HIBAPRESS – Mohammed Zariouh
Nador province has entered a heated phase in recent days, after the announcement of the documents related to the urban planning design for the intervention area of the Marchica Lagoon site development agency. This file had been frozen for over 12 years before suddenly emerging and igniting a sharp public debate, which quickly turned into a wide wave of controversy and resentment among the residents, economic actors, and elected officials.
The first spark of this tension erupted immediately after the initial documents were posted in the headquarters of the concerned local authorities, namely Nador, Beni Ansar, Bouareg, and Arkmane. A number of stakeholders expressed their shock at the project's contents and the way it was brought to light, considering that the absence of proactive communication and genuine involvement of those concerned opened the door to fears, especially within populated areas that fear direct repercussions on their real estate and urban conditions. In a short period, the matter was no longer just technical observations or passing reservations, but rather turned into protests and serious questions about the extent to which the participatory approach was respected in preparing a document that is supposed to shape the future of urban and investment expansion in the province for many years. Amidst this escalation, a general feeling emerged that the file was not managed with the required wisdom, and that the way it was implemented deepened the level of anxiety instead of building trust. In the midst of this tension, the governor of Nador province, Jamal Chaarani, emerged as a key player in containing the situation, after intervening directly and at a sensitive time, through continuous coordination with the general director of the Marchica Lagoon site development agency, in order to open channels of dialogue and absorb the tension. This intervention reflected the regional authority's keenness to protect social stability and ensure that this file does not slip into an open crisis that could disrupt the major development projects in the province. According to consistent data, a new approach has been adopted that is based on broad listening to the various objections and observations that will be expressed by citizens, economic actors, and elected officials within the concerned communities, in compliance with the legal procedures governing urban planning documents. However, this shift, despite its importance, did not prevent the escalation of embarrassing questions about the background of this confusion, and about administrative responsibility in reaching this tense stage. At the heart of this controversy, questions from the local street are repeatedly asked: Why is the general director of the agency not dismissed despite the failure to manage a number of sensitive files, and despite the state of anger that accompanied the release of this design? And why does the silence continue regarding imbalances that many see as a direct cause of deepening the trust gap between the institution and the Nador environment? These are questions that are no longer only asked behind the scenes, but have become a prominent title in the public debate in the province. Today, the bet is not only on reviewing the urban planning design and restudying it in light of the recorded observations, but also on consolidating the logic of clarity and accountability and linking responsibility with accountability. The Nador province, which is keeping pace with major projects with a wide spatial and economic impact, needs responsible management that reassures the residents, protects investment, and restores the trust that has been eroded by delay, confusion, and poor communication.
