Jordan: Biosphere Reserve to be Mined

By: Jordan Times

19 August 2021

Energy Ministry defends decision to explore copper deposits in Dana Biosphere Reserve

AMMAN — The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources on Thursday said that studies have shown that the copper deposits in Dana Biosphere Reserve are estimated at around 45 million tonnes.

Spread over 292 sq km in Tafileh Governorate, 180km southwest of the capital Amman, the Dana reserve is rich in copper and manganese ore, the ministry said in a statement citing studies by the Natural Resources Authority.

The authority, since 1966, has conducted exploration projects at the site, with a number of wells, tunnels and trenches being prepared, the statement added.

Investments in the location are forecast to reach some JD200 million, the ministry said, adding that the prospective project will create nearly 1,000 direct jobs for local residents, in addition to some 2,500 indirect jobs.

The ministry added that previous studies indicated that the amount of copper deposits in the Feynan area is estimated at 20 million tonnes and 25 million tonnes in Khirbet Al Nahas.

The project to optimise copper in Dana Biosphere Reserve was based on studies conducted prior to its official nomination as a nature reserve, the ministry said.

Following the recognition of the nature reserve, previous governments and administrations had called for separating the location from the reserve to make copper mining possible, the statement added.

The Cabinet in 2016 approved copper mining in Dana Biosphere Reserve within specific spots. Accordingly, a memorandum of understanding was signed with a mining company to carry out mining activities over an area of 61 sq km at the reserve’s northern region, the statement said.

The Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN) has repeatedly denied the mining company’s access to the sites identified in the memo, so the company was unable to meet the requirements of the agreement, including studying the environmental impact on the southern region and completing the exploration studies in the northern region, the statement read.

The mining company has, so far, spent more than JD2 million of the project’s allocation of JD20 million, over consultancy and exploration licence fees, the statement said.

The company has informed the Energy Ministry about its intention to withdraw from the project as contractors have been prevented from entering the site, the ministry said.

Pledging to give another piece of land in return for the mining site, the ministry said that the reserve would be compensated in lieu of the land to be converted as a mining location.

The area of the potential mining site inside the reserve is estimated at about 79 sq km.

Original article

Unheard Voices: The Dana Nature Reserve and the People of Dana

Part two of a two-part series

Considerations for tourists with a social conscience

The relationship between the local community (the people of Dana and Qadisiyah villages), and the Dana Nature Reserve is complicated and multi-layered.

The Reserve is managed by the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN). At first glance, it appears that the RSCN has created a nurturing and supportive environment for the flora and fauna within the Reserve, and for the members of the local community too.

Unfortunately, the local community was largely ignored in the conservation processes culminating in the Reserve’s establishment. It is also largely ignored in the Reserve’s management.

The unheard voices of the Ata’ta and their unrecognised expertise

The Reserve was created in part of the customary land of the people of Dana (the Ata’ta tribe). The Ata’ta (العطاعطة or العطاطة) managed the land for centuries using traditional land management methods (al-Hima). They preserved the flora and fauna, until an imposed reforestation project in the 1950s altered the balance between the land, nature and themselves.

The tribe’s ability to maintain its balance with land and nature eroded as modern conservation processes, and land use restrictions, progressed across their customary land. There was no attempt by the RSCN (the managers of the Reserve) to combine modern and traditional conservation approaches; even though the Al-Hima method fits the modern conservation concept of an ICCA (Indigenous and Community Conserved Area).

Ironically, the imbalance created by the modern conservation processes justified to the RSCN (and the Jordanian authorities) that the area needed protection from the local community. The over-grazing of sheep and goats was one example provided. Not stated, however, was that overgrazing occurred because pasture land was lost due to the reforestation project. (The project planted and protected trees in areas of pasture land.)

To better understand how these modern conservation processes impacted on the tribe’s land and traditional way of life read the first post in the series.

The marginalisation of the local community

The Ata’ta lived in an isolated, rural location. They lacked education and were unaware of their legal rights. They were poor and lacked the means of self-empowerment.

There was no proper consultation with them before the reforestation project began, nor was there proper consultation before the establishment of the Dana Nature Reserve.

The Government authorised the RSCN to create a protected area in 1989, and the Reserve was formally established in 1993. The period between was deemed a consultation period.

The local community was not properly consulted during the consultation period, nor was it sufficiently compensated for its losses. Locals claim that promises made at that time were not kept, especially promises of job opportunities related to the Reserve.

The reforestation project, and the creation of the Dana Nature Reserve, placed a priority on flora and fauna above the well-being and livelihoods of the people of Dana.

Free, Prior and Informed Consent

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is an important concept in land governance, and in the recognition and rights of the land’s original owners. It is recognised in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The diagram below explains the components of FPIC. There is no evidence that either the RSCN, or the Jordanian authorities, applied FPIC during the process of creating the Reserve. Nor is there evidence that FPIC has been applied in the subsequent management of the Reserve.

Marginalisation and the management of the Dana Nature Reserve

Despite the people of Dana being the original owners of the land, and managing it for centuries, they have no official role or representation in the management of the Dana Nature Reserve.

The method of conservation used in the Reserve is the fortress model. This model is based on the premise that the best way to protect biodiversity is to create areas where ecosystems can function away from human disturbance. It assumes that local people damage natural resources and the environment, and cause biodiversity loss.

The fortress model marginalises and silences customary land owners. It ignores traditional knowledge and land management, and traditional expertise. At best, the model could be described as paternalistic.

There is a general assumption that the RSCN considers and represents the views of Dana’s local community. This is incorrect. The RSCN has never been authorised by the local community to speak on its behalf.

Marginalisation and copper mining, a current day issue

In August 2021, a much-publicised debate began between the Government and the RSCN. The Government intends to explore the feasibility of copper mining in the western area of the Reserve, but the RSCN is refusing to cooperate. It is concerned about damage to the area’s biodiversity. Jordanian conservationists are in support of the RSCN, and there is a ‘Save Dana’ media campaign.

Once again, all parties have failed to consider or include local community representatives in the ongoing debate. Media reports have either sought the opinions of people living in the town of Tafilah (the main town in the Governorate), or the opinions of RSCN employees.

This time round, however, the local community (the people of Dana and Qadisiyah villages) are determined to be included in consultations, and to be fully involved in the decision-making process.

Additional complexities

Is the RSCN a good guy or a bad guy in regard to the local community?

Local people’s views about the role and contribution of the RSCN in the Dana area vary. Direct beneficiaries (families who have a member employed by the RSCN) are more likely to align themselves publicly with the organisation, and its management of the Reserve.

The RSCN has developed tourism in the Reserve, resulting in an influx of international visitors to the area. This has brought some direct income into the local community (employment for 54 people), and also indirect income. None of the locals employed by the RSCN hold senior positions.

The influx of tourists has enabled tourism ventures within the local community. The Dana Cooperative set up and operates three community-owned sustainable tourism projects (Wadi Dana Lodge, Dana Hotel and Wadi Dana Eco-camp). In addition, local families who are not part of the Dana Cooperative have also set up tourism projects.

There is another factor to take into account. The RSCN has its own view on who is considered part of the local community. For example, it includes the people currently living in the Feinan area.

The RSCN built the eco-acclaimed Feinan Eco-lodge on part of the Ata’ta’s customary land, but the people working in the Feinan Eco-lodge and living in Feinan village are not Ata’ta. Rather, they moved into the area after the Reserve was created. The Reserve’s boundaries disrupted access routes from Dana to Feinan, and made it difficult for the Ata’ta to continue to use the western part of their land, including the Feinan area.

Find out more about the impact of the Reserve’s boundaries on the customary land and traditional way of life by reading the first post in the series.

Is Dana’s protected area a Biosphere Reserve or a Nature Reserve?

Dana Nature Reserve was the original name for the protected area managed by the RSCN. Its name changed to Dana Biosphere Reserve when it was included in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, in 2007.

Biosphere reserves are ‘learning places for sustainable development’… Biosphere Reserves involve local communities and all interested stakeholders in planning and management.

https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/about

Those who believe that the local community has been marginalised continue to use the original name of Dana Nature Reserve. They believe that the Reserve does not meet biosphere status because of the marginalisation.

Original article

Back