Analysis: Judge gives Government five weeks to turn a conflict into a solution

Written by Tito Laclé

The decision by Judge A.H.M. van de Leur to postpone the north coast case for five weeks is not a complete victory for Aruba Birdlife Conservation (ABC), nor for the tour operators. But it places the Government in the most important — and also the most difficult — position, because it is now responsible for using this period to reach a solution that can work both legally and practically.

The judge did not resolve the conflict. He did not say that ABC had won, nor that the tour operators could continue as before. What he did was give the parties one final serious opportunity to negotiate, under a clear condition: the Government must meet with ABC within the following week and, if necessary, hold more meetings. If the Government does not make sufficient effort, the Court can bring the case back much sooner and, in principle, without another postponement. The message is simple: the five weeks are not for waiting; they are for reaching a real agreement.

WHO WON, WHO LOST?

ABC emerged somewhat stronger because the Court explicitly recognized the interest it is defending: the protection of flora and fauna in natural areas designated by law. In addition, the Government must meet specifically with ABC as the claimant in the case.

But ABC did not win everything. The judge did not order a permanent closure of the coast and did not ignore the interests of the tour operators. On the contrary, the Court recognized that their activities had been tolerated for years and that the continuity of their businesses is an interest that must be considered.

The tour operators, therefore, did not lose either. But they also did not gain the right to continue operating without changes. The Court’s position effectively suggests that if they want to continue, they will probably have to accept more rules, more control and less freedom.

The Government carries the heaviest burden. It has to combine nature protection, economic activity and Aruba’s general public interest.

ROPV CAN PROVIDE THE WAY OUT

The most important point is that the ROPV does not necessarily force the Government to choose between two extremes: close everything or open everything.

The ROPV gives the Government room to regulate access to natural areas through designated routes, controls on vehicles and specific conditions. This could become the basis for a compromise.

A realistic solution could be to designate official routes for UTVs and ATVs, avoid the most sensitive areas, limit the number of vehicles per tour, impose operating hours and maximum speeds, require guides and companies to be responsible for compliance, prohibit leaving the designated route, use permits, GPS or another control system, and allow the Government to close or adapt a route if the environmental impact becomes too great.

That would give tour operators the opportunity to continue operating, but under conditions. ABC would gain more concrete protection. The Government would gain a model it could defend before the Court.

GOVERNMENT CANNOT SIMPLY IGNORE THE LAW

This is where the matter becomes crucial. The Government cannot simply reach a political agreement and then allow tour operators to drive wherever they want if that contradicts the ROPV or other environmental rules.

Nor can the Government continue to rely only on tolerance. The current situation is precisely the result of years in which certain activities were tolerated without a definitive solution.

Changing the ROPV itself may be legally possible, but that does not appear to be the fastest route within five weeks. The most realistic option is to work within the existing ROPV, using routes, conditions and controls.

FISHERMEN AND OTHER USERS MUST ALSO BE INCLUDED

The conflict is not only ABC versus tour operators.

Traditional fishermen, residents and other coastal users also have interests. A solution that closes all access points could create another problem. The Government could distinguish between commercial access for UTVs and ATVs and controlled access for traditional fishing, emergencies or other legitimate uses.

This is important because the judge himself referred to Aruba’s general public interest. The solution therefore has to be broader than simply saving one sector or satisfying one organization.

FIVE WEEKS IS NOT MUCH

Five weeks pass quickly.

The Government has to organize meetings with ABC, speak with the tour operators, identify routes, compare them with the ROPV, determine conditions, establish which permits or administrative decisions are necessary, and put everything on paper.

So time is short.

When the case continues on October 15, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., the Government must be able to show MORE than simply saying that “dialogue is continuing.” It must be able to present a concrete proposal.

WHAT IF THERE IS NO AGREEMENT?

If there is no serious progress, the Court can bring the case back much sooner and without another postponement.

The risk for the tour operators is that the judge could then apply the legal rules more strictly and significantly limit their activities.

For ABC, the risk is that if the Government presents a legally sustainable route with strong protection and real enforcement, it could become more difficult to defend a position of total closure.

CONCLUSION

For now, no party has won completely.

ABC has gained recognition and a strong position at the negotiating table. The tour operators have gained time and recognition of their economic interests. The Government has gained five weeks.

But those five weeks are more of an assignment than a benefit.

The most realistic way forward appears to be a compromise based on the ROPV: official routes, limits, controls and protection.

And on October 15, the Government must be able to show that it did not use the time merely to talk, but to build a solution that can actually work in practice.