A/HRC/24/30 11. These improvements were negatively affected by the decision of Israeli authorities, following rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, to close Kerem Shalom, the only commercial crossing between Gaza and Israel, for several days between 27 February and 30 April 2013, and to restrict movement of people at the Erez crossing to humanitarian cases.16 As a result, the level of Gaza’s imports during February, March and April decreased by 17.5 per cent compared to the previous three months,17 and to around 36 per cent of the pre-closure level. The blockade also continued to severely restrict Gaza’s exports, preventing the population from maintaining their livelihoods. During the reporting period, Gaza exports equalled less than 2 per cent of the pre-blockade level.18 12. The United Nations and other international organizations continued to report significant delays and costs associated with the Israeli project approval process and the importation of materials for humanitarian purposes.19 2. Access restricted areas 13. The November 2012 understanding included the easing of restrictions to the ARAs imposed by Israel on land and at sea. At sea, access for Palestinians was extended from 3 to 6 nautical miles.20 Regarding the ARA on land, a lack of clarity regarding the restrictions in place heightened concern regarding the protection of civilians. 14. On 25 February 2013, COGAT reported on its website that Palestinian farmers were permitted to access land up to 100 metres from the fence. Previously, it had verbally informed various international organizations about this decision. On 20 February and 10 March, the IDF spokesperson, in written responses to an Israeli human rights organization, provided different information, stating that the residents of Gaza were prohibited from getting closer than 300 metres from the fence. COGAT subsequently removed its 25 February statement from its website. Exacerbating the lack of clarity, media reports, attributed to the then-Deputy Head of Hamas’ political bureau, claimed a complete lifting of the ARA on land.21 15. Prior to the November 2012 escalation, in practice, the ARA on land was enforced by the Israeli military up to several hundred metres and often more than the officially declared 300 metres from the fence. 22 Following the November understanding, farmers and non-farmers started to access land that they had not been able to access for years. Farmers reported to OHCHR that they were able to cultivate land up to 300 metres from the fence, although in some cases restrictions were perceived to be enforced beyond 300 metres. Some farmers noted that access had not changed after the November understanding. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 6 http://www.gisha.org/item.asp?lang_id=en&p_id=1970 Ibid. Data compiled from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and Gisha. United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, “Briefing to the Security Council”, 22 May 2013, available at: http://www.unsco.org/Documents/Statements/MSCB/2008/Security%20Council%20Briefing%2022 %20May%202013.pdf. See also Norwegian Refugee Council, Overview of the Housing Situation in the Gaza Strip, 2013, pp. 45, 51 and 52. The fishing limit agreed at the 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I Accord) was 20 nautical miles. Al-Resalah reported that an official stated that the agreement included an “end to restrictions in the ARA”, see http://alresalah.ps/ar/index.php?act=post&id=63237. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Food Programme, “Between the fence and a hard place: the humanitarian impact of Israeli-imposed restrictions on access to land and sea in the Gaza Strip”, Special Focus (August 2010), p. 5, available at: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_special_focus_2010_08_19_english.pdf.