Parque Nacional del Este - sold?

Lissi

New member
Apr 28, 2004
5
0
0
<blockquote>I just heard rumours that parts of Parque Nacional del Este have been sold to a Spanish hotel owner who plans to build a resort there.

Does anyone know if this is correct?

And if so, what happened to all the national and international agreements to leave this area untouched, as it supposedly does host about half of the island's bird species...
 

CloggieBoots

New member
Jan 17, 2004
67
0
0
www.caribbeanwizard.com
People and nature

Hi Lissi,

We live and work ( excursion biz ) within the Parque del Este. We have also heard this story, and it would seem inevitable, given all of the various factors, that there will be limited development within the area. This is not actually proscribed by the Parques Nacionales rules, which are themselves subject to constant review.

Firstly a question ; have you visited the area, and are you familiar with it ?

The existing development of the Bayahibe/Dominicus area has been reasonably ( with the possible exception of Casa del Mar ) well done, there are now several hotels along what is known as 'Dominicus beach', and they all are low-rise, with a lot of natural materials which fit in with the local scenery. The visual impact is quite low, some might even ( dare I write it ?) they enhance the natural scenery.

It is not always the case that development is detrimental to the environment, in many cases mankind's influence can even be benevolent, depending on one's point of view. We do not automatically have to consider ourselves as a 'blight' on our surroundings, in fact it is an unavoidable fact that we are 'nature' too ! ;-)

The part of the Parque del Este concerned is a strip of about 15 kilometres between Bayahibe and Palmilla, and, including a service road, this will probably take about 500 metres ( give or take ) back from the existing shoreline. In other words it would represent a very tiny slice of the total area of the existing park terrain. Initially the spread of development will probably just 'creep' in a south-easterly direction from the existing Dominicus area, and it will take many years before the entire strip is developed.

The impact on the bird populations will probably be minimal. The impact on the human population will be dramatic. The enhanced employment prospects will have obvious advantages for not only the local people, but probably for hundreds ( later thousands ) of people from all over the country. This country, surprisingly for one that is usually characterised by judgemental comments such as 'backward' and 'poverty-stricken', is quite advanced in many aspects of environmental concern, and new resorts will be required to meet low-impact standards with regard to human waste disposal etc.

The Parque del Este currently supports one of the most active excursion areas in the Caribbean ( Bayahibe - Saona ) which can be handling several thousand tourists a day in high season. The environmental impact is extraordinarily low, all things considered, and while marine safety standards undoubtedly need to be addressed ( which we are pursuing at the moment ), there is no substantive reason why resort development shouldn't also be possible to accommodate an 'eco-eye' in it's planning.

The beach areas concerned are not particularly attractive as they stand, there is little or no coral along this entire strip, and if the type of development is consistent with the current Dominicus area, then there should be no detrimental effect.

In conclusion, we are all in favour of protecting the environment, but not in favour of excluding our own species from the general description of 'nature'. This country has a rapidly growing, very 'young', population, and it would seem that tourism can provide a very much more pleasant working environment for the Dominican people, than, for example, more 'sweat-shop' like clothing fabricators.

Just a few thoughts on the subject, not meant to cause anyone any offence. :)

C.B.

Lissi said:
<blockquote>I just heard rumours that parts of Parque Nacional del Este have been sold to a Spanish hotel owner who plans to build a resort there.

Does anyone know if this is correct?

And if so, what happened to all the national and international agreements to leave this area untouched, as it supposedly does host about half of the island's bird species...
 

Narcosis

New member
Dec 18, 2003
387
0
0
Hey CB:

Thank you for responding, I hope you become more vocal on this issue as in these enviromental debates it is great to hear both sides.

I am a Parque Nacional del Este fan and have known this area for over 20 years. I first went to Dominicus hotel when all they were a few thatched huts and have seen the hotel development at each stage.

Being a scuba diver I am very aware of past efforts to maintain this area pristine and appreciate any input people like yourself on the "inside" have on development and what is going wrong or right for that matter.

This park holds so much importance in the study of the Taino civilizacion as well and it needs to be protected as much as the natural enviroment.

Thank you again
 

deelt

Bronze
Mar 23, 2004
987
2
0
Imho

Hi CB

Dominican Republic actually has little to no remaining corals period. They have been killed off. While I can feel you believe in what you are saying I still hesitate because DR doesn't necessarily have as progressive a look to protect it's environment as say Costa Rica, where eco-turism has truly become a profitable business. The type of tourism practiced by DR is not environmentally friendly. As seen with Jamaica and similar countries, the local community is competiting for the same natural resources indiscriminately consumed by tourist and the locals are losing out, if history and data from similar set-ups can be used as evidence. Without tangible reforms tourism cannot be a sustainable mechanism for economic development.

Peace.

CloggieBoots said:
Hi Lissi,

The beach areas concerned are not particularly attractive as they stand, there is little or no coral along this entire strip, and if the type of development is consistent with the current Dominicus area, then there should be no detrimental effect.


C.B.
 

Narcosis

New member
Dec 18, 2003
387
0
0
Nice to hear from you Deelt:

I would love to see where you got your data on the coral? maybe in a few spots this may be true because of sewage and run-off, but the great majority of the reefs around the country are in good shape from personal observation at least.

What IS noticable is the lack of certain species of larger reef dwelling fish (non-pelgatic) that have been killed-off by compressor spear-fishing over the years. These species since they are basically born and live their whole life in the same general area, once the popultion is affected, it is difficult for them to recover on their own.

On the other hand from personal observation other species of small reef fish are very abundant, this may be in part of the lack of the larger species, but in general the situation may not be as bad as you paint it.

As for Costa Rica, I get a kick out of how effective all the hype over the country is. I lived for 2 years in CR and know every inch of the country.

First of all much of what you hear is just very good publicity totally opposite from the DR which has much negative publicity generated locally.

CR has a more educated population and they are all pretty much on the same page as to saving this image abroad, something we very much lack, the truth is the Costa Rican government is as corrupt as any other and much clandistine felling of trees goes on as well as lack of control of sewage etc. San Jose has open-air sewage system and all sewage goes directly to the rivers that cross the city.

CR has a jump on us in the eco-tourism front because they developed it from grass-roots efforts and tourism has grown around it not the opposite we see here where tourism started by the large hotel chains and now grass-roots eco-tourism is in it's infancy.

Please don't cast your air of negativity because you attended some enviromental meeting in the states, be your own judge and go out and see for yourself what is being done in the DR.
 

deelt

Bronze
Mar 23, 2004
987
2
0
Sorry babe I wrote a report for the UN on this and held a conference on this very issue. My info can be alittle dated (2002) but I still think it is relevant. The growth of the small reef fish is a direct response to the fact that serious damage had been done, thus this new growth was a direct response of *corrective action.* I'll try to look up some of the data later, but I have to get back to work right now. Plus a lot of my stuff may still be in-transit due to my many moves.

I agree with you on Costa Rica. Thanks for recognizing that enviromental education makes a difference. Trust I don't think DR is all bad, like costa rica I think they have done very well on issues of housing. See, I'm not all negative. ;)


Narcosis said:
Nice to hear from you Deelt:

I would love to see where you got your data on the coral? maybe in a few spots this may be true because of sewage and run-off, but the great majority of the reefs around the country are in good shape from personal observation at least.

What IS noticable is the lack of certain species of larger reef dwelling fish (non-pelgatic) that have been killed-off by compressor spear-fishing over the years. These species since they are basically born and live their whole life in the same general area, once the popultion is affected, it is difficult for them to recover on their own.

On the other hand from personal observation other species of small reef fish are very abundant, this may be in part of the lack of the larger species, but in general the situation may not be as bad as you paint it.

As for Costa Rica, I get a kick out of how effective all the hype over the country is. I lived for 2 years in CR and know every inch of the country.

First of all much of what you hear is just very good publicity totally opposite from the DR which has much negative publicity generated locally.

CR has a more educated population and they are all pretty much on the same page as to saving this image abroad, something we very much lack, the truth is the Costa Rican government is as corrupt as any other and much clandistine felling of trees goes on as well as lack of control of sewage etc. San Jose has open-air sewage system and all sewage goes directly to the rivers that cross the city.

CR has a jump on us in the eco-tourism front because they developed it from grass-roots efforts and tourism has grown around it not the opposite we see here where tourism started by the large hotel chains and now grass-roots eco-tourism is in it's infancy.

Please don't cast your air of negativity because you attended some enviromental meeting in the states, be your own judge and go out and see for yourself what is being done in the DR.
 

CloggieBoots

New member
Jan 17, 2004
67
0
0
www.caribbeanwizard.com
Hi Narcosis, ( does that mean that you're a 'dead-head', in the Gerry Garcia sense ?)

You're welcome, I just felt that it would be worth giving a few alternative perspectives. Many times an issue becomes 'politicised' and a whole bunch of emotional energy gets expended without a lot of attention being paid to the precise circumstances of the case in point. We go up and down this coastline almost everyday, and frankly.... ( again, dare I write it ? ) it's pretty dull. A little careful and caring development might actually jazz it up a little bit. ;-)

We did do a forced march into the bush one time with a bunch of archeologists from the U of Indiana, to see a geuine Taino site. We disturbed a few locals up to some mysterious and doubtless nefarious pursuits in the main cave, including leaving the remains of a smouldering fire, which was doing wonders for the surviving rock-art, such as it was. There could even be an argument that opening the area up a bit might lead to better preservation of ancient sites, rather than the normally assumed worse.

Environmentally speaking one of the worst of all devastations that humankind can inflict on an area ( see almost the entire area of Haita for example ) is the burning of timber to obtain charcoal. This does go on here in remote and inaccessible areas, despite being absolutely 'verboten'. The 'chain-effect' can be disastrous, leading eventually as in the case of the aforementioned western end of Hispaniola, to not only total destructive of the entire land-based eco-structure, but also the marine habitats as well. This last being caused by the excessive soil erosion that inevitably follows de-foliation contaminating the waters around the coasts of the subject area, thus killing off the coral growths that are the primary level of that part of the food chain.

So.......I am thus positting an argument that it can be that well-managed development can have a positive environmental impact. As life-long divers we are well aware of the various factors that may affect marine eco-structures, and the worst detrimental effects that can be inflicted. However in this area I would also like to put a few points for general consideration.

Firstly the people of these Caribbean islands are, by our 'western' economic standards, 'poor'. They live in a much more subsitence related style. On land that can lead to 'slash and burn', the ghastly effects of which can be seen at their height in the Amazonian rain forests of, primarily, Brazil and Peru. There is a little recognised marine equivalent, a sort of 'hoovering' of the seas, that nearly all nations have been guilty of in recent decades. leading to 'cod-wars' and 'herring-wars', and other such undesirable effects. Now, most leading ( again, in the current economic sense ) nations have made agreements to severely reduce over-fishing. This phenomenom is generally taken as referring to the industrialised 'factory-fishing' promoted by nations such as Japan, Korea, Spain etc. But locally it can be just as devastating for fragile environments. One of the questions that we are asked most frequently by the tourists relate to "How's the fishing here ?" Well, the only realistic answer to that question is " There isn't much", and believe me we know this. There are too many fisher-persons, and too little fish. This leads to sea-food resources being progressively decimated as the 'small-fry' gets taken in the absence of any 'big-fry', thus eliminating the chance for natural re-stocking.

What's the solution ? Ummm, don't know. :-((( Things being what they are here a total ban, or even an attempt at size restrictions would never be enforceable, who would enforce them, and with what resources ? If the driving regulations ( Hahahahahahahahahahahaha ) are anything to go by, then it could only work if the wealthier members of the community took up commercial fishing, then a sort of 'Fishet' force could fine gringos and well-heeled Dominicans 10,000 pesos for using their cell-phones will casting for marlin, or whatever.

But, quite apart from these nutty issues, there is another aspect that is frequently overlooked, the effects of nature. Firstly the 'prime mover' in the Caribbean marine eco-structure is the Equitorial Current. This generates in the mid-Atlantic and pushes from a generally south-east to north-west direction. It's a very strong current ( in global terms ) and can run at well over knot ( nautical mile per hour about 1.8 kilometres per hour ) in open waters, increasing to 2.5 knots + in bottlenecks like the Yucatan Channel between Cuba and Mexico. This current literally drives the nutrient chain that feeds both coral development and the fish populations.

In the area in questions, S.E. DR there is a crystal-clear cut-off between the western side of the Parque Nacional del Este and the western side. The Equitorial current feeds the Mona Passage and all of the waters along that coast. Fortunately for the marine inhabitants that coast is also exposed to the prevailing winds and seas, thus is relatively not very hospitable to fisher-folk. I suspect that the fish-stocks between Saona and Samana Bay are much healthier than elsewhere, and fishing buffs confirm this. On 'our' side, that is, between Saona and La Romana the waters are much less influenced by current, and it really shows. Thus the tendency for less coral growth. The claim that 'we' have somehow 'killed' off the coral in this area fly in the face of naturally prevailing conditions. When coral gets 'killed' off, for whatever reason the 'skeletons' remain, evidential of the destruction, rather like the 'body' in a terrestial 'who-dunnit'. The fact of the matter is that in this area there is little or no 'body', no great accumulation of extinct coral.

Thus I seriously doubt that the 'human' effect has had a great deal of influence in this area. It's not even ( and never has been ) a particularly densely populated region, in any event.

Actually the two most instrumental forces acting on coral reef growth and/or destruction are sediment levels in the water, and severe storms. These two factors are often closely inter-linked. Firstly, that part of the Equitorial Current that does act on this area tends to force it's way through the Saona channel, evidential of this is that the entire western end of this channel has a bar that extends from the mainland right across to the western end of Saona island. This is the result of countless millenia of ( relatively mild ) curreent effect. But what it also signifies is that there is a constant depositing of fine sediments from east to west. This is one of the main reasons that the western coast has little coral, lack of nutrients, and abundance of sediments.

The other effect, that of storms, particularly tropical storms. This is quite interesting, from an 'ecological' point of view. An in-depth survey was conducted around the island of Culebra ( between Puerto Rico and the US Virgins ) after Hurricane Hugo ( September 1989 ). It was observed that the initial impact of that most severe storm was a horrendous decimation of the extensive local reef systems. But, fortunately, the survey was extended over several years to monitor progress, and this produced some intriguing results.

Whilst the initial effect was a wide-spread breaking-up of reefs, which seemed most detrimental, the longer term effect were that the particles that had been broken off and scattered actually lead to a wider 'seeding' effect, and after five years or so the reef systems had not only recovered much of the damage, but actually spreading over larger areas.

Nature is a wondrous thing, is it not ? ;-)

In conclusion, and I hope that this answers a few other points raised here, the natural underwater eco-system of this area is not all that abundant, nor has it been the 'victim' of extensive human negative impact ( I refer primarily to coral reef structures ). The kind of development likely in the area is not likely to greatly impact the local environment. For sure the local flora and fauna must be protected as far as possible, and for sure the historic aspects of ancient indigenous habitation should be preserved and maintained, again, as far as possible. Bearing in mind that an absolute 'hands-off' policy benefits few, and may actually promote conditions in which worse damage can be inflicted.

C.B.
 

CloggieBoots

New member
Jan 17, 2004
67
0
0
www.caribbeanwizard.com
Hi Deelt,

I hear what you say/write. I have addressed a number of these points in my reply to Narcosis above. The main problem, as we see it, is that tourism as it has been practised thus far in the DR has been driven by largely external mass 'package-tourism', the dreaded 'all-inclusive' type resorts. I could write a book about this pernicious practise. I agree 100 % that this factor alone makes this kind of tourism development a major source of impact, whilst proving little local economic benefit. Aruba has to be the leading example of this, where ( a few years ago, admittedly, I don't have access to recent figures ) the average 'spend' per tourist in US dollars reaching the strictly local economy was in the less than 10 dollars area !

I'm still not quite sure what, exactly, 'eco-tourism' means, we have observed it in various locations around the Caribbean, and all to often what it boils down to is 'cheapo' tourism, which also doesn't benefit the local population much. This country has almost unlimited potential for creative ideas in this field, and the natural resources to support extensive ( non-lethal ) development. What we would like to see is a positive stance from the Min. of Tour. in encouraging non-'all-inclusive' development. Having toured most of the country in the first few months we decided to stay here ( 6 years ago ), we were struck by how little facilites existed in the vast majority of the land.

The people are naturally most hospitable, and welcoming to 'strangers', but are just not accustomed to seeing too many of them/us. There are few hotels of a good, clean, basic and inexpensive type, and apart from the Rancho Baiguate type of 'adventure theme' stuff up in the mountains of Jarabacoa, there is little organised reacreational activity, leaving people to work it out for themselves, with all of the attendant problems that can create.

The world in which we are living now is one in which our 'leisure-time' is becoming increasingly a more important issue. People from the better placed world economies are looking for ever more 'exciting' ways to spend there had-earned dosh on having a good time, in all that definition's diversity. It seems to me that the DR could be on the leading edge of benefitting from this, if the creativity and resources can be applied. One thing is sure, the opportunities are not lacking.

What I would like to see is much more emphasis from the ' environmental lobby' on what we CAN do, rather than what we can't. Sometimes I get the impression that the truly 'green' members of our global community would really only be satisfied with a ban on humans ! That won't work, either. ;-)

The DR is a nation in it's relative infancy as nations go, and they have many faults, but they are trying, and on the whole, subject to the usual ( and largely external ) pernicious influences of macro-economics, they are doing pretty well. The comparison with Costa Rica is interesting, but hardly directly apt, the population of CR is a fraction of the DR's, and they never had the colonial agro-economy heritage that this country has had to overcome. It's easy to forget ( well......maybe not that easy ! ) that this is the original 'Banana Republic', and that the dreaded United Fruit Company had it's mark here for most of the last century. What I say is don't knock the DR, help it grow, in the best way possible. Isn't that why most of us are here, after all ?

C.B.
 

Tordok

Bronze
Oct 6, 2003
530
2
0
Interestingly enough, some parts adjacent and/or within the park that have been presumptively approved for development by the Spanish hoteliers are privately owned lands by folks from La Romana that were never properly remunerated by the Dominican State when the lands were declared a protected natural preserve. I personally know people that are expected to directly benefit ($$$) from this project moving forward. My understanding from this obviously biased party is that the amount of land chosen should not have a substantial impact on the overall health of this coastal forest. Also, a couple of months ago, public hearings were held in La Romana where the pros and cons of this proposal were openly reviewed by town folks and other interested parties. A rather unusual and welcomed level of transparency for Dominican standards. The local consensus was to move ahead. If things are left entirely in the hands of the politicos and the often unscrupulous developers then we can expect to see precious natural resources on the market for the quick buck regardless of the potential hazards to the environment. But if the process has well defined rules and these are followed, then things might work out for everyone.
-Tordok
 

deelt

Bronze
Mar 23, 2004
987
2
0
Hi CB
You hit a lot of it on the head. I agree there can be managed developement, but this is only effectively done with effective and RESPONSIVE public exchange/participation. And in DR do we really have that? My fear is that once developed (will they money spenders stop the bribes) they will keep on building and sprawling. Southern NJ is an example of the ideal situation of managed developed with all its tensions. At the end of the day it is environmental education that makes the difference and teaching kids to teach their parents has been a viable option to ingraine new habits.

Yes coral reefs have been most damaged by tropical storms like El nino.
This is one of the things that have caused serious bleaching of the corals.
CEP.UNEP site is pretty good.

Have to run wish I could write/read more...work is kicking up.
Peace
CloggieBoots said:
Hi Narcosis, ( does that mean that you're a 'dead-head', in the Gerry Garcia sense ?)

You're welcome, I just felt that it would be worth giving a few alternative perspectives. Many times an issue becomes 'politicised' and a whole bunch of emotional energy gets expended without a lot of attention being paid to the precise circumstances of the case in point. We go up and down this coastline almost everyday, and frankly.... ( again, dare I write it ? ) it's pretty dull. A little careful and caring development might actually jazz it up a little bit. ;-)

We did do a forced march into the bush one time with a bunch of archeologists from the U of Indiana, to see a geuine Taino site. We disturbed a few locals up to some mysterious and doubtless nefarious pursuits in the main cave, including leaving the remains of a smouldering fire, which was doing wonders for the surviving rock-art, such as it was. There could even be an argument that opening the area up a bit might lead to better preservation of ancient sites, rather than the normally assumed worse.

Environmentally speaking one of the worst of all devastations that humankind can inflict on an area ( see almost the entire area of Haita for example ) is the burning of timber to obtain charcoal. This does go on here in remote and inaccessible areas, despite being absolutely 'verboten'. The 'chain-effect' can be disastrous, leading eventually as in the case of the aforementioned western end of Hispaniola, to not only total destructive of the entire land-based eco-structure, but also the marine habitats as well. This last being caused by the excessive soil erosion that inevitably follows de-foliation contaminating the waters around the coasts of the subject area, thus killing off the coral growths that are the primary level of that part of the food chain.

So.......I am thus positting an argument that it can be that well-managed development can have a positive environmental impact. As life-long divers we are well aware of the various factors that may affect marine eco-structures, and the worst detrimental effects that can be inflicted. However in this area I would also like to put a few points for general consideration.

Firstly the people of these Caribbean islands are, by our 'western' economic standards, 'poor'. They live in a much more subsitence related style. On land that can lead to 'slash and burn', the ghastly effects of which can be seen at their height in the Amazonian rain forests of, primarily, Brazil and Peru. There is a little recognised marine equivalent, a sort of 'hoovering' of the seas, that nearly all nations have been guilty of in recent decades. leading to 'cod-wars' and 'herring-wars', and other such undesirable effects. Now, most leading ( again, in the current economic sense ) nations have made agreements to severely reduce over-fishing. This phenomenom is generally taken as referring to the industrialised 'factory-fishing' promoted by nations such as Japan, Korea, Spain etc. But locally it can be just as devastating for fragile environments. One of the questions that we are asked most frequently by the tourists relate to "How's the fishing here ?" Well, the only realistic answer to that question is " There isn't much", and believe me we know this. There are too many fisher-persons, and too little fish. This leads to sea-food resources being progressively decimated as the 'small-fry' gets taken in the absence of any 'big-fry', thus eliminating the chance for natural re-stocking.

What's the solution ? Ummm, don't know. :-((( Things being what they are here a total ban, or even an attempt at size restrictions would never be enforceable, who would enforce them, and with what resources ? If the driving regulations ( Hahahahahahahahahahahaha ) are anything to go by, then it could only work if the wealthier members of the community took up commercial fishing, then a sort of 'Fishet' force could fine gringos and well-heeled Dominicans 10,000 pesos for using their cell-phones will casting for marlin, or whatever.

But, quite apart from these nutty issues, there is another aspect that is frequently overlooked, the effects of nature. Firstly the 'prime mover' in the Caribbean marine eco-structure is the Equitorial Current. This generates in the mid-Atlantic and pushes from a generally south-east to north-west direction. It's a very strong current ( in global terms ) and can run at well over knot ( nautical mile per hour about 1.8 kilometres per hour ) in open waters, increasing to 2.5 knots + in bottlenecks like the Yucatan Channel between Cuba and Mexico. This current literally drives the nutrient chain that feeds both coral development and the fish populations.

In the area in questions, S.E. DR there is a crystal-clear cut-off between the western side of the Parque Nacional del Este and the western side. The Equitorial current feeds the Mona Passage and all of the waters along that coast. Fortunately for the marine inhabitants that coast is also exposed to the prevailing winds and seas, thus is relatively not very hospitable to fisher-folk. I suspect that the fish-stocks between Saona and Samana Bay are much healthier than elsewhere, and fishing buffs confirm this. On 'our' side, that is, between Saona and La Romana the waters are much less influenced by current, and it really shows. Thus the tendency for less coral growth. The claim that 'we' have somehow 'killed' off the coral in this area fly in the face of naturally prevailing conditions. When coral gets 'killed' off, for whatever reason the 'skeletons' remain, evidential of the destruction, rather like the 'body' in a terrestial 'who-dunnit'. The fact of the matter is that in this area there is little or no 'body', no great accumulation of extinct coral.

Thus I seriously doubt that the 'human' effect has had a great deal of influence in this area. It's not even ( and never has been ) a particularly densely populated region, in any event.

Actually the two most instrumental forces acting on coral reef growth and/or destruction are sediment levels in the water, and severe storms. These two factors are often closely inter-linked. Firstly, that part of the Equitorial Current that does act on this area tends to force it's way through the Saona channel, evidential of this is that the entire western end of this channel has a bar that extends from the mainland right across to the western end of Saona island. This is the result of countless millenia of ( relatively mild ) curreent effect. But what it also signifies is that there is a constant depositing of fine sediments from east to west. This is one of the main reasons that the western coast has little coral, lack of nutrients, and abundance of sediments.

The other effect, that of storms, particularly tropical storms. This is quite interesting, from an 'ecological' point of view. An in-depth survey was conducted around the island of Culebra ( between Puerto Rico and the US Virgins ) after Hurricane Hugo ( September 1989 ). It was observed that the initial impact of that most severe storm was a horrendous decimation of the extensive local reef systems. But, fortunately, the survey was extended over several years to monitor progress, and this produced some intriguing results.

Whilst the initial effect was a wide-spread breaking-up of reefs, which seemed most detrimental, the longer term effect were that the particles that had been broken off and scattered actually lead to a wider 'seeding' effect, and after five years or so the reef systems had not only recovered much of the damage, but actually spreading over larger areas.

Nature is a wondrous thing, is it not ? ;-)

In conclusion, and I hope that this answers a few other points raised here, the natural underwater eco-system of this area is not all that abundant, nor has it been the 'victim' of extensive human negative impact ( I refer primarily to coral reef structures ). The kind of development likely in the area is not likely to greatly impact the local environment. For sure the local flora and fauna must be protected as far as possible, and for sure the historic aspects of ancient indigenous habitation should be preserved and maintained, again, as far as possible. Bearing in mind that an absolute 'hands-off' policy benefits few, and may actually promote conditions in which worse damage can be inflicted.

C.B.
 

Narcosis

New member
Dec 18, 2003
387
0
0
Dear Deelt:

You really like to "stir it up" huh.

I had mentioned to you, personal observation is the best judge. According to your own sources the Caribbean after the Great Barrier reef off Australia, are the healthiest and have sustained the least loss of coral. I have never observed bleached coral in Dominican waters, nonetheless the reefs are over-fished but this is very correctable as the keys and South Florida in general are a good example of how a population can bounce back quickly.

I think enforcement of already existing enviormental laws will be difficult as long as our population is poor and must use the reefs for food and well as wood for cooking.

In that light I believe the best way to protect the enviroment is to grow our economy and this will drive people away from damaging the enviroment.

If one of the ways we can create new jobs and grow our economy is through tourism, than we must embrace this, but at the same time exsiting laws must be obeyed. This fine balancing act must be done or else it becomes a catch 22 situation.
 

deelt

Bronze
Mar 23, 2004
987
2
0
Hey Narc
Nice to know you care. I think the reef you are refering to is the Meso American Barrier Reef that spans across Central American.

You acknowledge that there is over fishing which is true. The fact that older schools of fish are not around is not indicative of an healthy marine environment. But as you say, this is marine environments have an amazing capability of recuperation, but TIME is needed to do just that. It is not an overnight thing.

Yes, you can grow an economy but if there is NO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION of financial resources...the environment will remain over taxed and over exploited. This is not sustainble economic development.

Actually Arrow's empirical studie show the majic number at $6000. When people can make $6000 per capita THEN will the government even think about investing in environments. The thing is that DR is too small to be a testing ground. When I look at Barbados & Bermuda, (and even Trinidad) while by no means perfect I see a country that cares more about its people to want to graduate from being sponsored by the IMF and World Bank. They want to educate it's people and raise the quality of life for them as well.

Gotta Run!
D
Narcosis said:
Dear Deelt:

You really like to "stir it up" huh.

I had mentioned to you, personal observation is the best judge. According to your own sources the Caribbean after the Great Barrier reef off Australia, are the healthiest and have sustained the least loss of coral. I have never observed bleached coral in Dominican waters, nonetheless the reefs are over-fished but this is very correctable as the keys and South Florida in general are a good example of how a population can bounce back quickly.

I think enforcement of already existing enviormental laws will be difficult as long as our population is poor and must use the reefs for food and well as wood for cooking.

In that light I believe the best way to protect the enviroment is to grow our economy and this will drive people away from damaging the enviroment.

If one of the ways we can create new jobs and grow our economy is through tourism, than we must embrace this, but at the same time exsiting laws must be obeyed. This fine balancing act must be done or else it becomes a catch 22 situation.
 

Lissi

New member
Apr 28, 2004
5
0
0
Update

I originally asked for detail on the above; I already have this info, taken from an El Caribe front-page story:
  • The Senate recently voted to reform 24 articles of the original Law 64-00 bill prepared by the MoE and introduced changes affecting the protected limits of certain areas of natural reserves
  • Changes affect Pomier Caves (SW San Cristobal), Las Calderas Dunes (Peravia, Bani), Playa Blanca (Azua), Macao & Boka de Yuma rivers, Bahia las Aguilas (Pedernales) as well as NPdE
  • Jose Hidalgo got the go ahead for his Gran Palace Bayahibe Beach Resort on Lot 24A of the NPdE in January 2004
  • The law has yet to be passed a second reading in the Senate before being ratified by the chamber of Deps

I am not asking for a great debate on whether or not beach huts improve on the natural beauty of the place, just for cold hard facts on the progress of the issue... Any info received with thanks.

And yes, I have been there...
 

CloggieBoots

New member
Jan 17, 2004
67
0
0
www.caribbeanwizard.com
Hi Lissi

"I am not asking for a great debate on whether or not beach huts improve on the natural beauty of the place, just for cold hard facts on the progress of the issue... Any info received with thanks."

Oops , sorry, and there was me thinking you were interested in the issues surrounding potential development. Maybe it would be useful to write " No big debates required" as part of the intro, then we could all save ourselves the time and trouble.

"And yes, I have been there..."

Good, I'm sure that helps.

Have a great day, :)

C.B.
 

Lissi

New member
Apr 28, 2004
5
0
0
...I didn't mean to offend anyone ... I appreciate all the feedback, but I am trying to compile a report on the issue and require information more than opinion at the moment.

And of course I am interested in the surrounding issues, if I wasn't, I probably wouldn't be on the environment section of the board anyway :cheeky: It is an extremely complex topic and could easily be debated for the duration of a PhD, with all its socio-economic and political implications.

Having that said, I wish you and everyone a wonderful weekend; I am sure your (CB) weather will be considerably better than mine...
 

Narcosis

New member
Dec 18, 2003
387
0
0
Report?

Almost afraid to ask who you are writing a report for with info from a posting forum on the internet?

If this was important in any way, you should have made a trip and asked the correct parties in person for your info.
 

deelt

Bronze
Mar 23, 2004
987
2
0
To Lissi...and Narcosis

To Lissi, I second Narcosis' question/comment. To Narc, can you believe it?! We are actually on the same page about something. We are BONDING! Imagine if we build upon this coalition... :classic: Baby steps...

Narcosis said:
Almost afraid to ask who you are writing a report for with info from a posting forum on the internet?

If this was important in any way, you should have made a trip and asked the correct parties in person for your info.
 

Lissi

New member
Apr 28, 2004
5
0
0
Sigh... The hostility of this message board is getting to me... Don't worry, I'm not compiling a bogus scientific report or anything, so just breathe.

I have to say I'm quite intrigued by the turn this thread has taken though. It is always interesting to (unwittingly) gauge the emotional context of an issue I guess.

Yet again, have a nice weekend in the sun away from PC's and statistics, people. ;)
 

RCedeno

New member
Dec 17, 2004
1
0
0
I also looking for information regarding this matter

I also was looking for information regarding this matter.
Like who is the buyer or buyers?
It is any offers in place?
If they are, who are or will be the parties involved.
How much are they selling it for?
What sections will be sold?

If anyone has information regarding this please email me to

Rolando Cede?o
media_intouch@msn.com


Lissi said:
<blockquote>I just heard rumours that parts of Parque Nacional del Este have been sold to a Spanish hotel owner who plans to build a resort there.

Does anyone know if this is correct?

And if so, what happened to all the national and international agreements to leave this area untouched, as it supposedly does host about half of the island's bird species...