The debate over the exploitation of copper deposits in and
around the Dana Nature Reserve between conservationists and proponents of the
government's decision to study the possibility of extracting the metal seems
natural, but the turn the debate has taken will likely have a negative impact
on foreign investment.
اضافة اعلان
The debate has moved to the public sphere prematurely, and
as a result, a state of confusion and chaos has ensued.
In light of this, any
would-be investor might reach the following conclusion: It is a pointless
argument where none wins.
When investors have the slightest doubt about the stability
of their planned investments, the easiest and safest move is to pack and find
another destination for their ventures.
This also frequently applies to local
investors.
Let's put ourselves in their shoes: Why would investors come
to or stay in an environment that might, at any given moment, turn hostile to
them and their projects? They have every right to spare themselves the headache
and seek an established, consistent, and stable investment policy and a more
inviting host culture.
Make no mistake, this is not to say that the public has no
right to a say in the issue because, after all, this is all about Jordanians
and their life and future.
However, the government, aware of precedents, should
have arranged for a more organized and professional debate ahead of announcing
its decision.
It should have involved experts and activists who could present
their arguments and, accordingly, reached a comprehensive final decision that
did not risk being overturned.
What is happening regarding
Dana's copper might happen again
if a hospital or any other facility is planned to be built in or near a forest,
a railway is designed to penetrate certain communities and disrupt life as they
know it, shale oil or gas is explored or processed, thermal stations are built,
other minerals are extracted and water resources are shared with local farmers
by investors in agriculture, and so on.
An environmental impact study is a must in all, or at least
many, of these scenarios — as is a detailed estimate of economic gains and a
plan to address the concerns of any party impacted by the planned project.
At the very least, an institutionalized approach to a
potential project, under all circumstances, will send waves of assurance to
foreign investors and build trust in the Kingdom as an inviting and secure
investment environment.
Investors need first to read well-conceived and
well-constructed reports that provide answers to all questions, not social
media posts.
This leads us to highlight the need for an updated map for all
potential investments in every sector and area.
The above-mentioned documents
can be part and parcel of all related literature, which can be shared with
potential investors and all the other stakeholders.
There is nothing wrong with going back to square one and restarting
the Dana copper mining process properly, through forming a multilateral
committee that weighs the pros and the cons and leaves the final decision to
the people with the constitutional mandate to run our affairs and make
decisions for us: The executive branch in this case.
After due diligence, the
government can share its decision with the public, detailing the bases on which
it was taken.
In a country where unemployment among the youth is 50
percent, according to the World Bank, we cannot afford to lose any more
opportunities.
Regardless of the fate of the Dana project, the trust we build regarding
Jordan's investment policies will certainly lure more investors to come and
help remedy the ailing economy.
Perhaps we need to agree with the pioneering US journalist
and humorist Robert Quillen, who once said: "Discussion is the exchange of
knowledge; argument is the exchange of ignorance." Let's avoid argument.
Read more
Opinion and Analysis
.jpg)
.jpg)
