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.