The Dibbin Campaign Explained - Arab Environment Watch

For the past 2-3 months the environmental community in Jordan was engaged in a complex debate with many stakeholders over the establishment of a mega tourism project in the natural forest of Dibbin, one of Jordan's very few natural forest systems that comprise less than 1% of the country's land area.

The proposed project to be installed by the Jordan Dubai Capital Co. includes building of a massive tourism complex that will cover an area about 450 dunums (113 Acers), 4 hotels and 160 chalets. This will certainly result in a huge degradation of the ecosystem.

The proponents and supporters of the project have invested heavily in highlighting the potential socio-economic benefits associated with building the tourism complex and have relied on Jordan's declared plans for supporting foreign investment as a tool for economic growth and development. On the other hand the environmental NGOs launched a campaign that focused on the need to relocate the project to the outskirts of the forest.

In the latest developments, the Ministry of Environment and the Dubai Capital Co. have agreed to identify another location for the project that is more "marginalised" and does not include tree cutting.

The environmental NGOs have developed an online petition and placed some resources on the web that can be accessed here

http://www.foe.org.jo/dibbin/

I have been following the development of this debate and have contacts with the environmental community and I do support their cause, and I would like to explain here some of the main concerns from an independent environmental point of view:

1- Legal Aspects: The land on which the project is/was to be established has been leased to the Social Security Corporation (SSC) for "public benefits". The SSC sold the land to Dubai Capital and is now a partner in the project. So, can you define building an expensive mega tourism project targeting the rich tourists as a public benefit. I think public benefits can be defined by building parks, schools and other benefits for the community. In addition to that the project violated the Environmental protection law and the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations no 37 for 2006 by not getting an approval from the Ministry of Environment regarding the location of the project. The approval for the LOCATION should be gained BEFORE the Environmental Impact Assessment study. So, what happens now is that the company is asking the Ministry for an EIA approval while the location now is de facto. The EIA deals only with mitigation measures of an already approved project, but this one did not even get a prior license.

2- Location: This is the most important issue. The environmental NGOs say that the project will be installed within the forest (see the slide show in www.foe.org.jo/dibbin). On the other hand, the company says it will be outside the forest or at the outskirts with some marginal work within the forest. Honestly I have no map of the project to give an opinion because a map is not yet disclosed. However, even if the project is to be established in the outskirts this will need installing a lot of infrstructure including roads, water pipes, electricity, waste generation, air pollution from dust and many forms of construction that will disrupt the ecosystem. The NGOs say we are not against the project but we want another location.

3- Not an issue of tree numbers: most project advocates say the company will plant 10 trees for each one it cuts. The issue is not the number of trees but the degradation of the ecosystem itself. Some trees are endangered, some are historic and some are keystone in terms that it supports the diversity of the forest by providing food and shelter for other organaisms. So, the management option is not a mathmatical formula but a genuine study of the ecosystem components to save the whole system from collapsing.

4- Not only Dibbin: This case is important because if the Company can manage to force its opinion and build the project it might open up the door for other investors, waiting like vultures to rape the remaining natural forests. Up to now the provisions of the Agriculture Law and the Environment Law stood firm against exploitation of forests for private tourism and agriculture purposes, but if Dubai capital gets a permit then everyone else will start complaining about the "double standards" and the line of defense will be collapsed as well.

5- What socio-economic benefits? the only credible argument in favour of the project is the expected socio-economic benefits. Nasimjo says hundreds of local people from Jerash will be hired. If that is the case I am in support of the project but unfortunately it may not be. The first direct beneficiaries will be owners of adjacent lands which price will skyrocket. Some of the owners will are current and former MPs who are supporting the project and asking the Royal Court to give the permission soon. Benefits to the local community should be in the form of participation in the development chain. I mean by being hired in permanent jobs, providing services to the complex, providing food and beverages, and creating community-based tourism services that may complement the big project. Will this be done? the answer should be with the Jordan River Foundation who have signed an MoU with the Company for socio-economic development of the local community. Personally I do trust Jordan River Foundation as I also trust the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature who both are partnering the Dubai capital in meeting environmental and socio-economic concerns. However more information should be disclosed so that people will not have overexpectations for the local benefits.

In the final analysis the best scenario would be to change the location of the project and to adhere to a strict EIA system to prevent scaling up and replicating this "invasion" to other parts of the fragile and rare forests in Jordan.