Recently, there has been much discussion in our community regarding nature protection, the Spatial Development Plan with Regulations (ROPV), and the future of UTV and ATV use in Aruba. This discussion is fundamental because our nature is a collective heritage that we have a duty to protect. However, the current situation raises a crucial question: Is Aruba applying a structural and coherent policy to conserve its nature, or are we simply witnessing selective management based on political preference and convenience?
Importance of ROPV While the current regulations remain in effect, the Government has a constitutional obligation to guarantee their compliance. It cannot be that the ROPV is strictly applied in some cases, while in other cases and areas, evident violations occur without consequences. The reality is that we still see the continuation of illegal dumps in areas specifically protected by the ROPV, where certain activities that could affect the area’s value are not permitted, yet they continue to occur with the knowledge of the authorities. In other places, we observe uncontrolled excavation and extraction that are causing irreparable damage to our soil and landscape. The ministers in charge are aware of these situations, but enforcement remains insufficient and, in many cases, practically absent. If nature is truly a priority, this cannot depend on which group, activity, or part of Aruba we are talking about. It is the duty of the responsible ministers to truly act and guarantee compliance with the law.
Stark Contrast There is a remarkable contrast with the drastic measure taken on the north coast of Aruba, where for years the use of UTVs and ATVs formed an integral part of our tourist and recreational activities, but overnight their access was limited by suddenly closing the area in the name of environmental protection. Meanwhile, in other areas, activities that cause direct damage to the soil, landscape, and environment continue to occur without the Government intervening with the same firmness. This sends the wrong message to the public: that law enforcement is not uniform, but rather applied for convenience or based on who is involved. Nature protection should not become a conflict between the environment, community, and economy. The challenge is to strike a balance. Economic activities can and must be permitted, but under strict conditions: with clearly defined routes, continuous supervision, and clear sanctions against abuse. However, this same principle must apply to all sectors and all locations.
Conclusion: Less words, more action Aruba cannot have a credible environmental policy if the law is applied only when convenient and against those who are easy to stop. If sacrifices are demanded from tour operators in the name of nature, the Government must also demonstrate the same firmness against illegal dumping, unauthorized excavation, and pollution occurring with the knowledge of the authorities themselves. A law that is applied selectively is not nature protection. It is a political tool.