Nature Has No Voice

Who is Protecting Bonaire’s Nature?

What happens when the institution responsible for enforcing nature protection interprets the law in a way that makes nature easier to remove?

Bonaire has laws to protect its nature. We also have an authority whose job is to enforce those laws.

But a law only protects nature if it is properly interpreted, enforced in time, and accessible to the people who see what is happening on the ground.

A recent case involving a Cereus repandus, a columnar cactus listed as a valuable cactus on Bonaire, made me question how well that protection works in practice.

I saw the cactus being removed and reported it to Toezicht en Handhaving (T&H), asking them to investigate whether the removal was legal.

T&H investigated and concluded that, based on Article 18 of the Eilandsbesluit Natuurbeheer Bonaire, there was no violation because a building permit existed for the property.

I questioned that conclusion.

When the law is meant to protect

Article 14(3) of the Eilandsbesluit Natuurbeheer Bonaire prohibits the felling of trees and cacti included on Bonaire’s list of valuable trees.

Cereus repandus is included in the regulation’s listings.

Article 18 contains an exception relating to specifically named mangroves, pokhout and bolcactus species when work is carried out on a property for which a building permit has been granted.

Cereus repandus is not one of the species named in Article 18.

Nevertheless, T&H interprets Article 18 broadly and concluded that a building permit also allowed the removal of other trees and cacti where necessary for construction.

There is another important fact in this case.

The house at this location had already been completed in 2024.

So a very reasonable question arises:

If the house was already completed, why was a building permit still being used in 2026 as the justification for removing a protected cactus?

That question deserves a clear answer.

Read the Eilandsbesluit Natuurbeheer Bonaire — including Article 14, Article 18 and the plant listings

When enforcement comes too late

There is another problem that deserves much more attention.

What good is an environmental enforcement system if citizens cannot reach it when the destruction is actually happening?

If I see someone cutting down a tree or cactus, time matters.

In my experience, T&H is extremely difficult to reach by telephone. Reports sent by email receive a response at the earliest after seven days—and most of the time, there is no response at all.

But after seven days, the tree or cactus is certainly gone.

The same is true when someone is clearing a piece of land with a caterpillar.

Within a few hours, the vegetation can be gone.

Trees, cacti and other plants are pushed over, loaded onto a truck or loader and taken away.

By the time an authority responds, there may be nothing left to see.

You remember seeing trees, cacti and other vegetation there.

You report what you saw.

Then you return later and find bare, cleared land.

No trees.

No cacti.

No vegetation.

It can almost make you question yourself:

Did I really see all that vegetation there?

Because when you return to the location and there is nothing left, it can look as though it has always been that way.

As though there was never a tree there.

Never a cactus.

Never any vegetation.

But you know there was.

It was cleared in a matter of hours.

That is why timely enforcement matters.

Prevention requires action while the destruction is happening—not a week later.

When the focus shifts

There is another part of my experience with T&H that deserves attention.

When I report the destruction of nature, T&H focuses on me as the complainant: whether I am an interested party, whether I own the property, and whether I live nearby.

In this case, I was told that I was not an “interested party” because I did not own the property and did not live in the immediate area.

The person reporting the destruction becomes the subject of scrutiny, while the destruction itself moves into the background.

But those questions do not change what I witnessed.

A tree does not become less valuable because the person reporting its destruction does not own the land.

A cactus does not become less protected because the person who noticed its removal lives somewhere else.

The first question should be what happened to the nature and whether the law was violated—not whether the person who reported it is personally connected to the property.

Whatever the intention, the effect is discouraging.

A person who is not highly motivated may simply decide that reporting is not worth the effort.

And that is where the problem becomes bigger than one person, one complaint or one cactus.

The public sees what is happening

People will continue to notice.

They will see trees being cut.

They will see cacti disappearing.

They will see land being cleared.

They will see nature being damaged.

The eyes of the public do not disappear. What can disappear is their willingness to become the voice of nature.

When people believe that reporting will lead nowhere, that responses will come too late, or that they themselves will become the subject of scrutiny instead of the destruction they reported, many will simply remain silent.

When people continue to notice but stop reporting and stop asking questions, the destruction does not stop. It simply becomes easier.

Nature has no voice

This is not about me.

It is not about one complaint.

And it is not only about one cactus.

It is about whether Bonaire’s nature-protection laws actually protect nature in practice.

The government has the laws.

T&H has the authority.

But nature has no voice.

A cactus cannot call T&H.

A tree cannot file a complaint.

A mangrove cannot defend itself.

The public is often the only voice nature has.

That does not mean citizens should determine whether something is legal. That is the responsibility of the authorities.

But citizens should be able to report what they see.

Those reports should be taken seriously.

They should be investigated in time.

And citizens should not be discouraged from continuing to report what they witness.

Because the problem is not only what happens after nature is destroyed.

The real problem is whether the system allows us to help prevent the destruction before it happens.

The real question

What happens when the institution responsible for enforcing nature protection interprets the law in a way that makes nature easier to remove?

And what happens when the people who see that destruction are unable to reach the authority in time, and then find that the focus is placed on them rather than on what they reported?

These are questions that should concern everyone who cares about Bonaire.

Nature has no voice.

The eyes of the public are there. But if people are discouraged from becoming that voice, who will speak for nature?

And we should never be made to feel that doing so is the problem.