Amparo on Turtle Zoocriadero in Caño Negro National Wildlife Refuge Without Sufficient Environmental StudiesAmparo sobre zoocriadero de tortugas en Refugio Nacional Caño Negro sin estudios ambientales suficientes

**I.- Purpose of the appeal (recurso).-** The appellant (recurrente) claims protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado) enshrined in Article 50 of the Political Constitution since in the Caño Negro National Wildlife Refuge, a turtle breeding farm (zoocriadero) has been established for several years, which has even endangered the river green turtle, and that the turtle business owners, in concert with representatives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, obtained an environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) permit without major studies, a matter that harms the precautionary principle.

**II.- Regarding the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.-** This right forms part of what modern Constitutional Law classifies as "third generation" rights, and the public action claimed in its defense is a right protectable through this avenue. The defense of the public domain (demanio) enjoys privileged protection –even reinforced in criminal proceedings (sede penal) with the joint intervention of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Attorney General's Office of the Republic in the corresponding processes– and the failure of the public authorities to provide timely attention to the requests of citizens (administrados) in this matter or in environmental matters generally permits the intervention of this Tribunal, in principle, not as a substitute for material activities, but to obtain the administrative response that is being demanded.

**III.- Specific case (Caso concreto).-** Throughout the case file (expediente), the authorities of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental) and the Ministry of Environment and Energy reinforce their thesis in the sense that the appellant is not correct in indicating that the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) was obtained by means of a simple sworn statement (declaración jurada), since they consider that this assertion makes it seem as if this Secretariat had not analyzed all the information provided, as they effectively did when analyzing the respective studies conducted both by the National University, regarding capture methods and biometric parameters, the studies on nesting sites, as well as the study conducted by the National University, regarding Capture Methods and Biometric Parameters and the study conducted by the Central American School of Livestock of Atenas, on the validation of a capture method and biometric parameters. In addition to that, they add that it must be clear that, in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), specifically concerning Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law: “Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic materials, or hazardous materials shall require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat created in this law. Its prior approval, on the part of this body, shall be an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works, or projects. The laws and regulations shall indicate which activities, works, or projects shall require the environmental impact assessment” and in that sense, in the present administrative proceeding, it was determined that the appropriate environmental assessment instrument (instrumento de evaluación ambiental) to request from the developer was a sworn statement of environmental commitments (declaración jurada de compromisos ambientales), which was duly analyzed, by the Department of Institutional Management. Furthermore, they state that it is true that the appellant filed an Incident of Nullity (Incidente de Nulidad) of the Environmental Feasibility (Viabilidad Ambiental) granted by resolution 3832-2005-SETENA, but that it is not true that it has not been given the corresponding study since the report presented by them, along with the appeal, is being analyzed by the technical team. In addition to the foregoing, this Tribunal cannot establish from the case file that the appellant's assertion that the river green turtle is endangered in the Caño Negro National Wildlife Refuge, since the Biology professor at the University of Costa Rica, Bolaños Vives, and curator of Herpetology, in his report states that he has no evidence of the danger to which the turtle has been subjected within the refuge, nor does he have certainty that this has occurred, since after reviewing all the documentary information provided to the case file, he deduces that there is no negative effect on the population because the collection has been constant throughout all the years of the project. In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the appellant's claim must be dismissed.

**IV.- Conclusion.-** Based on the documentation provided to the case file, this Tribunal cannot establish the omissions and lack of proper supervision that the appellant accuses the representatives in charge of the Integrated Management of the Freshwater Green Turtle project in the Arenal Huetar Norte Conservation Area, National Wildlife Refuge of, and in that sense, the appeal is dismissed. However, the respondents can in no way diminish supervision and research in this type of project, where these types of actions are vital. As stated in judgment 2005-01174, this Tribunal, in accordance with the principle of protection of sustainable development, does not oppose those activities –like the one under examination– that are beneficial in economic terms for the local population; however, they must be carried out in accordance with the rules stipulated for such purposes, namely Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law and Articles 82 and 83 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre). Additionally, it is considered important to highlight the information provided by Professor Bolaños in the sense that it must be remembered that the area in question is a National Wildlife Refuge and the only way to utilize resources on the site should be under the appropriate justification of scientific information and based on a management plan, which must guarantee that the resource will be used without producing a negative impact. Finally, it is necessary to remind the respondents that within the analysis they must carry out of the report presented by the appellant, they must also evaluate the hearing (audiencia) for the Maleku community. By virtue of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal.

In addition to the foregoing, this Court is unable to certify from the case file that the appellant's assertion—that the green river turtle (tortuga verde de río) is being endangered within the Caño Negro National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional Vida Silvestre de Caño Negro)—is accurate, since the professor of Biology at the University of Costa Rica, Bolaños Vives, and curator of Herpetology, states in his report that he has no evidence of the danger in which the turtle has been placed within the refuge, nor does he have clarity that this has occurred, because upon reviewing all the documentary information provided in the case file, he deduces that there is no negative effect on the population, given that the collection has been constant throughout all the years of the project. Accordingly, this Court considers that the appellant's claim must be dismissed.

IV.- Conclusion.- Based on the documentation provided in the case file, this Court is unable to certify the omissions and lack of proper supervision that the appellant accuses the officials in charge of the Integrated Management of the Freshwater Green Turtle (Manejo Integrado de la Tortuga Verde de agua dulce) project in the Arenal Huetar Norte Conservation Area (Area de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte), a National Wildlife Refuge, and in that sense, the remedy is dismissed. However, the respondents may in no way diminish the supervision and research in this type of project, where such actions are vital. As stated in ruling 2005-01174, this Court, in accordance with the principle of safeguarding sustainable development, does not oppose those activities—such as those in the case under review—which are beneficial in economic terms for the inhabitants of the area; however, they must be carried out in compliance with the regulations stipulated for such purposes, namely Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and Articles 82 and 83 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre). Furthermore, it is considered important to highlight what was reported by Professor Bolaños, to the effect that it must be remembered that the area in question is a National Wildlife Refuge and the only way to use resources on the site should be under the appropriate justification of scientific information and supported by a management plan (plan de manejo), which must guarantee that the resource will be used without producing a negative impact. Finally, it is necessary to remind the respondents that within the analysis they must carry out of the report presented by the appellant, they must also assess the hearing for the Maleku community. By virtue of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal.” The defense of the public domain (demanio) enjoys privileged protection—even reinforced in the criminal jurisdiction through the joint intervention of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) in the corresponding proceedings—and the failure of public authorities to timely address the applications of citizens (administrados) in this area or in environmental matters allows the intervention of this Court, in principle, not as a substitute for material activities, but to obtain the administrative response that is being claimed.

**III.- Specific Case (Caso concreto).-** Throughout the case file (expediente), the authorities of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE) reinforce their position that the appellant (recurrente) is not correct in stating that the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) was obtained by a simple sworn statement (declaración jurada), because they consider that this assertion makes it seem as though this Secretariat did not analyze all the information provided, which they effectively did by analyzing the respective studies carried out by the National University (Universidad Nacional), regarding capture methods (métodos de captura) and biometric parameters (parámetros biométricos), the studies on nesting sites (sitios de anidación), as well as the study carried out by the National University (Universidad Nacional) regarding Capture Methods and Biometric Parameters (Métodos de Capturas y Parámetros Biométricos) and the study carried out by the Central American School of Livestock (Escuela Centroamericana de Ganadería) of Atenas, on the validation of a capture method and biometric parameters. In addition to this, they add that it must be clear that in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), specifically with regard to Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente): *“Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment (ambiente) or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, shall require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) created in this law. Its prior approval, by this agency, shall be an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works or projects. The laws and regulations shall indicate which activities, works or projects shall require the environmental impact assessment”* and in that sense in this administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo), it was determined that the appropriate environmental assessment instrument (instrumento de evaluación ambiental) to require from the developer (desarrolladora) was a sworn statement of environmental commitments (declaración jurada de compromisos ambientales), which was duly analyzed, by the Department of Institutional Management (Departamento de Gestión Institucional). On the other hand, they affirm that it is true that the appellant (recurrente) filed a Motion for Nullity (Incidente de Nulidad) of the Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) granted by resolution 3832-2005-SETENA, but that it is not true that the corresponding study has not been given, because the report submitted by them, together with the appeal (recurso), is being analyzed by the technical team (equipo técnico). In addition to the foregoing, this Court is unable to verify from the case file (expediente) the appellant's assertion that in the Caño Negro National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional Vida Silvestre de Caño Negro), the green river turtle (tortuga verde de río) is being endangered, because the Biology professor at the University of Costa Rica, Bolaños Vives, and curator of Herpetology (Herpetología), cites in his report that he has no evidence of the danger to which the turtle has been exposed within the refuge (refugio) and also has no clarity that this has occurred, because upon reviewing all the documentary information provided to the case file he deduces that there is no negative effect on the population, as the harvesting (recolecta) has been constant in all the years of the project. Therefore, this Court considers that the claim of the appellant (recurrente) must be dismissed.

**            IV.- Conclusion (Conclusión).-** Based on the documentation provided in the case file (expediente), this Court is unable to verify the omissions and lack of proper supervision that the appellant (recurrente) accuses against the officials in charge of the project Integrated Management of the Freshwater Green Turtle (Manejo Integrado de la Tortuga Verde de agua dulce) in the Arenal Huetar Norte Conservation Area (Area de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte), National Wildlife Refuge, and in that sense the appeal (recurso) is dismissed. However, in no way could the respondents (recurridos) diminish the supervision and research in this type of projects, where this type of actions is vital. As stated, in judgment 2005-01174, this Court, in accordance with the principle of protection of sustainable development (desarrollo sostenible), does not oppose those activities –such as those in the case under review– that are beneficial in economic terms for the inhabitants of the area; however, they must be carried out in accordance with the regulations stipulated for such purposes, meaning Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and Articles 82 and 83 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre). Furthermore, it is deemed important to rescue what was reported by Professor Bolaños in the sense that it must be remembered that the area in question is a National Wildlife Refuge and the only way to use resources on the site should be under the appropriate justification of scientific information and supported by a management plan (plan de manejo), which must be a guarantor that the resource will be used without producing a negative impact (impacto negativo). Finally, it is necessary to remind the respondents (recurridos) that within the analysis they must carry out of the report submitted by the appellant (recurrente), they must also assess the hearing (audiencia) with the Maleku community. By virtue of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal (recurso).”

“ I.- Objeto del recurso.- El recurrente reclama la tutela del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado consagrado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política pues en el Refugio Nacional Vida silvestre de Caño Negro, se tiene derecho hace varios años un zoocriadero de tortugas que ha hecho incluso que se ponga en peligro a la tortuga verde de río y que los empresarios de la tortuga en concordancia con personeros del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, obtuvieron una viabilidad ambiental sin mayores estudios, asunto que lesiona el principio precautorio.

II.- Sobre el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.- Este derecho, hace parte de lo que el Derecho Constitucional moderno califica como derechos de "tercera generación" y la acción pública que en su defensa se reclama es un derecho tutelable en esta vía. La defensa del demanio goza de protección privilegiada -inclusive reforzada en sede penal con la intervención conjunta del Ministerio Público y la Procuraduría General de la República en los correspondientes procesos- y la no atención oportuna por parte de las autoridades públicas de las gestiones de los administrados en esta materia o en la ambiental, permite la intervención de este Tribunal, en principio ,no en sustitución de actividades materiales, sino para obtener la respuesta administrativa que se reclama.

III.- Caso concreto.- A lo largo del expediente, las autoridades de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía refuerzan su tesis en el sentido de que no lleva razón el recurrente al indicar que la viabilidad ambiental fue obtenida mediante una simple declaración jurada, pues consideran que esa afirmación deja ver como si esta Secretaría no hubiera analizado toda la información aportada, como efectivamente sí lo hicieron al analizar los respectivos estudios realizados tanto por la Universidad Nacional, en cuanto a métodos de captura y parámetros biométricos, los estudios sobre sitios de anidación, así como el estudio realizado por la Universidad Nacional, en cuanto a Métodos de Capturas y Parámetros Biométricos y el estudio realizado por la Escuela Centroamericana de Ganadería de Atenas, sobre validación de un método de captura y parámetros biométricos. Además de ello, agregan que es necesario que quede claro que de conformidad con lo establecido en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, propiamente en lo concerniente al artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente: “Las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, requerirán una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental creada en esta ley. Su aprobación previa, de parte de este organismo, será requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o proyectos. Las leyes y los reglamentos indicarán cuáles actividades, obras o proyectos requerirán la evaluación de impacto ambiental” y en ese sentido en el presente procedimiento administrativo, se determinó que el instrumento de evaluación ambiental idóneo a solicitar a la desarrolladora era una declaración jurada de compromisos ambientales, el cual fue debidamente analizado, por el Departamento de Gestión Institucional. Por otra parte afirman que es cierto que el recurrente presentó un Incidente de Nulidad de la Viabilidad Ambiental otorgada mediante resolución 3832-2005-SETENA, pero que no es cierto, que no se le ha dado el estudio correspondiente pues el informe presentado por ellos, junto al recurso, está siendo analizado por el equipo técnico. Aunado a lo expuesto, este Tribunal no logra acreditar del expediente que la afirmación del recurrente en el sentido de que en el Refugio Nacional Vida Silvestre de Caño Negro, se ponga en peligro a la tortuga verde de río, pues el profesor de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica Bolaños Vives y curador de Herpetología en su informe cita, que no tiene ninguna evidencia del peligro en que se ha puesto a la tortuga dentro del refugio y tampoco tiene claridad de que ello haya ocurrido, pues al revisar toda la información documental aportada al expediente deduce que no hay un efecto negativo en la población, pues la recolecta ha sido constante en todos los años del proyecto. Así las cosas, este Tribunal considera que el reclamo del recurrente debe desestimarse.

IV.- Conclusión.- Con base en la documentación que se aporta al expediente este Tribunal no logra acreditar las omisiones y falta de una debida supervisión que acusa el recurrente en los personeros encargados del proyecto Manejo Integrado de la Tortuga Verde de agua dulce en el Area de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte, Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre y en ese sentido es que se desestima el recurso. Sin embargo, de ningún modo podrían los recurridos disminuir la supervisión y la investigación en este tipo de proyectos, donde es vital este tipo de actuaciones. Tal y como se dijo, en la sentencia 2005-01174, este Tribunal en consonancia con el principio de tutela al desarrollo sostenible, no se opone a aquellas actividades –como las del caso bajo examen- que resulten beneficiosas en términos económicos para los pobladores de la zona, sin embargo, las mismas deben de efectuarse de conformidad con la normativa estipulada para tales efectos, entiéndase el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y los artículo 82 y 83 de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. Además se estima importante rescatar lo informado por el profesor Bolaños en el sentido de que hay que recordar que el área en cuestión es un Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre y la única forma de utilizar recursos en el sitio debería ser bajo la justificación apropiada de información científica y sustentada en un plan de manejo, el que debe ser garante de que el recurso será utilizado sin producir un impacto negativo. Finalmente es preciso recordar a los recurridos que dentro del análisis que debe de realizar del informe presentado por el recurrente también deben de valorar la audiencia a la comunidad Maleku. En virtud de lo expuesto, lo procedente es desestimar el recurso. “