draftplanTony

Comments in red are ours, for attention of all concerned. Resolving these points is urgent. We welcome response. There are some very disturbing proposals in this document, which we have advised on years ago, though our advice seems to have been ignored.

Neither have we had much feedback about the document we were asked to prepare "Environmental and Safety Guidelines for Climbing and Trekking in Rum National Park", which we did great amounts of work on (now in Draft 9 stage).

We trust someone will take the following comments into account, and we are happy to discuss them any time, with anyone – for the benefit of all in Rum, particularly the local people. We apologise if anyone finds them controversial but we are raising issues that we know are of concern to the local people as well as the climbing & trekking communities.

Adventure Travel is the fastest growing aspect of world tourism and includes mountain tourism, which is itself 20% of world tourism. Destroy it at your peril!



                 The Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature

                                Wadi Rum Protected Area
                           Interim Visitor Management Plan
                                               July 1999

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN 5
FORMAT AND CONTENT 5
GENERAL SITE MAP 7

SECTION ONE : EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SITUATION 8
Visitor use and distribution 9
Numbers and trends 9
Categories and interests 10
Origin 10
Length of stay 11
Main activities 11
Distribution patterns 12
Tourism Impact 13
Vehicles 13
Littering 15
Graffiti 15
Camping 15
Climbing 15
Special events 15
General disturbance 15
On site tourism management 16
Operational hub 16
Tour operators and service providers 16
Economics of tourism 19
Regulations and enforcement 20
Other users of Rum 21
The proposed visitor centre 21
SECTION TWO : SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND PROBLEMS 23
SECTION THREE : RECOMMENDATIONS 26
Overall management of tourism 27
Site management agency 27
Tour operators and providers 27
Controlling access 28
Controlling distribution 30
Rationalizing the track network 32
Upgrading the surface of vehicle tracks 33

Managing vehicles - before completion of visitor centre 32
Rum Tourism Cooperative 33
Vehicle registration scheme 34
Vehicle spacing 34
Other vehicle operators 35
Managing vehicles after completion of the visitor centre 35
Managing other activities 36
Entrance fees and charges 37
Facilities and services 39
Overnight accommodation 39
Tour guides 40
Visitor safety 40
Influencing attitudes and visitor experience 41
Capacity building 42
Regulations and enforcement 42
The role of local communities 43
SECTION FOUR : ACTION PLAN 44

TABLES
Table 1 : Estimates of future visitors to Wadi Rum 10
Table 2 : Length of stay for visitors to Wadi Rum 11
Table 3 : Tourist visits to known sites as % of total 13
Table 4 : Track proliferation in wadi Rum 14
Table 5 : Analysis of income distribution for a typical tour group 19
Table 6 : Analysis of income distribution for a typical camping group 20
Table 7 : Suggested entrance fee distribution post visitor centre 38

MAPS
Map 1 : General site map 7
Map 2 : Location of campsites 11/12
Map 3 : Location of access points 12/13
Map 4 : Location of key visitor sites 13/14
Map 5 : Location of visitor centre 21/22
Map 6 : Access points to be retained until visitor centre is completed 28/29
Map 7 : Preliminary zoning plan 30/31
Maps 8, 9, 10, 11 Proposed vehicle loop trails 32/33

FIGURES
Figure 1 : Visitor numbers between 1992 and 1997 9
Figure 2 : Track proliferation in Wadi Rum 13/14
Figure 3 : Sketch plan of visitor centre 22/23

ANNEXES
Annex 1 : Proposed management structure 45
Annex 2 : Vehicle safety standards 46
Annex 3 : Vehicle registration procedure 48
Annex 4 : Draft protected area regulations 49

                            Wadi Rum Protected Area
                        Interim Visitor Management Plan

Background to the plan

The spectacular desert scenery of Wadi Rum is becoming one of Jordan's major tourist attractions, with visitor numbers approaching one hundred thousand, making it the third most popular site in the Kingdom. By the year 2001 the total number is expected to reach a quarter of a million.

This growing tourism pressure, however, has been responsible for serious damage to the special landscape and ecology of Wadi Rum. The unregulated vehicle tours, in particular, have caused a huge proliferation of tracks across the desert and degraded large areas of vegetation and sand dunes. There has also been a marked increase in littering and the defacement of archaeological sites by graffiti.

To safeguard the unique natural character of Wadi Rum, it was declared a Special Regulations Area by the Aqaba Regional Authority in 1997 (?) and included in the World Bank assisted 2nd Tourism Project which began in 1998. This project is an initiative to re-develop tourism in Rum so that it can be sustained without causing serious environmental impact, while still generating significant revenue and other benefits for local communities.      And for the Park Management – RSCN & ASEZA?

An important element of the project is the preparation of a visitor management plan which addresses the causes of the environmental degradation and makes recommendations for overcoming them. This plan is being approached in two stages: stage one is the interim visitor management plan which concentrates largely on measures which can be taken to deal with immediate and crucial issues before the new infrastructure and full site management plan are completed: stage two is the definitive visitor management plan which will take into account the detailed information gained from the baseline surveys underway for the management plan and the existence and roll of new facilities like the visitor centre.

This plan, therefore, represents the interim visitor management plan, although
it is important to stress that many of the recommended actions presented here will also apply to the definitive plan, since they are dealing with fundamental, long-term problems. Likewise, many aspects related to the proposed visitor centre are addressed because the interim measures must 'pave the way' for the imposition of this new operational focal point. With respect, no-one has really consulted the climbing/trekking community about these proposals.

Format and content of the plan

The plan is broken down into four main sections, as follows:

Section One: Evaluation of the Existing Situation

This presents a review of the current situation in terms of how visitors use the site, how they are managed and what the impact of their use has been. It also defines the implications of the current situation for future site management. A short description and assessment of the proposed new visitor centre is included at the end of the section because it will have a major impact on visitor management and the local economy.

Section Two : Summary of Issues and Problems

Here, the key findings of the analysis are summarised as bullet points, providing the guidelines and rationale for the recommendations presented in the following section.

Section Three : Recommended Strategy

This section makes recommendations for dealing with the key issues and problems. It is broken down into subsections, each dealing with a specific topic, and in many of these subsections, recommendations are linked to the situations which exist before and after the construction of the visitor centre. The principal recommendations are summarised as bullet points at the end of each subsection.

Section Four : Action Plan

The Action Plan presents the recommendations against a time-frame for implementation and identifies the key agencies responsible. The Plan begins in the fourth quarter of 1999 and ends in fourth quarter of 2001, the anticipated end of the 2nd Tourism Project.

Annexes

The Annexes contain supporting documents, including the draft regulations and safety standards for vehicles.

                                                               Section One

                                 Evaluation of the Existing Situation

1.0    Evaluation of the existing situation

1.01 Visitor use and distribution

1.011 numbers and trends

The latest visitor use statistics available from the Ministry of Tourism are for 1997, when a total of 63,214 people were recorded arriving at Rum Village. This represents a slight fall on the proceeding two years, when totals reached peaks of 70,997 and 67,971 respectively. This fluctuation is thought to reflect the influence of the Peace Accord and the Gulf crisis, the former generating an influx of Israeli visitors in 1996 and 97 and the latter reducing visitor numbers overall. However, the general trend revealed by the statistics is one of a progressive and substantial increase in visitor use of Wadi Rum (see Figure 1). The numerical increase between 1992 and 1997 was 39,165 representing a percentage jump in visitor use of 163%

When we arrived in 1984, tourism was almost zero. With the help of Zalabia Bedouin of Rum (see our article 'Developments in Rum', for BMC in 2002 the UN International year of the Mountains) we fully explored the area and developed Rum's first adventure tourism. According to the Director of Tourism "Tony and Di put Jordan's desert tourism on the map." With 18 years of experience in all areas of 'Rum' we believe our comments deserve listening to!

Predictions of future visitor use (GHK report 1996 1) estimate a total 235,915 for the year 2001, a 273% increase over the know total for 1997. This translates into an estimated average daily visitor total of 1,005, compared with an average of 355 in 1995. In reality, these figures may prove to be significantly exaggerated, since the same source predicts totals of 91,760 and 123, 875 for the years 1996 and 1997, whereas the figures recorded by the Ministry were, in fact, around 23% and 49% lower, respectively. A copy of the table of predictions taken from GHK is shown below:

Table 1   Estimates of future visitors to Wadi Rum (GHK 1996)

This table was used to calculate required parking spaces for the new visitor centre and Rum village and, in the event the predictions conform more or less to reality, the estimated number of vehicles arriving on site on peak days in the year 2000 could be as high as 200 and the number of coaches as high as 20.

Not withstanding the difficulties of predictions, there is little doubt that the number of visitors and vehicles entering the Rum protected area will increase significantly over the next few years. It all depends on Mr Bush!

Implications for management

Visitor numbers look set to continue rising, leading to increasing pressure on already over stretched services and further degradation of the site. Setting limits on the number of people allowed to enter is not a practical option at this stage but provision must be made to influence their distribution and minimize their impact.

1.012 categories and interests

Visitors arriving to Rum fall into two basic categories: organised groups touring with coaches or 4x4 vehicles owned or hired by registered tour operators; and
independents, who arrive in their own vehicles, or in local transport, and often use their vehicles for desert tours or hire local Bedouin Guides. In 1994, these two (three) groups accounted for 65% and 35% of all visitors respectively. The average size of organised groups is around 20 individuals. What about the climbing & trekking community? Hiking (trekking) in particular is a major business in Rum and usually in organised groups. Climbers are almost never in organised groups and travel independently.

While there is little survey information on visitor interests, it is clear from observations and casual questioning that most people are attracted to Rum by the desert landscape. Secondary interests are the Bedouin, the archaeology and the associations of the site with Lawrence of Arabia. This applies to tourists not to climbers & trekkers who primarily come to practice their sport.

1.013 Visitors' origin

The vast majority of visitors to Rum are foreigners and most of them are Europeans, especially from Germany, France, Britain and Italy. North Americans represent only a small proportion of the total visitors. The most obvious change in recent years has been the increase in visitors from Israel. During 1996, the year after the peace Accord, they accounted for nearly 12% of the total intake. There was a drop in the following year but observations and records suggest a recovery during 1998 and 1999. Indeed, the rise in Israeli visitors since 1995 represents the most significant growth in Rum tourism.

Jordanians and other Arabs account for an extremely small proportion of visitors. Ministry statistics for 1996 and 1997 record figures of 1,522 and
1,216 respectively, representing only 2.1% and 1.9% of total numbers

Implications for management

Foreign visitors are likely to remain predominant and this should be more fully acknowledged in the services provided; notably in the provision of information in several languages and in the language skills of local guides.

1.014 Length of stay

The most recent analysis was undertaken in 1994 (Tony Escritt 2) and it divides visitors into two categories (1) independents, who are people using their own vehicles; and (2) organised tours, who are groups of people relying on coaches or hired fleets of 4x4 vehicles. The average length of stay for the people in these two categories is summarised below:

Table 2: lengths of stay for visitors to Wadi Rum

It is clear that the majority of both categories are short-stay visitors, although the proportion of overnight visitors is far from insignificant (approaching one-third). Using the predictions of future visitor numbers, that overnight proportion could represent as many as 70,000 people in the year 2000. It is also highly likely that the proportion of day visitors will increase significantly with the construction of the visitor centre, as it will provide better and more attractive facilities for short-term users.

Implications for management

The development of facilities should remain concentrated on day visitors but better provision should be made for over night accommodation, especially camping.

1.015 Main activities

Visitors to Rum engage in one or more of the following activities: 4x4 tours, camel rides, hiking, camping, rock climbing and horse riding; and very occasionally special activities have been allowed including micro-light flying, ballooning and car rallying. Of all these activities, the 4x4 tours are by far the most popular, with an estimated 85% of visitors using them.

Camping is the next most significant activity, undertaken by about one third of all visitors (there is no other form of "officially recognised" accommodation in the immediate area, although many villagers rent out their houses). Most campers use the organised Bedouin-style campsites, arranged through the Rum Tourism Cooperative, of which there are six within the protected area (Map 2) and a large new one recently completed near the boundary at Diseh. A few visitors stay with Bedouin families and a small number wild camp with their own tents, in vehicles, or simply sleeping bags 'under the stars'. (This is 'bivouacing'.)

Camel rides are still a popular activity but most people take only short treks, usually to Lawrence's' Spring (Abu Aineh Well), a distance of about 2.5 kilometers. Horse back tours are also available, through an independent French operator living in the area, but the take-up is small and largely restricted to pre-booked tours.   For both camels and horses, operators offer long treks lasting up to seven days and including overnight camping.

Hiking (trekking) is not a major visitor activity in Rum. Not true (unless you compare it with 'mass-tourism). Hiking is important and very popular and well known in Rum. Potential hikers are probably deterred by the heat and the general dearth of information about possible hiking trails. Not true. It is also an area where is easy to get lost if you are not an experienced map reader; and good maps are extremely difficult to find. They are easy to find, but impossible to buy! Why not rectify this ridiculous situation? Military paranoia – you can get better maps of Jordan in Israel!
Some hiking routes are outlined in Tony Howard's booklet, Treks and Climbs
in the Mountains of Rum and Petra (1987) Third edition with 400 routes 1997. Also in Jordan – Walks, Treks, Caves, Climbs & Canyons and Walks & Scrambles in Wadi Rum, all by Tony Howard & Di Taylor. They are also in an Israeli guide and a proposed French guide. NB Other routes are used by Bedouin guides with groups. These are their old family routes, which they still use. They are excellent and fascinating and deliberately NOT documented, so they are quiet, which is what the groups want. These routes should not be stopped – nor should they become 'official' The system works, don't break it.

Climbing is a specialised activity and limited to trained enthusiasts but it has been growing in popularity in Rum as the area becomes better known on the international climbing agenda. Much of this can be attributed to the efforts of the dedicated British climbers, Tony Howard and Di Taylor, who have promoted the climbing routes of Rum over many years through publications and films. Thanks for this kind acknowledgement! In 1998, an estimated 3-400 hundred serious climbers used Rum, staying for periods of up to 10 days and sometimes longer. All qualified climbers appear to agree, however, that Rum is only suitable for experienced practitioners, not for beginners. The type of rock and climbs and the lack of emergency services make it hazardous for all but experienced people. There are now around 600 documented routes in Wadi Rum! NB. Making more 'new' climbs (first ascents) is the lifeblood of climbing and is one of the reasons that Rum is world famous. If you stop this activity you risk losing the climbing image and regular 'news' reports that keep Rum in the press.

Implications for management

Effort will need to be concentrated on the management of vehicle tours, and on the siting, quality and servicing of campsites. There is also a need to provide more information on possible activities in order to diversify options for visitors and reduce the pressure on vehicle trips.

1.016 Distribution patterns

There are six recognised access points into the protected area, five of which are along the northern border and one on the southern border (Map 3).

It is estimated that between 60 and 70% of all visitors enter the protected area through access no. 1 (Map 3) using the surfaced road leading through Wadi Rum to Rum Village. A significant and growing proportion, however, are now entering via the village of Diseh (access no2). In 1998, this proportion represented just under 20% of the visitor total (Rowe 1998). The other three access points account for only a small fraction of visitor entrants. The southern access point is used almost entirely by through-visitors, travelling to and from Aqaba. Like the Diseh access, this one is growing in popularity, since it enables tourists to continue travelling north or south without a significant detour.

After entering the protected area, virtually all tourists visit a small group of well known scenic and archaeological sites, usually in 4x4 vehicles. Not true – the climbing / trekking people have other interests. There are 14 key sites in this group, all of which are situated in the eastern third of the protected area, except one, Jebel Amud , which lies outside the boundary to the north of Diseh village (see Map 4).

As might be expected, the visitor attractions nearest the arrival points in Rum and Diseh villages are the most popular, being the shortest and cheapest vehicle trips. These form what are now, effectively, "standard tourist circuits", (or circus!) taking about 2 hours to complete. These circuits are illustrated on Map 4.

A breakdown of the relative popularity of the visitor sites included in excursions from Rum Village is shown in the following table.

      Table 3 : Tourists visits to known sites as a % of total visitors to
                      Rum (Samawi 1997b)
Site                          Tourists visiting %
Abu Aineh Well                    34.7%
Khazali                                 25.7%
Rock Bridge (Umm Fruth)    10.6%
Sunset site                          19.4%
Sand Dunes                           21.6%
Jebel Barra                             9.8%


The three most visited sites, Abu Aineh Well, (visiting this 'well' is nonsense. It is NOT a well. It was NOT specifically used by Lawrence. Beware of tourism fantasy! Khazali and the Sand Dunes are included on the "standard" 2-hour tour but the rock bridge and the sunset site are more distant (and therefore more expensive) and are usually visited on request. The sunset site in particular is usually booked as a special trip, since it requires visitors to arrive at dusk and to stay for a longer period in order to enjoy the spectacle of the setting sun.

Implications for management

Multiple access points make the distribution and activities of visitors difficult to regulate and the number should be reduced to a minimum. Measures introduced to restrict the internal movements of visitors should acknowledge traditionally popular sites

1.02 Tourism impact

The most noticeable and serious impact of tourism in Rum is the degradation of the desert habitat and landscape by vehicles. As mentioned previously, virtually all visitors take a vehicle tour to the well known sites and on peak days this can account for over 80 individual tours.   From Rum Village alone there are 250 vehicles available to run desert tours and with the vehicles from Diseh Cooperative, the Hashemite Fund, private sector operators and individual 4x4 owners, there can be as many as 100 vehicles driving on site during a single day.

Driving in Rum is essentially a "free for all". There is no established track system and vehicle movements are governed only by variations in terrain and the shortest distances between visitor sites. The effects of this extreme vehicle pressure are obvious. Vehicle tracks have proliferated across virtually every accessible space in the protected area, causing severe damage to the vegetation cover and scarring of the landscape (Figure 2).

A simple survey undertaken in 1998 revealed the severity of track proliferation. Transect lines were laid across four main wadis in the most intensively used areas, running perpendicular to the main direction of visitor flow, and the number of obvious tracks recorded. The results are shown in the table below:

Table 4 Track proliferation in Wadi Rum (source Abul Hawa 1998)
Transect Number Transect Direction Start Point End Point Transect length No of tracks Average
1 south-north Khazali Mtn, north Map site 2.5km 31 one track every 87m
2 east-west Map site Um-ishrin, south 800m 20 one track every 40m
3 east-west Um-Ishrin south Abu-Aineh Spring 2.7km 31 one track every 81m
4 west-east Rum Mountain, south Um-Ishrin south 800m 36 one track every 22m

The impact of uncontrolled desert driving is more than just visual. The baseline ecological surveys conducted for the project showed clearly that wildlife is more abundant in the few well vegetated areas, relatively undisturbed areas that remain. Research conducted in similar desert habitat in Israel showed the full extent of the damage possible 1. It defined ten major categories of impact, as follows:

eradication of shrubs and herbaceous plants.
disruption and removal of upper soil layers containing algae and fungi essential to plant growth.
compaction of soil layers to a depth of 30 cm, restricting rainfall infiltration and destroying animal burrows.
intensification of rainwater run-off, increasing the risk of flooding and generally disrupting water distribution patterns.
acceleration of soil erosion.
slaughter of animals hidden in burrows (insects, lizards and rodents).
up to 60% reduction in the photosynthetic activity of plants as a result of dust on their leaves.

There are five main reasons for track proliferation in Rum. Firstly, the soft, sandy soils become easily rutted under the weight of vehicles and, to avoid getting entrenched in sand, drivers seek the firmest ground to drive on. This firmness varies over time, as ruts are filled by wind blown sand or parallel driving, so drivers choose their options according to the prevailing state of the tracks. The second main reason is dust. The clouds of dust which arise at the back of moving vehicles severely reduce visibility and comfort level for the passengers of any other vehicle driving close behind. Drivers will therefore choose an alternative track to the same site to avoid this problem. The third main reason is competition. When there are several vehicles heading for the same site many drivers like to be first in the queue so they are not unduly slowed down by a backlog of visitors or to ensure that their own passengers get a relatively un-crowded experience at the site itself. The fourth main reason is also related to drivers seeking to please visitors. They will often deviate from main routes or race other vehicles to provide more excitement for their passengers, possibly in the hope of earning a better tip. The fifth main reason is the widespread use of 2-wheel drive vehicles by the local tour operators which cannot negotiate the sandy soils, especially when full of passengers, and are prone to becoming stuck. Their drivers therefore try to avoid any well driven tracks.

1.021 Littering

Littering is evident all over Rum, even in the remotest corners of the protected area. The debris usually consists of the ubiquitous drink cans, black plastic bags and drinking water bottles. Inevitably, the amount of litter is greatest where tourists congregate, such as the rest house, campsites and the top-ten visitor sites, although the wind is capable of distributing litter over long distances. In fairness to local tour operators and service providers, litter collection is improving, especially around campsites, where individuals are being given responsibility for keeping them generally clean. It is also fair to say that not all the litter is discarded by tourists. The local villagers and Bedouin contribute significantly to the litter problem.

1.022 Graffiti

Graffiti is a growing problem. Many of the sites with ancient rock inscriptions are showing signs of modern graffiti, usually carved with sharp instruments or occasionally applied with paint. Some archaeologist may argue that the ancient rock drawings are, in themselves, a form of graffiti and that modern graffiti will be valuable to the archaeologists of the future. However, the old drawings provide an important documentation of the life-style and resources of the people who once lived in the area and this should not be damaged, effaced or confused by new carvings from people living outside.

Some of the worst defacement of rock faces (not archaeological sites) has been by the army and universities doing training in land survey techniques. They have left large paint marks on several mountain sides which are visible from long distances. And on some routes up Jebel Rum and Jebel Burdah and on the top of Jebel Rum.

1.023 Camping

Camping itself is not seriously damaging but the servicing of campers does create unwanted impacts. Multiple vehicle tracks to campsites, parking areas, firewood collection (Sell charcoal in village!) and the disposal of solid and liquid waste all contribute to degradation of the landscape. Changing campsite locations which happens quite frequently, spreads this damage over a wider area. Hikers need to camp at the end of each day's walk, not be driven in and out every day – that defeats the whole objective the walk! This MUST be allowed.

1.024 Climbing

Climbing is a minority activity but it has the potential to cause damage, either by disturbance to mountain living wildlife (including cliff nesting birds) or by dislodging loose rocks and vegetation. Not strictly true to the extent this implies - see all our earlier advice and BMC info. Discarded or permanently fixed climbing equipment such as cams, slings and ropes can also be visually intrusive. This is nonsense! No climber can afford to leave a rope and cam behind – that's over 200JD of equipment! And if he did, for emergency reasons, the Bedouin would soon remove it – they know its value! We have told you this before. See our document Draft 9, prepared for RSCN, for correct info.

1.025 Special events

Occasional special events like ballooning, micro-light flying and car rallying
can result in significant detrimental impact. Ballooning and micro-lights for example, while not directly damaging, cause disturbance to wildlife and create visual and noise pollution in the desert landscape. Rallying is directly damaging to vegetation and soils and is not appropriate in a protected area.

1.026 General disturbance

Even though visitor pressure is concentrated in one-third of the protected area, tourism activities have affected all parts of the site. People engaged in minority interests like climbing, hiking and horse riding penetrate the more remote areas and many vehicle tours, especially private sector operators, take wilderness seeking groups into the "back country". These remote areas provide some of the last refuges for desert wildlife and the very presence of people and vehicles can affect animal populations, especially those species which are rare, endangered or naturally very timid. There is no evidence that this is true for climbing – see BMC info and our previous recommendations for a five year assessment before considering any action. The only action in European parks is to avoid nesting sites of endangered birds in nesting season. This restriction may only extend a few tens of metres from the nest, though sometimes, it's a cliff, which may be a hundred metres approx. Discuss with BMC / UIAA.

Implications for management

Priority should be given to the rationalisation of the vehicle track network and control of vehicle movements and to limiting the type of activities and use levels in different parts of the protected area. There is also a need to develop regulations and enforcement mechanisms to prevent unwanted impacts, many of which could be effectively controlled by a well-trained ranger service..

1.03 On-site tourism management

1.031 Operational hub

Virtually all the on-site tourism management is orchestrated from the rest house in Rum Village. It is here that visitors purchase entrance tickets, arrange 4x4 vehicle tours, camel rides and overnight camping; and obtain general information about the site, possible activities and fees. It provides washrooms, food and drinks - catering for large groups - and overnight accommodation in a large campsite to the rear of the building. These facilities play an important role in influencing the way visitors use the site and their length of stay. It is also the base for the tourist police who provide information and assistance for visitors and try to enforce site regulations.

Information provision in the rest house is minimal, consisting of one large wall map, obscurely positioned inside the rest house, a list of vehicle tours and charges and a free leaflet with a diagrammatic map of the protected area.

Entrance fees are collected at a small adjacent office belonging to the Rum Tourism Cooperative (RTC). It has a sign defining the fee rates but this is easily overlooked and it is well known that many visitors fail to pay. No checking for tickets appears to take place.

1.032 Tour operators and service providers

Within and away from the rest house, the activities and distribution of visitors is largely determined by the following tour operators and service providers: the Rum Tourism Cooperative, the manager of the rest house, privileged private sector operators, including the Hashemite Fund's Eco-tourism Project, and the Diseh Cooperative.

Rum Tourism Cooperative (RTC)

The RTC was created in 1990 as a vehicle by which the villagers of Rum (Zalabia tribe) could capitalize on the growing tourism business. It is an NGO affiliated to a national federation of cooperatives and has a constitution, which allows shareholders to receive annual dividends from the provision of tourism services. Despite the name of the RTC, its constitution does not categorically state that it can provide tourism services, although it received an official letter from the Ministry of Tourism in 1991granting it the right to do so and to charge entrance fees.

The most important aspect of the RTC is that it has a near monopoly on vehicle tours. It has 250 vehicles available on its register, comprising an assortment of jeeps and pick-ups, most of which are over 5 years old and many are without 4-wheel drive. They all belong to shareholders and, officially, each member is entitled to only one vehicle. Many shareholders, however, have registered other vehicles in the names of their wives and children and, as a result, receive a greater share of trade and benefits. (Rowe 1998).
Each day, RTC vehicles are lined-up in an open space alongside the rest house awaiting customers. They are supposedly organised according to a rotation system, whereby every vehicle owner is listed and moves 'up the list' to the front of the line-up to collect the next tour group; a similar system to a taxi rank. In practice, however, the rotation system does not operate smoothly or fairly. There is evidence of "queue jumping" and a disproportionate number of tours given to favoured members of the Cooperative. It is also evident that many visitors prefer to choose the vehicles from the line-up and some tour operators apparently insist on taking the best cars and most competent drivers. IMPORTANT. Climbers / trekkers must have the right to chose their own guides directly, not from the rota, and on the day they require them. This is worldwide custom. See BMC letter. Also it must be in the village, not the new Visitor Centre.

The choice of vehicles and tours is determined either by direct requests or negotiation at the vehicle pool or it is arranged in advance. Pre-booking is a common feature of organised tours, where time constraints are imposed by strict itineraries. If there is no pre-booking, it is usually the guide or courier accompanying the groups who negotiates for vehicle tours and fee rates.
The general lack of information about vehicle tours encourages independent tourists (ie not in organised groups) to take the shorter, cheaper trips because they are not fully aware of the available options.

The capacity of most of the RTC vehicles is 6 passengers, which means that coach parties, for example, may hire up to 8 vehicles in convoy.   The vehicles are nearly all open-sided jeeps or pick-ups, which visitors appear to prefer to the closed -topped versions. Safety standards are not enforced and there are many recorded incidents of vehicles breaking down en-route or becoming stuck in the sand; and they rarely carry water, food or emergency equipment.

At stopping points, passengers get out of their vehicle and are directed to the key features, such as inscriptions or geological features, by either the driver or by the tour guide accompanying the group. Drivers, on the whole, are not fluent in English or other foreign languages and give limited information during the tours. The length of time spent at each point is determined by the group size, the distance from the vehicle and the amount of information given by the guide or driver. Where the driver is not articulate, visitors are often allowed to explore the site at their own pace.

The other activity over which the RTC has a virtual monopoly is camping. It organises Bedouin style camps in 6 main locations, including the provision of food, lighting, toilets and bedding. It does this for all visitors, including those who have arranged their tours through independent, external tour companies.
.
Manager of the rest house

The rest house is owned by the Ministry of Tourism but its management is leased through a bidding system to the private sector. The current manager is Mr Ali Halawi, and he plays a very influential role in the organisation of tourism on site. He deals directly with outside travel companies and is largely responsible for arranging the itineraries of pre-booked tours, including lucrative special interest tours such as camel trekking, climbing and long camping trips. As one researcher put it, "he effectively controls the market in mainstream tourism" (Rowe 1998 1). He is able to maintain this position largely because he controls the communication system in the village, having the only central fax and telephone, and he provides (and controls) key facilities and services such as washrooms. According to Rowe (1998) he is seen by outside operators as the acceptable face of Rum tourism, since he is able to offer a professional service and can be counted on to deliver a service to specification. Not strictly true – adventure tour operators prefer to deal directly with their guides who give a professional service and are well respected internationally. See below.

Most of the business brought to Rum by Mr Hilawi is subcontracted to the Rum Tourism Cooperative and in this sense he acts as a "middle man" for services such as jeep tours and camping.

Privileged private sector operators

There are a number of private sector operators who have special arrangements or concessions for utilising the Rum protected area. These include a small number of individuals from Rum Village, and incidental members of the RTC, who work by prior arrangement with external travel companies, in a similar way to Mr Hilawi but on a smaller scale. Most of these 'independents' are well trained guides CORRECT! who have gained the respect (and high fees) from their clients and tend to get repeat business from the same companies. In addition, there is a French-owned horseback tour company and the eco-tourism project of the recently re-named Queen Alia Fund (now called the Jordanian Hashemite Fund for Human Development). This project has become a significant player in the rum tourism scene, having a fleet of twenty one 4x4 vehicles donated by the Spanish Government, available for desert tours. It is based outside the protected area, in the nearby village of Gweira ????, and deals exclusively with pre-booked tours. Initially there was deep resentment of this project by the RTC but eventually it was allowed concessions, including the waiving of the entrance fee, largely because their surplus income is being invested in a fund to provide social services for the Rum Village community.

Diseh Cooperative

The Diseh Cooperative has only recently become involved in tourism services but in 1998 it handled just under 20% of all tourists to the protected area (Rowe 1998). It has made significant investments in facilities, including a campsite and washrooms and the construction of a rest house similar to the one in Rum Village. Its methods of operation are different to the RTC in that it licenses several independent operators toprovide services, such as campsites and restaurants, and it welcomes outside investors. Like the RTC it offers vehicle tours through its members but it maintains stricter controls on safety standards and on driver competence. Furthermore, it does not levy an entrance fee and this makes tours cheaper for visitors.

Independents

There is a small minority of visitors who use their own 4x4 vehicles and camping equipment and determine their own itineraries, without reference to any of the operators described above. These 'independents' tend to be Jordanians and foreign residents who know the site well and have a particular interest in wilderness trekking; and are competent enough to manage in desert conditions. As a result of their competence, they often penetrate areas of the site well away from the tourist "hot spots". As do Bedouin adventure travel guides (trekking & climbing guides). This should be respected as a valuable part of Rum tourism.

Implications for management

Information provision at the rest house needs to be improved and a better system introduced for collecting entrance fees. Control of the RTC vehicle rotation system needs to be tightened and vehicle numbers limited. Safety standards for their vehicles and drivers also need to be introduced and enforced. Greater coordination is needed between tour operators and the capacity of local service providers enhanced to reduce the reliance on the rest house manager. Old rivalries between Rum and Diseh cooperatives need to be broken down to ensure equitable development of services and sharing of benefits. Correct!

1.04 Economics of tourism

Full details of the economics of tourism in Rum are given in the two other reports prepared for the project: the socio-economic study (Rowe 1998) and the institutional review of the RTC (RSCN 1999). In this report, the economics are only considered in relation to visitor management.

Pricing is obviously an influence on the activities which visitors undertake. The relatively low cost of the short jeep tours, for example, will be an important reason for their popularity, although the time constraints of day visitors will be an equally important consideration. Cost is also seen as a factor encouraging the increase in tour groups entering the protected area through Diseh, since the cooperative does not charge entrance fees (Rowe 1998).

More important than pricing, is the distribution and use of the revenue generated on site. At present virtually all of this revenue is channelled to the Rum Tourism Cooperative and the manager of the rest house, Mr Hilawi. There is an agreement between these operators to share the entrance fee according to a 60:40 ratio, in recognition of the services provided in the rest house, and a large cut of camping and catering fees also goes to Mr Hilawi.
The benefits received by both parties are illustrated in the tables below.

Table 5 : Analysis of income distribution for a typical tour group of 20 on a day
visit (RSCN 1999).
Income from tourists                     RTC share            Rest house manger's share
entrance fees               20 JDs         12 JDs (60%)                             8 JDs (20%)
2-hour vehicle tour       60 JDs        60 JDs (100%)                                -
Meals and drinks        200 JDs               -                                       200 JDs (100%)
Totals                         280 JDs        72 JDs                                           208 JDs
% share without meals                              26%                                            74%
% share with meals                                10%                                                90%

Table 6 : Analysis of the income distribution for a typical camping group of 20
individuals (RSCN 1999)
Income from tour                        RTC share                             Rest house manager's share
entrance fee                 20 JDs         12 JDs (20%)                                      8 JDs (40%)
Transport to site           40 JDs            40 JDs
Bedouin tents             162 JDs           162JDs
Fire wood                     40 JDs            40 JDs
Water tanker                20 JDs               20 JDs
Camping fee + meals 700 JDs                                                                       700 JDs
vehicle tour                  60 JDs                 60 JDs
Totals                       1042 JDs              334 JDs                                           708 JDs
% share 32 % 68%

According to estimates by Rowe (1998), each member of the RTC makes an average of only 1164.8 JD annually ($1617), although as he points out, this does not reflect the true picture of income distribution. Members with several vehicles and camels are obviously earning much more, and there are tips and "hidden services" not officially accounted for. The handful of specialist guides, for example, can earn relatively large sums, exceeding 400 JD per week when in demand.You must take into account that from this sum, they pay their helpers (cooks & drivers etc) who are also from the Rum community. Also this only lasts 2 to 4 months of the year. However, even accounting for such anomalies and variations, there is little doubt that income levels for the majority of the RTC shareholders are very low; and that the manager of the rest house is creaming-off a substantial income by virtue of his role as professional "middle man".

The outcome of the current system of revenue generation and distribution is a lack of incentives to invest in the development and improvement of visitor services and in the protection of the site. Mr Hilawi has made improvements in the quality of basic services at the rest house, such as the washrooms, but these serve to enhance the profitability of his enterprise and do little to affect visitors' enjoyment of the rest of the protected area. With the RTC, most of its shareholders receive such small or modest incomes, they are unlikely to support investments in vital improvements such as new vehicles, safety standards, provision of information, ranger and guide services and the enforcement of regulations; and all of these aspects affect the type and quality of experiences visitors receive and are therefore important considerations in any management strategy.

Implications for management

Financial benefits from tourism operations need to be more fairly distributed and mechanisms developed to encourage investment in better quality services, and in the protection of the site.

1.05 Regulations and enforcement

At present, there are no specific regulations governing the use or conservation of the protected area. It was this lack of protective measures which prompted the Aqaba Regional Authority (ARA) in199? to designate the site as a 'special regulations area' so that appropriate regulations could be defined. However, over the last few years, the ARA and Ministry of Tourism have used general laws or their constitutional authority to attempt to regulate some uses of the site. Building developments in Rum Village, for example, were frozen or terminated by the ARA and the Ministry have resisted hotel developments and granted user concessions to organisations like the RTC. Good. More recently, the Ministry issued a directive restricting the use of private 4-wheel vehicles in the protected area and the use of secondary access points. Under the aegis of this 2nd Tourism Project, the ARA has prepared regulations controlling the development of Rum Village.

Enforcement of directives, general laws and authorities has fallen between local and national government officials and the local tourism or Badia police. Overall, it has not been very effective. The tourism police interviewed for the RTC review stated that manpower resources were too limited to control tourist activities over the whole site (there are only two officers stationed at the rest house). Beware of control, control, control, especially of 'adventure tourists' who are almost always environmentally aware. See our guidebooks!! Mass tourism and independent driving are the problems. Control the tens of thousands and forget about the few hundred environmentally aware minority who have given Rum good promotion for longer than anyone else! They cited the example of the directive to limit access by private 4x4 vehicles, saying that it was virtually impossible to monitor and enforce. It is also very clear that enforcement is made especially difficult by absence of a single on-site management authority to report to and the fact that most of the ad hoc regulations created so far have no basis in Jordanian law. This last point makes the follow -up of violations difficult to execute.

Implications for management

Detailed regulations need to be defined to ensure the protection of the site and mechanisms developed to enforce them effectively, including an increase in manpower and better liaison with local police and government agencies.

1.06   Other users of Rum

In the context of this visitor management plan, it is important to stress that tourists are not the only users of the protected area. It has been the home of several Bedouin tribes for centuries and it has been a base for the army and Badia police for many years. These groups of people have also had a very considerable impact on the area; and, indeed, the Bedouin communities have shaped much of the character of the landscape we see today.   Grazing by goat herds, for example, has totally altered the vegetation composition and structure and, combined with other factors, is contributing to the degradation of the landscape and ecology. Bedouins have also been driving trucks across the desert for a long time, irrespective of tourists, and created much of the basic track network. The visitor management plan, therefore, while addressing the need to manage tourists more effectively, should be seen in relation to the other users of Rum. Bedouin aren't 'users' – they are the indigenous inhabitants with rights enshrined in UN Resolutions. See SI Letter sent to RSCN.

Implications for management

The protected area management plan must address the regulation of other damaging uses as well as tourism and try to integrate protective measures.

1.07 The proposed visitor centre

Prior to the implementation of the 2nd Tourism Project, the World Bank commissioned consultants to prepare a basic development strategy for Rum (GHK 1996). This strategy recommended the construction of a large visitor centre at the edge of the protected area, on the main access road to Rum Village and overlooking the famous landmark of the 'seven pillars of wisdom'. How many times do I need to say, do NOT fall into the trap of promoting this nonsense. This mountain is NOT the Seven Pillars of Wisdom. It has NO connection with Lawrence other than in some tour operator's theme park fantasy. The reason for the book's title will be found in the Foreword to the book. It has NOTHING to do with Rum or even Jordan. (see Map 5). The centre was seen as providing a much needed operational and administrative hub for the protected area, with good facilities and interpretation in a very attractive and dramatic setting.

Detailed plans for this centre have since been prepared and its basic layout is shown in Figure3 The buildings cover a gross area of 2,934 square metres and include the following: offices for visitor reception and protected area administration, interpretation halls, restaurant and café, shops and an eco-conference room. There is also a very large car park, accommodating up to 20 coaches and 200 cars. It is hoped that construction of the centre will begin in the year 2000. That should destroy a nice piece of desert!

The most important aspect of the centre is that it will be the only significant gateway to the protected area and virtually all visitor movements and activities, including vehicle tours, will be controlled and managed from it. In effect, it will centralise visitor management and make it easier to administer.   However, in doing this it will shift the current focus of tourism operations away from Rum Village, seven kilometers to the north, and this has major implications for the village community and its economy. Large masses of people will no longer visit the village automatically as they do now and this will deprive many small businesses of their customer base. The village rest house and restaurants, for example, provide most of the food and drinks for tourists but when the centre is built it will be hard for them to compete with the fine buildings and views afforded by the new restaurants in the centre. To prevent the village from losing its commercial vibrancy it will be very important to ensure that it continues to offer attractions to visitors and that this need is considered in the development of new tour packages. NB. The climbing / trekking fraternity MUST be allowed to continue to camp near the village (behind J Mayeen, behind Rest House. They will continue to use all village facilities, and hire their guides and vehicles there. This must NOT be stopped. Open a Guide's office here for this purpose – this is the practice in all mountain areas. It will also be important to ensure that local people will be given opportunities to exploit business opportunities generated by the centre and that, ultimately, the improved tourism management engendered by the centre will bring them better economic returns.

The implications of the centre for visitor management and the local economy are reflected in the recommendations made in this plan and, indeed, several sections offer different strategies for 'pre and post-visitor centre' situations.