The ruling by the Superior Administrative Court (TSA) that seeks to modify the boundaries of Jaragua National Park continues to generate reactions in the scientific and academic communities. The Natural Sciences and Environment Commission of the Dominican Republic Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Team of the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo (UASD) reported that, after analyzing the ruling, they decided to reiterate the terms of the previous statement issued by the Coalition for the Defense of Protected Areas, an organization of which they are members.
According to the organizations, the court decision aims to facilitate the development of projects benefiting a private individual, which has raised concerns about its scope. In a public statement, both institutions indicated that the ruling is “highly suspicious,” considering that it aligns with historical demands from political, business, legislative, investment, military, government, and religious sectors that for years have promoted initiatives aimed at reducing the boundaries of protected areas for private gain.
Legal arguments and constitutional challenges
The Academy of Sciences and the UASD indicated that their concerns are heightened by the understanding that the TSA's decision contravenes the express mandate of Article 16 of the Dominican Constitution. This article establishes that wildlife, conservation units of the National System of Protected Areas, and associated ecosystems are inalienable, unseizable, and imprescriptible patrimonial assets, and that any reduction of their boundaries can only be carried out through a law approved by two-thirds of both houses of the National Congress.
They also noted that Sectoral Law 202-04 on Protected Areas defines the system as definitive and irreducible in each of its parts and in its entirety. According to the law, public areas under legal protection constitute a component of state assets that cannot be transferred under any circumstances, thus reinforcing the permanent nature of these spaces.
Warnings about a possible national precedent
The commissions warned that the ruling could be a trial run for broader purposes, using Jaragua National Park as a starting point to progressively dismantle the National System of Protected Areas through legal formalities. In their view, this would open the door to long-standing aspirations to appropriate territories that safeguard the country's natural and cultural heritage.
The organizations also noted that protected areas and their biodiversity provide essential environmental services, including air quality, water supply, food security, fishing, tourism, climate regulation, erosion control, and mitigation of the effects of climate change. Therefore, they emphasized that no ruling should jeopardize the collective well-being to favor private interests.
Finally, the Academy of Sciences and the UASD expressed their hope that the Constitutional Court will overturn what they described as an improper and inexplicable ruling and consolidate the National System of Protected Areas as a fundamental public good, putting an end to historical attempts to appropriate these collective assets.
Recommended readings:
