Law of 30 July aims to guarantees the conservation and Level National. Ley Sectorial de las Areas Protegidas. General Law on Environmental and Natural Resources (Ley General sobre Medio Ambiente y Sectorial Law on Protected Areas (Ley Sectorial de las. Items 1 – 40 of 52 Chapter (PDF Available) · November with Reads. In book: Segun la Ley Sectorial de Areas Protegidas , “el Sistema Nacional.
|Published (Last):||1 August 2009|
|PDF File Size:||16.98 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Page 5 of 8 First Last Jump to page: Results 41 to 50 of Thread Tools Show Printable Version. D, I thought the Ley Sectorial was passed in Julynotand that its number wasnot You are right, one zero to many, it lej read I am translating now the press statement. I look forward to reading it — although you could post the original in Spanish, because a good many of us read it even if our spoken Spanish is not quite as good as it should be National Parks, protected or leey With the case of Parque Nacional del Este, the potential lies along the shoreline south from Bayahibe all the way to the lagoon which separates Hispaniola from Saona island.
With the case of Jaragua, the area of concern is the shoreline of Bahia de Las Aguilas, due to its post card perfect white sand beach. Should these areas be developed?
Base de datos de la UNESCO sobre las leyes nacionales del patrimonio cultural
If we value the natural sorrounding and the natural beauty, not to mention respecting what has already been designated as protected land, the development of any land within a national park should be off limit, regardless.
It’s a fact of life that the only people who have time and energy to debate over things such as the environment are people who have a full belly, some pocket change, and secured much of the basics for living. A person who lacks the basics will not have time or energy to focus on such discussions, because in the order of things, people first need air, health, food, then everything else.
With the case of Parque Nacional Jaragua, it becomes much more plausible the idea of developing part of the coast line for low density, high value tourism.
Zonas protegidas de República Dominicana
This will create jobs in an area of the country that has been forgotten by all governments of the republic, while maintaining an ecological integrity between development and nature. It would be preferable to have no development in such fragile natural areas and simply have the impoverished citizens of those areas move to more prosperous regions of the republic.
The fact that these people have not packed up and moved shows that they don’t want to leave the place where they live right now. With the case of Parque Nacional del Este, the shoreline is extremely appealing to tourist developers. More resorts along the western coast of the park would increase employment opportunities, increase tax collection for the government, occasional upgrades in local infrastructure, etc.
The negative is the lost of habitat for natural flora and fauna. Should such developments be made?
I will not answer that, but I will say that those who call for protection of nature need to do a close evaluation to what effect such protection takes upon otherwise employable people. Is it worth it to eliminate a potential benefit of creating hundreds of much needed employment for the benefits of sea turtles, migratory birds, and local flora? In other words, is it wise to deny a human being from being able to eat, be independent, earn something simply to save fauna and flora? Is there an ethical dilemma here regarding the responsibility the state has to provide opportunities of employment to its citizens as oppose to saving animals and plants?
Is the economic cost or loss of protecting such places worth it? Do we give preferances to people or to plants and animals? These are the fundamental questions behind such issues of developing protected land or to keep the protection in place.
A faleticious argument, Nals, based on a false either-or proposition. As we have said several times before in this thread go read it ldy againthe people in the area can be employed well in eco-tourism ventures without a single hotel being built in the protected zone.
Sectorial Law of Protected Areas (Dominican Republic) | The REDD Desk
Besides, Nals, if you really know the DR as well as you purport to, you’d know that the history of development and employment in several of the tourism poles in the DR usually draws in more employees from other areas than it does employ the local poor. I said it before above, and I’ll repeat it again here: I and many people are NOT arguing against development per se. We’re just arguing against this kind of unsustainableshort-term, and short-sighted “development.
Originally Posted by NALs.
The It would be preferable to have no development in such fragile natural areas and simply have the impoverished citizens of those areas move to more prosperous regions of the republic. The fact that these people have not packed up and moved shows that they don’t want to leave the place where they live right now Originally Posted by Mirador.
Goes to show that you have never visited the place. The region of the Barahona peninsula south of Cabo Rojo is uninhabited and uninhabitable, except for a small enclave of fishermen huts on the shore line north of Bahia de Las Aguilas, known locally as La Cueva. I have told those able to keep a secret, why that region will never be developed, it would create an international incident Keith, please go ahead and do the translation for the forum.
Bookmarks Bookmarks Digg del. All times are GMT The time now is