/or discussed with the Ministers' Committee for Settlement Issues, as required by governmental law legislated in March 1975. The four other alternatives for land keeping were not further considered (Israel State Comptroller, 2000). Thus, with government enforcement capacity inadequate to counter the illegal construction phenomenon, the establishment of Jewish settlements was deemed an effective way to preempt illegal squatting. The “best-defense-is-a- good-offense” rationale held that these “homesteads” would create a Jewish presence on lands that otherwise would not be settled and which might quickly be filled by Bedouin squatters. According to Israel Lands Administration's (ILA) data, by 1998, thirty-five 26 homesteads had been established in the Ramat HaNegev Council. During 1998, five more homesteads were established. However, these figures may be misleading, as the establishment of homesteads has not been well documented, and some of them have been established prior to receiving proper permits and in contravention of planning norms.. At present, our research identified the total number of active homesteads in Ramat HaNegev at 27 (Fig. 2-2), although several more are in the advanced planning phase and the chairman of the regional council ultimately envisions as many as one hundred more. When added up to date, the ILA has leased 66,000 dunams of agricultural land and 2,000 dunams of residential land to homestead owners according to a 49-year-lease. The leases allow for establishment of an estate designed for both residential dwelling and economic activity (e.g. agriculture, tourism, etc.) for land's owner (Israel State Comptroller, 2000). Leasing fees are largely considered “symbolic” (Tal, 2006). Figure 2-2: Jewish Settlement in the Ramat Negev region. 27 At present, the homesteads support a range of economic enterprises including private wineries, cheese farms and restaurants. Many of those with tourist orientation have been integrated into a network called: the "Wine Route" or the “Spice Route” This tourism plan has been envisioned and promoted to allow tourists to wander among the diverse homesteads, thereby increasing the visitor traffic to the area and generating income for the local residents. The initial construction costs for the homesteaders are typically not prohibitive and structures are relatively modest. Several of these settlements have succeeded in becoming attractive tourist sites and their owners have become modestly prosperous. The Public Debate over Homesteads From the outset, the homestead policy was controversial. Proponents of the initiative argued that these settlements served to preserve open spaces that would otherwise be settled illegally by Bedouin. Further arguments, as described above, were that the homesteads would bring much needed revenue to the area in the form of tourism and agricultural income, and would revitalize local demographics and bring further settlement. And the role of the homesteads in realizing Ben Gurion’s dream of developing the Negev was widely acknowledged and advertised by supporting government agencies, quasi-government agencies (The Jewish National Fund) and nongovernmental agencies (Tnuat Or). Opponent argued against the homesteads on social, legal and environmental grounds. There were claims the policy of establishing Jewish low-density settlements contradicted the frequently argued point that the Negev had no room for low-density [Bedouin] settlement. Similarly, it was argued that the homesteads violated the spirit and letter of National Outline Plan 35, which discourages new, non-contiguous settlement. Others argued that the process by which the homesteads were established was not legal, and that the process in principle took away what belonged to the public and gave it to private hands. The environmental critique was perhaps most vociferous; it is this critique to which we respond in greater detail below and in this report in general. In 2007, the government formally weighed in on the debate, strongly backing the initiative: 28 "The government has decided, pursuant to its decision from 8.11.2002 that single settlements are a mean of implementation the government’s policy of developing the Negev and Galilee and with continuation of the government’s action towards legal resolution of the Bedouin settlement in the Negev, to appoint an inter-ministerial committee that will operate to legalize and arrange the status of existing farms, that will make recommendations to the government about future regulations and procedures to establish new farms. In the Negev area there are 60 farms; 25 of them have been legally settled, 15 more are in process, and the rest 15 farms are yet to be addressed." (Israel Government, 2007). Green advocates were not convinced. Homesteads, they argued, are designed to be fenced enclaves that delineate sovereignty over surrounding lands. The public could not simply walk across the lands that previously been in the public domain with unrestricted access. Fenced areas would truncate habitats for local animals. As will be discussed in greater detail subsequently, critics argued that ecologically, the settlements contributed to the steady fragmentation of habitat in some of the last large swaths of open spaces remaining in Israel. Environmental organizations challenged the legality homesteads, as did several government officials. Establishment of settlements was not done in a conventional, open and transparent public tender. The usual system for issuing building permits which serves to prevent engineering and environmental mistakes was circumvented. The Society for Protection of Nature (SPNI) in Israel prepared a detailed position paper attacking the homestead system. Their basic objection was associated with their general concern for protecting Israel’s open spaces. But the arguments were also linked to broader considerations involving the rule of law and discrimination. "More and more lands that were the province of the general public are allocated to the isolated settler and are actually removed from the shrinking reservoir of open spaces that are designated for the public's well being. Isolated settlements that are established without planning on lands that are largely agricultural or open spaces that are not residentially zoned, will cause irreversible damage in the long run. The form and scope of individual settlements pose egregious moral ramifications. Violations of the law are 29 knowingly and openly committed, even with the encouragement of the agencies that are supposed to be maintaining the law. And as a result, an entire generation is raised in a reality where violations of the law are a norm and lawlessness pays off…” The SPNI also argued that the project was wasteful in terms of public funds. According to the Prime Minister’s office, the average assistance granted to a homestead reached 230,000 shekels to provide water and sewage infrastructure, electricity and preparation of agricultural lands as well as a “settler’s” individual budget of 80,000 shekels from the Jewish Agency. When you add to that the additional costs for roads and establishing safe, lighted, turnoffs to the settlements, it involved a considerable public expense. The SPNI was not alone in its concern about the legality of the settlements. Arab human rights advocates, such as “Adalah” (the legal centre for Arab minority rights in Israel) expressed its strong objections, counting 59 homesteads throughout the Negev area, that occupy over than 81,000 dunams (a formal letter, 17/6/09). The notion that Jewish settlement receives preferential treatment, relative to that of Israeli Arab initiatives, is well accepted (Kellerman, 1993). This is also a function of the prodigious support provided by private, non-governmental institutions such as the Jewish Agency or the Jewish National Fund.. Support for the critics came from official sources as well. The 2000 report of the Israel State Comptroller Office publicly criticized the Israel Lands Authority and officials in the Regional Council for neglecting to conform to the standard procedures for allocating lands. (Israel State Comptroller, 2000) The report further states that in order for a single settlement/homestead to be consistent with the law and properly managed, the ILA must allocate its land according to the law of tender (1992), and its associated regulations. The Committees for Planning and Building must approve the development program, and eventually the owner of the homestead must sign a leasing contract for residential building with the ILA. In practice, none of the homesteads was created according to an open and transparent public tender, and none of them possessed the mandatory building permits (Tal 2008). The Comptroller’s criticism was not only limited to the ILA. Other governmental 30 ministries (Ministry of Housing and Construction, Ministry of National Infrastructure, Ministry of Agriculture) and other agencies (Mekorot Water Company, Bezeq Telecommunication Company) were charged with acting inappropriately in their support of homesteads. The Ramat HaNegev Regional Council was singled out for its violations of planning and construction regulations as well as principals of National Outline Plan that were ignored. In mid 1999 there were 24 homesteads that lacked any legal status on their already-settled land (State Comptroller Report for 1999, 2000) and this number has since grown. Accordingly, the National Planning and Building Council was loathe to provide retroactive permits to these settlements given their present planning perspective and the fear of creating precedents for other regional councils that might want to establish “facts on the ground” in terms of their internal settlement agenda when it conflicts with a national planning strategy. Concerns regarding homesteads’ impact on the integrity of local ecological systems Of the twenty-seven active homesteads in operation in the Ramat HaNegev Regional Council, all are located next to main roads to which they are connected via dirt or paved access roads. Most of the homesteads' owners utilize their land for agriculture (mainly grapes and olives) and/or livestock (goats, cows), as well as tourism (B&B, jeeps, etc.). Figure 2-3 shows the breakdown of the homesteads by economic activity. 31 Figure 2-3: Economic Orientation of Ramat Negev Homesteads Due to the widespread use of irrigation and land cultivation, the homesteads constitute “green patches” or man-made oases, with environmental conditions different from those in the surrounding desert. This may have a direct effect on the local flora and fauna. Frequently, they are clustered together with only a few kilometers separating one from another. While it is important to understand their individual impact, undoubtedly there collectively produce a cumulative impact which may be harder to identify. An undated internal report for the Nature and Parks Authority (Hawlena, undated) argues that the settlements’ presence has a tremendous effect on local ecosystems, interfering with natural processes that maintain balance and biodiversity. It is also posited that the wider the distribution of settlements, the greater their collective spatial effect. Furthermore, when settlements are located along a continuum, it makes it easier for invasive and opportunistic species to use the settlements as stepping stones (Meffe, 1997) 32 and to establish themselves in new and wider areas. Settlement may cause changes in the landscape (e.g. infrastructures) that may become convenient invasion routes. Conceptually it surely conceivable that a series of small settlements, spread throughout the Negev, could bring about the process of homogenization on the one hand and accelerate the process of fragmentation and habitats’ artificial division on the other (Kozakiewicz, 1999, Ro & Hong 2008). According to Hawlena these influences may have a greater effect in dryland regions, where ecological systems are more sensitive. For example, water run-off near desert settlements considerably increases water and nutrient inputs into the arid natural habitat, potentially creating steep productivity gradients along the settlement edge. Urban fragmentation in the desert therefore may generate a unique set of ecological changes along the urban–wildland interface that should be expected to impact arid region fauna (Crooks et al 2004). Yet, to date, these concerns have not been assessed empirically. Israel’s planning has undergone a major change in its operational paradigms during the past two decades. Planning experts argue that the shift began with the massive wave of immigration from the former U.S.S.R. "The new planning doctrine is highly sensitive to scarcity of land and is based on a view of the future map of Israel as an agglomeration of four metropolitan regions, strongly interconnected and sharply delineated by the open spaces and green areas between them". (Shachar, 1998). The case of homesteads appears to represent a clash between past paradigms for settlement and the newer, more preservation oriented one (Orenstein and Hamburg, 2009). This case is not unique and several inconsistencies have been identified between official doctrine and actual practices regarding land use and nature preservation (Alfasi, 2006). Since there is a clear vision and policy held by the authorities for expanding Negev settlement via homesteads in the future, a need exists for a thorough examination of their environmental impacts. This study assessed ecological and environmental conditions among 14 of the 27 active homesteads in the Ramat Negev Regional Council. Figure 2-4 specifies which farms were included in the current study. The subsequent chapters present the findings from the initial pilot study, funded by Israel’s Ministry of Environmental Protection. It offers the first systematic assessment of the subject. 33 Figure 2-4: Homesteads assessed in this study References Alfasi N., (2006), Planning policy? Between long-term planning and zoning amendments in the Israeli planning system. Environment and Planning 38 (A), 553-568 Ben Gurion University of the Negev (2004), The Statistical Yearbook for the Bedouin in the Negev, 2004 in Conjunction with the Conrad Adenauer Foundation, The Center for Research of Bedouin Society and Its Development, Beer Sheva. Crooks, K.R. et al (2004), Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape, Biological Conservation 115: 451–462. Hawlena, D. (undated), Settlement centers as a mean of reducing the damaging sideeffects on the natural ecological system of the Negev, internal report for the Israel Nature and Park Authority (in Hebrew). Israel Government (2007), “Decision to appoint a committee to arrange for the status of 34 existing individual settlement chaired by the Director General of the Prime Minister’s Office, sixth agenda item, Jerusalem, July 15, 2007. www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Archive/mazkir/2007/07/govmes150707.htm. Israel State Comptroller Report for the year 1999 (2000), chapter 2: Government OfficesIsrael Lands Administration, Single Settlements, Pp. 602-607 (in Hebrew). http://80.70.129.40/50b.htm. Kellerman A., 1993. Society and Settlement: Jewish Land of Israel in the Twentieth Century. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 321 pp. Khokhlova, I. et al (2000), Body mass and environment: A study in Negev rodents, Israel Journal of Zoology, 46: 1-13 Krakover S., (1999), Urban settlements program and land dispute resolution: the state of Israel versus the Negev Bedouin,. GeoJournal 47, 551-561 Meffe, G.K., Carrol, C.R. (1997). Principles of Conservation Biology, Second Edition, Sinnauer, Sunderland Massachusetts. Orenstein, D. E. and Hamburg, S. P., 2009. To populate or preserve? Evolving politicaldemographic and environmental paradigms in Israeli land-use policy. Land Use Policy 26(4), 984-1000. Ramat HaNegev Regional Council (2009) web-site, “About the Council”, www.ramatnegev.org.il Ro, T.H. & Hong, S.K. (2008), Landscape ecology for biodiversity- scaling up, in Landscape Ecological Applications in Man-Influenced Areas: Linking Man and Nature Systems, edited by S.-K. Hong, N. Nakagoshi, B.J. Fu and Y. Morimoto, Springer Science+ Business Media B.V. Springer, Dordrecht, 149-161. Shachar A., 1998. Reshaping the Map of Israel: a New National Planning Doctrine. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 555. Israel in transition. Jan 1998, 209-218. Society for Preservation of Nature in Israel, "Summary of the Society for Protection of Nature's Position Regarding Isolated Settlements", (Tel Aviv, 2006). Copy with author [Hebrew]. Tal, A. (2008), Space Matters: historic drivers and turning points in Israel's open space protection policy, Israel Studies 13(1): 119-151. Yahel H., (2006), Land Disputes between the Negev Bedouin and Israel. The Journal of Israel Studies 2 (2) 1-22. 35 Chapter 3: Rodent Activity Along a Distal Gradient From Homesteads (Havot Bodedim) in Har-Hanegev Region In this chapter, the potential influence of the "Wine Route" homesteads in the Har HaNegev region on the surrounding rodent species is assessed. Rodent diversity is used as a tool for assessing and indicating any ecological impact of human disturbances on the fauna, if exists. In this study, we assess impact by surveying rodent abundance at different distances from the homesteads. The results of this section can help inform landuse planning on a regional scale, and efforts to assure pre-development levels of biodiversity. Rodents as Bio-indicators A healthy ecosystem has been defined as one that is free from distress and degradation, maintains its organization and autonomy over time, and is resilient to stress (Patil et al 2001). Ecosystem health assessments, generally based on extrapolation from limited field data, provide empirical support for the use of such indicators for monitoring health (and conversely, degradation) in field situations (Patil et al 2001). Impact indicators are systems/organisms, whose vitality is altered in response to changes in environmental condition (e.g. anthropogenic changes). Donnelly et al (2004) suggest a definition of an indicator: “a parameter or a value derived from parameters, which points to/provides information about/describes the state of a phenomenon/environment/area with a significance extending beyond that directly associated with a parameter value” (Donnelly et al 2004). Indicators therefore provide information about phenomena that are regarded as typical for, and/or critical to, environmental quality. They are used to simplify a complex reality. Indicators also serve as an early warning system, by providing available observational data that may point to an environmental problem which may be addressed before the situation deteriorates (Donnelly et al 2004). 36 Avenant (2003) reasoned that the monitoring of small mammals constitutes a relatively quick and inexpensive method of indicating healthy or unhealthy ecosystem functioning. Small mammal monitoring should also add to our knowledge about small mammal habitat preferences, correlations with plant communities, whether and under what circumstances species function as ecosystem engineers, the existence of keystone or indicator species, as well as the method which should be used to sample small mammals effectively. Such studies are, therefore, essential for the conservation and regulation of small mammal biodiversity and terrestrial ecosystems (Avenant 2003). Rodents typically form a vital component of desert ecosystems. They are not only important in nutrient cycling, habitat modification, as consumers of plants, dispersers of seed (and sometimes even predators of invertebrates), but also constitute the primary link between primary producers and secondary consumers (Avenant & Cavallini 2007). The mechanisms of these relationships, however, are extremely complex. Among others, rodent species composition and species richness have been related to habitat structure and complexity, area, productivity, predation, trampling and grazing, surrounding landscape and the distance between similar habitats, maturity of the habitat / succession of the vegetation, and the presence of exotics. In general, changes in rodent habitats are associated with changes in rodent diversity and community structure. The ecological disturbance of these habitats is also associated with the presence or absence of indicator species and decreases in rodent species richness (Avenant & Cavallini 2007). As such they have been identified as valuable indicators of habitat integrity in natural habitats, and rodent sampling is considered to be a very effective, practical and relatively inexpensive tool to study, describe and monitor ecosystem or habitat integrity. Rodents react fast to habitat change. Due to clear and easy to observe reproductive seasons and consequent fluctuations in densities, studying this major prey group is ideal for indicating short term dynamics (Avenant & Cavallini 2007). Rodents are also specialized and adapted for survival in “smaller” habitats and are, therefore, suited as indicators of ecosystem integrity in smaller areas. They are relatively easy to handle, mark and it is simple to monitor their movements (Avenant & Cavallini 2007). 37 Research Plan, Methods and Field Survey Rodents were trapped in 13 homesteads (sites) and in one control site (the EvenAri experimental area) which is at least 1.5 km away from any human settlement. Trapping took place during the months August-September 2009 and will resume during February-April 2010, excluding nights when the moon is full or almost full. In each site 12 plots were set. Plots, 400m2 each, were selected on the basis of topography (wadi, rocky slopes or rocky/gravel plain habitats- major habitats for rodents in Har-HaNegev region, and will be referred as Wadi or Rocky habitats) and distance from the homestead (50m, 100m, 500m). In each site, two different plots shared the same habitat and distance variables (for example: 50m from the homestead/site- 2 plots were placed in 2 different wadis, and 2 plots were placed in two different rocky areas, similarly for 100m and 500m). Same methodology was used for the control area, only the point from which 50m, 100m and 500m were measured was undisturbed, at least 1500m far from any human settlement and/or infrastructure. Each plot contained 10 Sherman folding live-traps (23×8×9 cm) that were set for 2-3 consecutive nights. We adopted a 3-day survey period as described in Shenbrot & Krasnov (2004) as a trade-off between time investment and completeness of survey. Preliminary trapping during 6–8 days of foremost common species (G. dasyurus, G. gerbillus, G. henleyi, M. crassus, A. cahirinus and A. russatus) demonstrated that 35–50% of all individuals were recorded during the first night, 60–70% in the first 2 nights and 80–85% in the first 3 nights, whereas additional trapping nights added no more than 2– 7% of individuals (Shenbrot & Krasnov 2004). Traps were baited with millet seeds and placed in 2 rows and 5 columns at 10m intervals; some were placed in open areas, and some under bushes. Traps were set in late afternoon and examined in early morning. Species, sex, body mass (Pesola scale to 1 g), approximate age (adult, subadult, and juvenile), and reproductive state (appearance of testes in males; lactation and pregnancy in females) were recorded for each rodent. 38 In addition, we counted and documented in each plot the number of porcupine diggings, rodent burrows and feeding tables (the accumulation of many broken shells of the Desert Snail, Trochoidea seetzenii, that were cracked and eaten by desert rodents) (Abramsky et al 1990). These data allow us a better understanding of rodent activity in the surveyed area. Location of the plots was documented using GPS (Garmin GPSmap 76), and they were all photographed by digital camera. It's important to keep in mind that there are several difficulties associated with this experiment, as in other field experiments: true replication may be unattainable, as the combination of factor levels is unique for each homestead. Moreover, considerable "noise" in the data is predicted, both because the environment is heterogeneous at many scales, and because field measurements are often crude compared to those achieved under laboratory conditions, resulting in greater measurement error in field studies. Even at smaller scales (rocky and wadi habitats, as were defined in each homestead), it can be difficult to find relatively homogeneous areas (Ver hoef & Cressie 2001). Results During the sampling period we trapped the following rodents: • Gerbillus dasyurus (Wagner, 1842), Wagner’s Gerbil (21.1 g)-granivorous, habitat generalist (inhabitant of wadi and loess valleys), avoids only sands. • Acomys cahirinus (dimidiatus) (Desmarest, 1819), Common Spiny Mouse (42.8 g)- omnivorous, rock dweller. • Jaculus jaculus (Linnaeus, 1758), Lesser Egyptian Jerboa (67.0 g) - have a mixed diet of seeds and green parts of vegetation, open gravel plains, not expected to be trapped in live-traps in summer (Shenbrot & Krasnov 2004). Only one individual was caught. Since about 85% (out of 147) of the trapped rodents were Gerbillus dasyurus (Gd), and the rest were Acomys cahirinus (dimidiatus) (Ac) and only one Jaculus jaculus (Jj), community assessments cannot be offered. Therefore, the data contrasting the different species will not be presented here. All rodents will be treated as a single group for this 39 stage of the research. After taking more samples in the coming spring, it may become possible to draw a clearer picture of community composition. In figure 3-1 below, a general overview containing the number of rodents that were trapped in all the homesteads can be seen, according to distance from the homestead. Overall, the highest number of trapped rodents was measure among the 500m plots. Total rodent catches and distances from all homesteads numof catches 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50m 100m 500m distance (m') from homestead Fig. 3-1: Rodent catches by distance from homestead (both habitats included)- all homesteads. Figure 3-2 integrates the data in figure 3-1 with variables involving habitat. 40 Num. of catches Total rodent catches and habitats- all homesteads 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 rocky wadi 10 5 0 50m 100m 500m Distance from homestead Fig. 3- 2: Rodent catches by distance from homestead and habitat type - all homesteads. In figure 3 below we bring the data from the control farm. The distances are from a given 'starting' point, 1.5 km away from any settlement. Rodent catches according to habitat- control (Even-Ari farm) Num. of catches 10 8 rocky 6 wadi 4 2 0 50m 100m 500m Distance fom a given point Fig. 3-3 : Rodent catches by distance from control site and habitat type - control. In figure 3-4 below, the data were analyzed according to the main farming style of the different homesteads: tourism, plant agriculture, animal agriculture. 41 Groups according to farming style num of catches 35 plant agri animal agri tourism 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 50 100 500 distance (m') from homestead Fig 3-4: Total rodent catches according to distance from the homestead and the main farming style- all homesteads. Figures 3-5 to 3-7 below show the data regarding porcupine digs in all homesteads: Figure 5 presents results according to farming style while figures 6 and 7 group plant agriculture and animal agriculture together. wadi 30 25 digs rocky Average number of porcupine Average num. of porcupine digs (area of 800m²) according to distance and habitat- all homesteads (n=12) 20 15 10 5 0 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homestead Fig. 3-5: Average number of porcupine digs in an area of 800m², according to distance and habitat- all homesteads. 42 rocky wadi Average number Average num. of porcupine digs (area of 800m²) according to distance and habitat- touristic homesteads (n=6) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homested Fig. 3-6: Average number of porcupine digs in an area of 800m², according to distance and habitat- touristic homesteads Average number Average num. of porcupine digs (area of 800m²) according to distance and habitat- agricultural homesteads (n=6) 20 15 rocky 10 wadi 5 0 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homestead .Fig. 3-7: Average number of porcupine digs in an area of 800m², according to distance and habitatagricultural homesteads. 43 Figures 3-8 to 3-10 below show the data regarding rodent burrows, in all homesteads (fig. 8), and according to farming style (fig.3-9 and 3-10). Plant agriculture and animal agriculture are grouped together. 20 burrows Average number of rodent Average num. of rodent burrows (area of 800m²) according to distance and habitat- all homesteads 15 rocky 10 wadi 5 0 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homestead Fig. 3-8: Average number of rodent burrows in an area of 800m², according to distance from homesteads and habitat- all homesteads. 44 wadi 25 20 burrows rocky Average num. of rodent Average num. of rodent burrows (area of 800m²) according to distance and habitat- touristic homesteads (n=4) 15 10 5 0 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homestead Fig.3- 9: Average number of rodent burrows in an area of 800m², according to distance from homesteads and habitat- touristic homesteads. wadi 30 25 burrows rocky Average num. of rodent Average num. of rodent burrows (area of 800m²) according to distance and habitat- agricultural homesteads (n=4) 20 15 10 5 0 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homestead Fig. 3-10: Average number of rodent burrows in an area of 800m², according to distance from homesteads and habitat- agricultural homesteads. Figures 3-11 to 3-13 below show the data regarding feeding tables, in all homesteads (fig. 3-11), and according to farming style (fig. 3-12 and 3-13). Plant agriculture and animal agriculture are grouped together. 45 tables Average number of feeding Average num. of feeding tables (area of 800m²) according to distance and habitat- all homesteads (n=8) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 rocky wadi 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homestead Fig. 3-11: Average number of feeding tables in an area of 800m², according to distance from homesteads and habitat- all homesteads. wadi tables rocky Average num. of feeding Average num. of feeding tables (area of 800m²) according to distance and habitat- touristic homesteads (n=4) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homestead Fig. 3-12: Average number of feeding tables in an area of 800m², according to distance from homesteads and habitat- touristic homesteads. 46 wadi 10 8 tables rocky Average num. of feeding Average num. of feeding tables (area 800m²) according to distance and habitat- agricultural homesteads (n=4) 6 4 2 0 50 100 500 Distance (m') from homestead Fig. 3-13: Average number of feeding tables in an area of 800m², according to distance from homesteads and habitat- agricultural homesteads. Conclusions The study clearly indicates that rocky areas are the rodents’ preferred habitats. It can be assumed that this predilection has nothing to do with the homesteads per se. Gd is known to be habitat generalist, and Ac is known to be a rock dwellers. Similarly, there is a clear natural trend of higher porcupine activity in wadis, where the soil is softer and easier for digging when looking for tubers. In figures 3-1 and 3-2 (total catching), no clear trend of species abundance is apparent. But when looking at total catches according to farming style (fig. 3-4), an interesting, yet not significant, trend is noticeable: in homesteads with planted agriculture rodents appear to be more abundant in closer ranges (50m) than in more distant monitoring sites. This trend, however, is not strengthened by burrow counts and feeding tables, but is noticeable in porcupine digs (fig. 3-5 to 3-7). It is a finding that should be explored in future research. When comparing fig. 3-2 (all homesteads) with fig. 3-3 (control), one can notice that in the 50m and 100m the picture in both is more or less the same. But in the 500m fewer rodents were trapped in the control, and none of them was caught in the favoured 47 rocky habitat. Another interesting, yet statistically insignificant trend, is the higher number of burrows and feeding tables in the closer range (50m) in touristic homesteads (fig. 9 and fig. 12). An opposite trend appears in agricultural homesteads (fig. 10 and fig.13), 'where it appears that rodents favor' the farthest range (500m). It should again be emphasized that these findings, while interesting are not statistically significant and therefore require further sampling during different seasons as well. While fifty percent of the homesteads were studied, the overall sample size is not large, weakening statistical power in the study’s analysis. One cannot also ignore the fact that the variance amongst the homesteads, even ones that share the same farming style, is high (topography and its orientation, altitude, management, infrastructures, etc.). This constitutes an important factor that affects data collection and may confound analysis in the present research. Taking these caveats into account, our initial study suggests that the impact of homesteads on rodent abundance (if any) is ambiguous and needs further checking. References Abramsky, Z. et al (1990). Predation by rodents and the distribution and abundance of the snail Trochoidea seetzenii in the Central Negev Desert of Israel, Oikos 59(2): 225-234. Avenant, N.L. (2003). The use of small mammal community characteristics as an indicator of ecological disturbance in the Korannaberg Conservancy, Pp. 95-98 in Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and management, edited by Singleton, G.R., Hinds, L.A., Krebs, C.J. and Spratt, D.M., Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra. Avenant, N.L. and Cavallini, P. (2007). Correlating rodent community structure with ecological integrity, Tussen-die-Riviere Nature Reserve, Free State province, South Africa, Integrative Zoology 2: 212-219. 48 Donnelly, A. et al (2004). A review of indicators of climate change for use in Ireland, Int J. Biometeorol 49: 1–12. Luck, G.W. et al (2004). Alleviating spatial conflict between people and biodiversity, PNAS 101(1): 182-186. Marzluff, J.M. and Neatherlin, E. (2006). Corvid response to human settlements and campgrounds: causes, consequences, and challenges for conservation, Biological Conservation 130: 301-314. Patil, G.P. et al (2001). Ecosystem health and its measurement at landscape scale: towards the next generation of quantitative assessments, Ecosystem Health 7(4): 307-316. Shenbrot, G. and Krasnov, B. (2004). Temporal dynamics in spatial organization of a rodent community in the Negev Highlands (Israel), J. Zool., Lond. 263: 207–218. Ver Hoef, J.M & Cressie, N. (2001). Spatial statistics, analysis of field experiments, Chapter. 15, Pp. 289-307 in Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, edited by Scheiner, S.M. & Gurevitch, J., 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, New York. 49 Chapter 4: Homestead Impacts on Reptile and Darkling Beetle Diversity In this chapter, the impact of homesteads in the Ramat Negev regional council on reptile and beetle biodiversity is assessed. Reptile diversity in the Negev Reptiles are adapted to exist in the harsh climates of deserts and arid lands. Even in areas where other wildlife has become scarce, reptiles can still be abundant. They are more abundant in the tropics and subtropics than in the temperate zones. The reptile’s dry, thickened and cornified skin is suitable for these climates and habitats and protects the animals from shocks and risks of dehydration (Capula, 1989). Human development and activities have had several impacts on the reptile diversity in the Negev. It is has been shown that two opposing factors affect reptile abundance near agricultural fields: higher primary production of the agricultural fields, and use of insecticides that affect the reptiles’ prey, the first increasing and the second decreasing reptile abundance (Alexander et al., 2002; Peveling et al., 2003). Moreover, numerous perching spots for birds near agricultural fields might put additional pressure on reptiles. Contrary to reptile abundance, however, reptile richness and diversity seem to be higher at sites closer to agricultural lands, suggesting that the effects of higher productivity may outweigh the negative effects of proximity to agricultural lands, and that this proximity provides an advantage for certain species. For example, commensal species, such as the Hemidactylus turcicus gecko, or the generalist gecko, Stenodactylus sthenodactylus, are found almost solely near agricultural farms (Hawlena and Bouskila in press). Darkling Beetle diversity in the Negev Darkling beetles are an important component of desert ecosystems. They are able to survive under even the harshest conditions as a result of physiological and behavioral 50 adaptations and occupy important ecological niches in desert habitats. Much has been studied about them, but little is known about the effect different agricultural activities have on them. Methodology Pitfall traps were used to capture both beetles and reptiles. This was done in 6 plots in each of the fourteen homesteads that were monitored. Plots of 400m2 in size were selected in the wadis. The distances from the edge of the homesteads to each plot varied, starting at 50m, 100m and 500m, the latter serving as a control site. At each of the three distances, two plots were studied. Five small buckets were buried as the pitfall traps in each plot. The pitfalls were covered with rocks to provide shade to any beetle or reptile that was trapped. The pitfalls were left open and checked once a week. Each reptile caught was identified and sexed. Immediately after recording data, reptiles were released to the area adjacent to the trapping site. Similarly, any beetle that was trapped was identified and released. The first phase of the research was completed between the months of August and October 2009. Results Reptile abundance was high near the homestead 50m (Fig 1), this can be while 500m (green) has the lowest number of reptiles. A total of 16 reptiles were trapped in the pitfalls which include the following species: Eyed Cylindrical skink, Lichtennstein's Short-fingered Gecko, Olivier's Sand lizard, Small-spotted Lizard and Snake -eyed Lizard. Species richness was much higher near farms, yielding 7 species of reptiles compared to one or 2 species in the other distances (Fig 4-1). Overall abundance was also much higher near the farms. 51 Fig.4-1 – Number of Reptiles according to distance from homesteads Fig. 4-2 - Number of Reptiles according to distance from homesteads From these results, the beetles have a preference for the 500m distance, although the difference is not that big from as compared to the 50 and 100m. Conclusions From the study it clearly emerges that the reptiles prefer the areas closest to the 52 homesteads which are at a distance of 50 m away. This may be due to the higher primary production of the homesteads. Species richness was also high in the 50m distance as compared to the other two distance, 7 species were found in the 50 m, 1 in the 100m and 2 in the 500 m. Results also suggest that beetles prefer staying far away from homesteads, where there is less human activities. In assessing beetle diversity, it is important to note that all three distances showed similar species presence, but the 500m distance had greater richness (numbers) of beetles than did trapping sites closer to the homesteads. This data of course remains preliminary. In order for solid conclusions to be made, additional field studies during the spring “phase two” during the spring time will be required in order to ascertain whether there is a meanigful impact of homesteads on biodiversity. References Dolev, A., and Perevolotsky, A. (2004). The Red Book: Vertebrates in Israel. The Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, Jerusalem. Ehrlich, P. R., and Ehrlich, A. (1981). Extinction, Random House, New York, NY. Frankenberg, E. (1999). "Will the Biogeorgraphical Bridge Continue to Exist?" Israel Journal of Zoology, 45, 65-74. Schmitzberger, I. et al (2005), How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 108:274–290. Skole, D., Tucker, C., 1993. Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: Satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260, 1905–1910. 53 Tal, A. (2002). Pollution in a Promised Land, University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Yom Tov, Y., and Mendelsohn, H. (1988). "Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Vertebrates in Israel." The Zoogeography of Israel: the Distribution and Abundance of a Zoogeographical Crossroad, Y. Yom Tov and E. Tchernov, eds., DRW Junk Publishers, Dordrech 54 Chapter 5: General Environmental Impact Introduction In this chapter we review the results of one year of observations regarding the environmental impacts of the Central Negev homesteads. Our observations, as we detail below, lead to several questions in need of further research. The first addresses the question of environmental awareness and any correlating environmental impacts of the individual homestead residents. The second involves the status of environmental regulations regarding the homesteads, and the degree of enforcement of those regulations. Upon surveying the homesteads, our first realization was that the impact of each homestead was unique, based on its physical location and related land uses (before and after the establishment of the homestead). Because of this, we felt it necessary to survey each homestead as a unique case study, rather than assess the aggregate impact of the homesteads as a group. Land use / # Homestead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 − √ − √ − − − − √ √ √ √ √ √ − √ √ − − √ − √ camels) √ − √ − √ − − √ √ − − Goat dairy − − − − √ √ √ √ − √ − Olive orchards and/or vineyards Tourist hosting (bed and breakfast) Animals (horses, Table 5-1: Homesteads according to predominant land use/economic activity on site. 55 Methodology Our research began with a comprehensive literature survey to assess the theoretical impact of low-density residential settlement on various environmental parameters (see chapter 1 of this report). From this survey, we compiled a list of likely impacts to be observed in the field. These included, among others, litter production, direct physical damage to open spaces, increased vehicle miles traveled by residents (and correlated increase in per capita air pollution due to long commutes to services and commercial centers), habitat fragmentation, increase in “edge effect” and spread of public health nuisances. During the academic year 2008-2009 we conducted four sets of site visits to 15 to 20 homesteads; each new visit was built on experience and familiarity gained in the previous one. Of the homesteads surveyed we collected enough data to provide a comprehensive picture of the environmental impacts for 11 of the homesteads. Our primary challenge was establishing a uniform methodology to survey environmental impact for all of the homesteads. The challenge was due to the heterogeneity of the homesteads themselves, including large differences in the following parameters: diverse land uses in the homesteads (e.g. vineyards, goat or cow dairies, tourism facilities, etc.), topography (in wadis, on slopes, or on plateaus), proximity to main road, proximity to protected nature and/or archeological sites, presence/absence of domesticated pets, presence/absence of domesticated animals for economic use and others. During the first trip we primarily collected data on the homesteads themselves, through observation, collecting records at the regional council offices, information derived from aerial photos and maps, and interviewing the homesteaders. On-site observations proved to be the most valuable in terms of learning what is happening on the ground. We collected data about the following variables: Garbage – We conducted line transects from the outer fence of the homesteads and 56 inventoried garbage at 50, 100 and 500 m from the fence (as topography permitted). We also recorded topography at these distances. New dirt roads – Through observation and the use of historical aerial photos (before and after the establishment of the farms) we attempted to discern the amount of new dirt roads and tracks that could be attributed to the homesteads. Presence of domesticated animals – At each homestead we inventoried the presence or absence of domesticated dogs and cats (observation and interviews with homesteaders), goats and cows (dairies), and camels. We also recorded whether or not the animals were free to roam outside the confines of the homestead or whether their movement was restricted. Sewage treatment – Through interviews and observation, we discerned how each homestead dealt with its sewage. We also mapped the distances at which sewage was released into the environment. Introduction of invasive species – We recorded instances of presence of non-local flora appearing in close proximity to sewage outlets and irrigation pipes. A systematic survey of invasives by species was beyond the scope of this study. Extent of land clearing and construction – We inventoried the number of buildings at each homestead site, and the degree to which building and land clearing for construction is continuing. Results To respect the privacy of the homesteaders, we inventoried their environmental impacts anonymously, listed only as homesteads #1 through 11. We provide results for only those homesteads for which we had a full set of data. Garbage – Garbage was ubiquitous around approximately half of the homesteads, although the type of garbage and its distribution varied greatly. Among the factors that influence garbage was: 57 • Topography: Homesteads located on plateaus were associated with garbage that had spread to greater distances than the homesteads in wadis; Garbage was spread by prevailing winds, direction of water flow during floods, and gravity (down slopes). • Type of economic activity at the homestead: Packaging waste was found by some homesteads that imported particular products for their businesses. Other types of waste was associated with agriculture, construction, and dairy farming. Figure 5-1: Trash mounds distributed outside of one of the homesteads. Figure 5-2: Packaging and other waste at the boundary fence of a homestead. 58 Figure 5-3: Packaging waste 500 m. downwind from homestead Figure 5-4: In this picture the shards are not drying loess soil, but rather remains of broken asbestos sheets and other building materials. Asbestos is a known carcinogen. The source of the asbestos is unclear. Figure 5-5: Large piles of animal manure combined with building waste (including asbestos). There were abundant flies at the site. The manure mound poses a threat to groundwater and overland runoff water quality. New dirt roads – Each of the homesteads introduces a new access road of varying lengths. Most of them are located in close proximity to the main highway, which limits the potential damage of new roads somewhat. Depending on the economic activity of the homestead, additional dirt roads and walking paths are created around the homesteads. This was found to be a potentially significant problem in approximately 1/3 of the homesteads. An important note is that the close proximity of most of the homesteads to 59 the main highway (road 40) minimizes some of the distance new roads stretch in order to serve the homesteads. Figure 5-6: Homesteads are responsible for creation of new dirt roads and, in the case of those with camel and/or llama herds, establishing new animal paths. The aggregate impact of these roads may affect biodiversity, surface water flow and soil erosion. Presence of domesticated animals – There were two types of domesticated animals – pets and livestock. Both have unique impacts. The impact of the former is primarily manifested in the hunting of native species. The impact of the latter is more diverse, depending on the animals and the economic activity. Goat dairies and homesteads with other animal herds (camels, alpaca, llamas) produce large amounts of sewage and other waste. For those whose animals move in the open, they place grazing pressure on the lands around the homestead. Further, animals tracks are common for homesteads whose economic activities include camel tours. Domesticated animals also may serve as disease vectors. For example, in an area with high grazing pressure we also noted a high abundance of ticks. At least one of the two types of animal-derived environmental challenges (via pets or livestock) exists on 10 of the 11 homesteads surveyed. 60 Figure 5-7: The scene of a large dumping ground for animal carcasses found outside of one of the homesteads. The odor eminating from the site was noticeable for several hundreds of meters around the site, and large concentrations of flies were found on the carcasses. Aside from the odor and visual pollution, the site could also serve as a site for disease vector reproduction and dispersal. Figure 5-8: Domesticated cats and dogs are common in the homesteads. At this homestead, the farmer stated that the cats regularly leave the homestead to hunt local gerbils and other rodents. Sewage treatment – Levels of sewage treatment varied from homestead to homestead, from high levels of biological treatment to no treatment. All of the homesteads are required to have cesspools, but we observed drainage of sewage outside of the homesteads in approximately 1/3 of the cases. In those cases, it was generally a product of the dairies on site. Figure 5-9: Sewage water outlet in close proximity to the border of a nature reserve. In several cases sewage (after various degrees of treatment) flows via adjacent wadis into nature reserves. Figure 5-10: A puddle formed around the sewage line outside of one of the homesteads. 61 Introduction of invasive plant species – As noted above, we did not conduct a comprehensive survey of invasive species. However we did note the presence of nonlocal flora in multiple instances associated to sewage discharge or irrigation of agriculture. About half of the homesteads surveyed had invasive plants found on the homestead that can considered to be potential sources for further proliferation outside the boundaries of the homestead. Figure 5-11: Non-local plant species found in close proximity to irrigation. Note that this provides a possible seed source for further dispersal downstream from the homesteads and into nature reserves. Direct impact on local biodiversity – The homesteads come into direct conflict with local biodiversity. On the one hand, the creation of the homestead and changes in land use have a direct impact on habitat availability and quality. On the other hand, the homesteads produce “fertility islands” rich in nutrient and water sources for animals and plants. In some cases, the homesteads attract wild species that are considered pest species for agriculture (e.g. porcupines). In at least one case, the porcupine – a native of the region – was considered by the homesteader to be a pest, and was thus trapped routinely and handed over to a Nature and Parks Authority ranger for re-release. On other occasions the animals were killed. Note that the problem of porcupines foraging on local agriculture is familiar to local kibbutz farmers as well. 62 Figure 5-12: This porcupine was considered a pest for the agriculture-based homestead. Here, porcupines are trapped and delivered to the nature and parks authority for relocation 40 km away. The injury on the animal’s nose was sustained as a result of being trapped. In other instances, the animal is killed. Extent of land clearing and construction – The degree of land clearing and construction varies greatly between homesteads. The most serious disturbances were in those homesteads that flattened large areas to prepare for construction. Those who entertain large tour groups also had to prepare parking lots for buses. This impact was significant on 1/3 of the surveyed homesteads, and existed to some degree on all of them. Figure 5-13: Land cleared for construction and parking lots; the embankments of soil form a border between the homestead and natural area around it. The developed area had no perennial shrubs, though it had pockets of annual plants in the spring. Cleared area is approximately 220x 90 Figure 5-14: Earth embankment outside the boundaries of a homestead, including building waste and sewage drainage pipes. Predominant environmental nuisances and effects in individual homesteads Homestead #1 – Release of sewage, accompanied by a proliferation of invasive plant species. Demands immediate remediation, as the homestead and its sewage drains into 63 the watershed of a nature reserve. Homestead #2 – Large amounts of land flattened and native shrubs removed; trash, including asphalt pieces, spread throughout the area. Homestead treats sewage on site, producing grey water for irrigation. Homestead #3 – Environmental impact felt far beyond the borders of the homestead due to high grazing pressure (the only homestead to graze animals outside the borders of the homestead). According to the owner, the grazing area covers approximately 400 dunams of land. Also, domestic animal carcasses are left in the open and unburied. Homestead #4 – Homestead attracts local fauna, primarily porcupines, who are considered an agricultural pest. The porcupines are trapped and re-released 40 km away from the homestead. Homestead #5 – Homesteader acknowledges that domesticated cats hunt and kill local fauna – primarily gerbils. Trash from the homestead was found distributed in the wadi below the homestead. Homestead #6 – Homestead releases untreated waste water into the environment. Location of sewage release is populated with invasive plant species. A growing pile of animal manure is building up alongside the homestead. Current size of homestead is 20 dunam; homesteader requesting to enlarge operation to 230 dunam. Homestead #7 – Piles of animal manure, garbage and large pieces of asbestos found in close proximity to the homestead. Homestead #8 – Trash from homestead spread at least 500 m from the homestead itself. While trash spread further, we could not measure beyond 500 m due to the presence of a closed military area. 64 Homestead #9 – Domesticated dogs move in and out of homestead unhindered. Their impact is unknown. Homestead #10 – See homestead #9. Homestead #11 – A significant amount of land disturbance in preparing the land for infrastructure development for tourism industry. Table 5-2 summarizes the sundry impacts of these 11 homesteads using the following key for degree of influence: 1 = low; 2 = moderate; 3 = high; 4 = very high; √ denotes potentially positive influence, with degree ranking the same but in a desirable direction. We also use * to denote the fact that according to the Central Bureau of Statistics, the entire area is classified as having the highest ranking of environmental sensitivity according to a nation-wide survey. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 Infiltration of pollutants into groundwater 3 3 √ 1 2 2 3 Soil salinization 3 3√ 1 3 2 3 Pollution/salination of runoff water 3 3√ 1 2 2 3 Fragmentation of ecological corridors 1 1 4 3 1 1 Diversion of runoff water 2 1 3 2 1 1 Homestead as source of invasive species 2 2 3 4 2 3 Proliferation of invasives from homestead 4 2 2 1 4 3 Habitat degradation 3 1 3 1 1 1 Introduction of parasites 3 2 4 2 3 3 Damage to local species 3 3 3 1 4 4 Introduction of parasites 3 3 4 1 2 2 Pollution/salination of runoff water 1 2 3 1 3 4 local species 2 2 3 1 3 3 Public health nuisance 2 4 3 1 1 2 Mining and quarrying impact on landscape 3 3 2 1 1 1 Flattening land (for construction/agriculture), paving new roads 4 4 2 2 1 1 Proximity to environmental nuisances outside the homestead 2 1 3 1 3√ 3√ Hydrology and watershed 4 3 1 2 3 2 Proximity to nature reserves and valuable open space 4 3 2 2 3 3 Archeology 1 1 2 1 1 1 Biodiversity 3 3 3 3 2 2 Homestead IMPACT CATEGORY Sewage treatment Roads and transportation Ecology Grazing, camel tours Domesticated pets Garbage Specific environmental nuisance Facilitating introduction of invasive species/posing danger to Aesthetics Environmental sensitivity* Table 5-2: Ranking of potential environmental nuisances originating from 11 Central Negev homesteads based on preliminary observations and surveys. Measures of severity grows with increasing numbers. Chapter 6: Conclusions - The Aggregate Picture of Homestead Development in the Negev In this report we review the environmental/ecological impact of homesteads in the region of Har HaNegev. The results reported here are preliminary and follow-up research will be conducted on the homesteads in particular, and on settlement in the Negev in general during additional seasons. In the preceding chapters, we observed and surveyed the effect of individual homesteads on their immediate environments, with the analysis focusing on each as an independent entity. In contrast, this final chapter considers the aggregate impact of homesteads at the regional level. The results presented in the preceding chapters are ambiguous. With regard to species abundance, diversity and richness for rodents, lizards and beetles, no clear patterns can yet be discerned regarding homestead impact. For rodents, live catches and proxies for animal activity fall with increasing distance from the homesteads for some species. The same is true for some species of lizards and beetles. On the other hand, at least one lizard species’ abundance rises with increasing distance from homesteads. In at least one case, the presence of wild animals drawn to the homestead is considered a nuisance, and the animals (porcupines) are trapped and re-released away from the farm or killed. Surveys of environmental impact, however, show abundant signs of pollution derived from the homesteads. These include solid waste (including construction material), sewage drainage (following various degrees of treatment), animal and vehicle tracks, light and noise pollution and presence of domesticated pets that hunt. Several of these pollution sources were observed to decline in intensity with increased distance from the homesteads. Most of the impacts were considered to be directly related to the type of economic activity existing on the homestead. Preliminary analysis of spatial extent of impact Additional potential environmental harms are introduced with homesteads, although these were not directly measured in the current research. These include the negative implications of 1) habitat fragmentation, 2) increased amount of “edge” between developed and non-developed areas, and 3) rise in the total amount of land developed. There is substantial theoretical and applied evidence that suggests that each of these may be associated with ecological degradation (e.g. Curtin, Sayre, & Lane 67 2002; Harrison & Bruna 1999; Marzluff & Ewing 2001; Perry & Dmi'el 1995; Ries, Fletcher, Battin, & Sisk 2004). In light of the potential cumulative impacts homesteads may pose at the regional scale, we plan to conduct a more in depth study of the implications of homestead development on spatial proxies for ecosystem health (e.g. habitat patch sizes, edge, continuity, etc). At the present preliminary statistics of land consumption are instructive. We assess that the ecological footprint of the homesteads extends well beyond the actual physical footprint of the constructed area. The range of domesticated cats and dogs, for instance, has been measured to be from 50 to 2000 m beyond the border of the settlement (Brickner 2003). We found cats, dogs or both in 15 of the surveyed homesteads. Even the most conservative estimate of the distance they stray from their settlement, calculated from a dimensionless data point, would suggest an area of is 8000 sq m, or 8 dunam, of direct impact. Solid waste was found distances of 500 m from the homesteads, suggesting more than 785 dunam potentially affected by waste. Plant invasive species were found in and around the homesteads, often within close proximity of the sewage pipes hundreds of meters away from the homestead. As such, the effective area of potential impact grows substantially beyond the homesteads. Fig. 6-1 displays the size of the homestead environmental footprint, assuming a maximum 500 m radius of impact. The total area affected by homesteads (considering for the present that the homesteads are a point and have no area themselves and considering that only two are within close proximity of one another) is 27 x 785 dunam, or 21,000 dunam affected, or 21 sq. km. We maintain that this is a conservative estimate of the area that will experience some form of environmental impact emanating from the homesteads. However, it is also worth noting that the initial survey suggests biological diversity may be enhanced by the contact between natural systems and human system. 68 Figure 6-1: Homesteads' environmental footprints assuming a 500m radius of impact We do note that the proximity of the existing homesteads in a positive trend with regard to habitat fragmentation. Locating them close to roads minimizes the distance for access roads, electric supply cables and water supply pipes. In also minimizes fragmentation, as the major disturbance – the main road – already exists. The caveat here is that supplying all of these resources to individual farms is much less efficient on a per capita basis than supplying to a large community, where economies of scale can operate (as pointed out in Hahn, Sagi, Boral, & Darom 2003; Ries et al. 2004). Conclusions Based on our on site surveys, we conclude that there are three interacting variables that affect the presence and intensity of environmental pollution from the homesteads. First is the economic activity taking place in the homestead. The types and intensity of impact were often directing related to the primary activity on site. For example, gerbil populations appear to do better along side cultivated agricultural then next to livestock agriculture. Moreover, piles of manure, large amounts of sewage 69 and untreated animal carcasses were associated with dairy and grazing operations. Excessive new paths and erosion were due to camel tours and off-road vehicle use -- land development associated with homestead development and tourism infrastructures. Second, the degree of environmental awareness seemed to temper the amount of disturbance and waste emanating from the homestead. Third, is the physical location of the homestead, which in part determined how far waste was spread away from the homestead, and where sewage drains. This leads to two final recommendations that emerge from even these preliminary findings. First, is the importance of working with existing homesteads. Engaging the homesteaders with the objective of increasing their environmental sensitivity and gaining their cooperation in minimizing their impact on and off their homesteads can mitigate the worst effects of homestead settlements. Measures such as on-site treatment of sewage, containment of waste, controlled composting and restricting movement of domesticated pets would contribute to alleviating some of the more obvious environmental impacts. Of course, this should go hand-in-hand with increased rigidity in granting permits for particular activities, contingent on mitigation of environmental impacts. Further, greater enforcement of laws are required to assure the aforementioned problems are attended to. The second recommending involves planning authorities. On the basis of the experience of the homesteads of the central Negev, some of the core claims of opponents of this type of settlement appear to be vindicated. Others are not. The environmental harms listed in this report along with the spatial impact of low density, dispersed settlement and all of its implications have the potential to cause irreversible degradation on lands that until now have been largely pristine or moderately grazed. The answer to the question of whether this type of settlement is desired and/or legal in the context of Israel’s planning laws and regulations is complex, but the environmental implications must be weighed against any perceived benefits – either for individual homesteaders or for Israeli society in general. This report would support a view that expects planning authorities to fully consider the individual environmental impact of homesteads, as well as their aggregate impact, before considering expanding this particular form of settlement. 70 References Brickner, I. (2003). The impact of domestic cat (Felis catus) on wildlife welfare and conservation: a literature review. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.tau.ac.il/lifesci/zoology/members/yomtov/inbal/cats.pdf Curtin, C. G., Sayre, N. F., & Lane, B. D. (2002). Transformations of the Chihuahuan Borderlands: grazing, fragmentation, and biodiversity conservation in desert grasslands. Environmental Science & Policy, 5(1), 55-68. Hahn, I., Sagi, Y., Boral, R., & Darom, Y. (2003). New Settlement, new communities and new homesteads - Position paper of the Society for the Protection of Nature. Tel Aviv, Israel: Department for Protection of Environment and Nature and the Deshe Institute for the Protection of Open Space, the Society for the Protection of Nature. Harrison, S., & Bruna, E. (1999). Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography, 22(3), 225-232. Marzluff, J. M., & Ewing, K. (2001). Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: A general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecology, 9(3), 280-292. Perry, G., & Dmi'el, R. (1995). Urbanization and sand dunes in Israel: Direct and indirect effects. Israel Journal of Zoology, 41, 33-41. Ries, L., Fletcher, R. J., Battin, J., & Sisk, T. D. (2004). Ecological responses to habitat edges: Mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 35, 491-522. 71 Appendix: Inventory of Individual Homesteads Han Shayarot Farm • Background: Founded 10 years ago with the goal of hosting tourist; changed ownership following collapse of tourism industry in the early 2000s. • Land use and economic activity: Hosting tourism, primary youth from abroad and local school children. Includes facilities for overnight stays (tents) and meals. Camel tours also offered to visitors. Site employs local Arab and Jewish residents. Not a homestead of the wine route. • Location:176000/526300; Within a wadi which drains into Nachal Zin and the Zin Cliffs Nature reserve near Ein Avdat. Zayit HaMidbar Farm • Background: Established in 2002 • Land use and economic activity: tourism, hosting (15 permanent tents), goats, olives • Location: 534995/178391; next to river bed (HaRoeh) Nachal Haverim Farm • Background: Established in 2002 • Land use and economic activity: hosting (5 bed and breakfast cabins), olives • Location: 175949/526404; 200m from Road 40 and 200m from a nature reserve Na’ama Farm • Background: The second of the homesteads to be established; Established in 1992. • Land use and economic activity: Goats, camels, rental of land for other purposes (solar panel assembly). • Location: 199677/551312; alongside riverbed that drains into Lake Yerucham. Alpaka Farm • Background: Established in 1989 • Land use and economic activities: Tourism, hosting/bed and breakfast, activities associated to Alpaca farming, sales of alpaca and llama wool. • Location: 178440/502220; Located in wadi that drains to Nachal Zin, one kilometer from the ridge of the Ramon Crater. Naot Farm • Background: Established in 2003 • Land use and economic activity: Hosting (4 bed and breakfast cabins), 300 goat dairy herd, camels. • Location: 178800/541400; Homestead above Nachal Be’er Hayil Kerem B’Har HaNegev • Background: Established in 1999/2000 • Land use and economic activities: Agriculture (vineyards, olives and sabras) • Location: 177280/516850; west of the Nafha prison in riverbed that drains into the Nachal Avdat 72 Kornmel Farm • Background: Established in 1997 • Land use and economic activities: Goat dairy, store, restaurant, and agriculture • Location: 178619/542500; between the oil line and the water line (pipes) and road 40; Entry road to farm is 500 m; Several riverbeds emerge from the farm and drain into Nachal Be’er Hayil and Nachal Hyman (both which drain into Nachal Besor). Derech Eretz Farm • Background: Established in 2006 • Land use and economic activities: Tourism, hosting, restaurant and olive grove. • Location: 181148/509800; 300m east of road 40 on a riverbed that drains into Nachal Zin. Nachal Boker Farm • Background: Established in 1999/2000 • Land uses and economic activities: Agriculture, tourism hosting, restaurant and store • Location: 178500/535000; in a channel of Nachal Boker alongside a junction of Nachal Roeh and Nachal Noked, the latter of which drain to Nachal Besor. Zmurot Avdat Farm • Background: Established in 2002 • Land use and economic activities: Olives and tent for hosting tourists. • Location: 178046/521800; Located next to Nachal Rachatz and within the nature reserve of the Zin Cliffs. Matanat HaMidbar Farm • Background: Established in 2002 • Land uses and economic activities: Saffaran farm, restaurant and bed/breakfast • Location: 128000/543000; Located next to a wadi that drains into Lake Yerucham 73
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz