← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 11233-2023 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 2023
OutcomeResultado
The Chamber granted the amparo and ordered the respondent authorities to reduce the daily visitation to Manuel Antonio National Park to 1,120 persons within 24 hours.La Sala declaró con lugar el amparo y ordenó a las autoridades recurridas reducir en 24 horas la visitación diaria del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio a 1120 personas.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber granted an amparo against the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and the Central Pacific Conservation Area (ACOPAC) for increasing the daily visitation to Manuel Antonio National Park (PNMA) from 2,000 to 3,000 persons without the required technical backing. The Chamber found that visitation reached 267.9% of installed capacity, far exceeding the carrying capacity of 1,120 daily visitors calculated under the flow model of December 2022. Invoking the principle of objective environmental protection—which requires administrative decisions to be grounded in technical studies—and the preventive principle demanding action in the face of clear risks, the Chamber ordered an immediate reduction to 1,120 daily visitors. It reaffirmed the primacy of ecosystem conservation over public enjoyment and the need for a balance between visitation and preservation under the Park’s Public Use Regulation.La Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar un recurso de amparo interpuesto contra el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) y el Área de Conservación Pacífico Central (ACOPAC) por haber incrementado la visitación diaria del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio (PNMA) de 2000 a 3000 personas sin respaldo en las herramientas técnicas exigidas por la normativa. La Sala constató que la visitación alcanzaba un 267.9% de la capacidad instalada, muy por encima de la capacidad de carga de 1120 visitantes diarios calculada según el modelo de flujo de diciembre de 2022. Con base en el principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, que exige fundamentar las decisiones administrativas en estudios técnicos, y el principio preventivo, que obliga a actuar ante riesgos claros de daño, la Sala ordenó reducir de inmediato la visitación a 1120 personas diarias. Asimismo, reconoció la prioridad de la conservación del ecosistema sobre el disfrute público y la necesidad de un equilibrio entre visitación y preservación conforme al Reglamento de Uso Público del parque.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In conclusion, the examination carried out by the Chamber shows that the respondent authorities increased the permitted visitation to the PNMA without applying the relevant technical tools, even though it was evident that the park’s installed capacity would be insufficient to guarantee a balance between the conservation of nature and its enjoyment by visitors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is granted. Considering that the flow model applied in December 2022 indicates a carrying capacity of 1,120 daily visitors, the daily visitation is ordered to be reduced to that number, without prejudice to a new technical study determining such capacity under the current conditions of the park.En conclusión, el resultado del estudio efectuado por la Sala demuestra que las autoridades accionadas aumentaron la visitación permitida al PNMA sin aplicar las herramientas técnicas respectivas, aun cuando se evidenciaba que la capacidad instalada del parque sería insuficiente para garantizar el equilibrio entre la conservación de la naturaleza y su disfrute por parte de los visitantes. En virtud de lo expuesto, se declara con lugar el recurso. Visto que en el modelo de flujo aplicado en diciembre de 2022 se indica una capacidad de carga de 1120 visitantes diarios, se ordena reducir la visitación diaria a esa cantidad, sin demérito de que un nuevo estudio técnico determine tal capacidad en las condiciones actuales del parque.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"…la finalidad prioritaria de los parques nacionales (entre ellos, el PNMA) es la conservación de los ecosistemas presentes en sus respectivas áreas o zonas. Un objetivo secundario es posibilitar a las personas el esparcimiento y el disfrute de la naturaleza que hay en ellos."
"…the primary purpose of national parks (including the PNMA) is the conservation of the ecosystems present in their respective areas or zones. A secondary objective is to enable people to relax and enjoy the nature found there."
VI.- Sobre el caso concreto
"…la finalidad prioritaria de los parques nacionales (entre ellos, el PNMA) es la conservación de los ecosistemas presentes en sus respectivas áreas o zonas. Un objetivo secundario es posibilitar a las personas el esparcimiento y el disfrute de la naturaleza que hay en ellos."
VI.- Sobre el caso concreto
"La Sala avala esta exigencia, dado que es una expresión del principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental… se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia…"
"The Chamber endorses this requirement, as it is an expression of the principle of objective environmental protection… it translates into the need to support decision-making in this area with technical studies…"
VI.- Sobre el caso concreto
"La Sala avala esta exigencia, dado que es una expresión del principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental… se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia…"
VI.- Sobre el caso concreto
"…el principio preventivo demanda que, cuando haya certeza de posibles daños al ambiente, la actividad afectante deba ser prohibida, limitada, o condicionada al cumplimiento de ciertos requerimientos."
"…the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the offending activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned on the fulfillment of certain requirements."
VI.- Sobre el caso concreto
"…el principio preventivo demanda que, cuando haya certeza de posibles daños al ambiente, la actividad afectante deba ser prohibida, limitada, o condicionada al cumplimiento de ciertos requerimientos."
VI.- Sobre el caso concreto
"…haber aumentado la capacidad de carga a 3000 visitantes… supone un riesgo inminente de deterioro a las condiciones ambientales y de sostenibilidad del sector habilitado para visitantes."
"…having increased the carrying capacity to 3,000 visitors… poses an imminent risk of deterioration of the environmental and sustainability conditions of the sector enabled for visitors."
Oficio SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023
"…haber aumentado la capacidad de carga a 3000 visitantes… supone un riesgo inminente de deterioro a las condiciones ambientales y de sostenibilidad del sector habilitado para visitantes."
Oficio SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023
Full documentDocumento completo
011233-23. ENVIRONMENT. ALLEGES THAT MANUEL ANTONIO NATIONAL PARK RECEIVES A LARGE NUMBER OF VISITORS THAT ARE DEGRADING THE ECOSYSTEM AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PARK, AND THAT NO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES SUPPORT THE TOURIST CARRYING CAPACITY. GRANTED. A 24-HOUR DEADLINE IS ORDERED TO REDUCE VISITATION TO THE CARRYING CAPACITY (capacidad de carga) CALCULATED IN THE FLOW MODEL APPLIED IN DECEMBER 2022. VCG06/2023 “(…) VI.- Regarding the specific case. In the sub examine, the petitioner states that Manuel Antonio National Park (Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, PNMA) receives about 3000 people daily. He alleges that this number of visitors degrades the ecosystem and the park's sustainability. He points out that there are no scientific studies to support that tourist carrying capacity, as the last one dates from 2010 and only justified a maximum daily visitation of 600 people. He considers that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is violated.
After analyzing the case file, the Chamber found it proven that, through agreement no. 12 of ordinary session no. 06-2014 of June 23, 2014, the National Council of Conservation Areas (Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) approved the “Tool for managing visitation flows in Protected Wild Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas) of SINAC” and instructed the executive director to formalize it. In 2016, the first fieldwork was carried out on beaches and trails in the PNMA sector to identify possible indicators to monitor and create the baseline in required cases. In 2018, the Scientific Technical Committee of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central) agreed to implement the tool for the protected wild areas of that conservation area. Regarding the daily visitation of PNMA, through resolution no. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 at 3:05 p.m. on April 30, 2021, the defendant party established a maximum of 1500 daily visitors. Later, by resolution no. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 at 3:20 p.m. on August 5, 2021, the appealed authority increased the capacity to a maximum of 2000 daily visitors. Likewise, it was held as an uncontroverted fact—which is also derived from the evidence provided with the report rendered (see, for example, official communications SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 and SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023)—that the defendant authorities increased the permitted capacity this year to 3000 daily visitors. As a consequence of the foregoing, several days in April 2023 recorded visitation numbers exceeding 2000 people: April 2, 2592 people; April 3, 2867 people; April 5, 2765; April 6, 2754 people; April 7, 2734 people; April 8, 2755 people; April 9, 2746 people. Regarding this issue, the appealed Administration estimates that PNMA's visitation currently corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. For this reason, through official communication no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, the regional director and the director of Protected Wild Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area expressed to the executive director of SINAC their concern regarding the hierarchical decisions concerning PNMA's visitation. As for the impact on the ecosystem, that communication indicated: “…Without a doubt and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, well above what should rather be received at this time; which represents an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental and sustainability conditions of the sector enabled for visitors. It must be remembered that tourists want to visit PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, which, if we overexploit, future visitors may not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term, hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority in the matter…” Similarly, through official communication no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 of April 17, 2023, the regional director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area informed the executive director of SINAC: “Considering all the foregoing, and pursuant to the functions mandated by Law, Article 50 of our political constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad) and 25 of the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad), and the in dubio pro natura principle, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal framework governing the matter, as well as to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical framework, as well as the hierarchical duty within the geographical area under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, norms, and strategies; for all the foregoing, it is my duty that, given the absence of direct formal and written instructions and directives from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity, exceeding that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool and, moreover, not being formalized by any administrative resolution, this directorate has no legal or technical basis, nor budgetary or personnel capacity, to continue receiving the visitation of 3000 people daily within PNMA. Therefore, pursuant to the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) to ensure all citizens an ecologically balanced environment, you are hereby informed that starting April 30, 2023, the conservation area will formally request the person in charge of SICORE oversight to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of three twenty p.m. on August five, two thousand twenty-one, currently in effect, in order to reduce the reservation capacity to two thousand people.” Additionally, it is of utmost relevance for the resolution of the sub iudice that the Chamber could not verify the application of the respective technical tools to increase PNMA's visitation.
The foregoing facts demonstrate that the number of visitors to PNMA exceeds that park's capacity to the detriment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Indeed, beyond the reproach raised by the petitioner, such a situation is evident from the very statements of the reporting parties. For example, said authorities estimated that PNMA's current visitation corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. It is observed that, according to the visitor flow model, conducted in December 2022, the carrying capacity is 1120 daily visitors. However, at this time, the daily capacity far exceeds that amount, since PNMA received an average of more than 2500 people daily during the first days of April 2023.
At the regulatory level, first, the Chamber highlights the 'Convention for the protection of flora, fauna, and scenic natural beauties of the American countries' (law no. 3763):
“The American Governments, desirous of protecting and conserving in their natural habitat, examples of all species and genera of their indigenous flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and in regions vast enough to prevent their extinction by any means within man's reach; and Desirous of protecting and conserving landscapes of incomparable beauty, extraordinary geological formations, regions, and natural objects of aesthetic interest or historic or scientific value, and places where primitive conditions exist within the cases to which this Convention refers; and Desirous of entering into a convention on the protection of flora, fauna, and scenic natural beauties within the purposes stated above, have agreed upon the following articles:
ARTICLE 1 Definition of terms and expressions used in this Convention.
1.- National Parks shall be understood as: The regions established for the protection and conservation of scenic natural beauties and of nationally important flora and fauna, which the public can better enjoy when placed under official supervision.
(…)
ARTICLE 3 (…)
The Contracting Governments further agree to provide the national parks with the facilities for the public’s recreation and education, in accordance with the purposes pursued by this Convention.” In accordance with the above, the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law (executive decree no. 34433) provides:
“Article 70.- Management categories of Protected Wild Areas (ASP). For the purposes of classifying the different management categories of protected wild areas, the following technical criteria are established for each of them:
(…)
“Considering:
(…)
3.- That in accordance with an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), conducted on Manuel Antonio National Park, uncontrolled visitation is causing its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation.
4.- That the administration of the State-owned lands that comprise this National Park corresponds to the National Parks Service of the Ministry of National Resources, Energy, and Mines, which must ensure that there is a true balance between visitation and the conservation of the Park's resources, in order to ensure the preservation in perpetuity of this wild area. Therefore, THEY DECREE:
Article 1.- The purpose of this regulation is to improve the quality of the visitor experience at Manuel Antonio National Park and seek its preservation in perpetuity.
(…)
Article 3: On the carrying capacity of the public use zone (high intervention): Based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC shall determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation to the different authorized sites, via administrative resolution. (…)” (Underline added).
Based on the provisions just transcribed, the Chamber establishes that the primary purpose of national parks (including PNMA) is the conservation of the ecosystems present in their respective areas or zones. A secondary objective is to enable people to enjoy recreation and the enjoyment of the nature within them. This order of precedence is not derived solely from the regulations but is the consequence of the dependence the latter has on the former. That is, the requirement for people to enjoy nature is inexorably the conservation of nature; if it is not conserved, what is intended to be visited disappears. In the case of PNMA, the ratio of the Public Use Regulation for Manuel Antonio National Park was manifest in pointing out that visitation caused “…its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation,” and that there must be ensured “…a true balance between visitation and the conservation of the Park's resources, in order to ensure the preservation in perpetuity of this wild area.” In that same vein, a measure contemplated by that regulatory body to achieve the aforementioned balance and ensure the park's conservation is the regulation of the number of visitors in the park's public use zones. Thus, the determination of visitation shall be based “…on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC…” (Article 3). The Chamber endorses this requirement, given that it is an expression of the principle of objectification of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental):
“Regarding the environment, object of the fundamental right stated, our Magna Carta also requires that it be ‘healthy’. The requirement ‘healthy’ leads us to ‘regenerative capacity’ and ‘succession capacity’ to guarantee life. From both requirements: ‘healthy’ and ‘balanced’ follows the need for sustainable and viable development; quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now, with the concepts of ‘environment’, ‘healthy’, and ‘ecologically balanced’, the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that, under the terms of sections 16 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) and 38 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), state actions in environmental matters must be based on and cannot contradict the univocal rules of science and technique in order to achieve the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, a ‘greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country’. Regarding the subordination of legislative and administrative decisions to the univocal rules of science and technique, the Chamber has called it the principle of objectification of environmental protection: ‘The objectification of environmental protection (…) is a principle that in no way can be confused with the previous one [precautionary principle or ‘principle of prudent avoidance’], insofar as, derived from the provisions of Articles 16 and 160 of the General Law of Public Administration, it translates into the need to accredit decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both regarding acts and provisions of a general nature—both legal and regulatory—, wherefrom arises the requirement of linkage to science and technique, which conditions the Administration's discretion in this matter. So that, in response to the results derived from those technical studies—such as environmental impact assessments—, if an objective technical criterion is evidenced indicating the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or people’s health, it becomes mandatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in case of a ‘reasonable doubt’ it becomes mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which can translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.’ (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).” (Resolution no. 2012-13367 at 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012, reiterated in resolution no. 2022-012509 at 12:10 p.m. on May 31, 2022).
Furthermore, the application of the preventive principle in environmental matters also obliges the Chamber to take measures to prevent the reproached administrative conduct from negatively affecting the ecosystems protected by PNMA. As indicated supra, that principle states:
“…the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned upon compliance with certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are clearly defined risks identified at least as probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits guaranteeing the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts.” The statements from the respondent party reveal that there is a clear risk to PNMA's ecosystems if visitation is not regulated through technical tools that allow establishing the load that this park can sustainably handle. It is reiterated what was indicated in official communication no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023:
“…Without a doubt and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, well above what should rather be received at this time; which represents an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental and sustainability conditions of the sector enabled for visitors. It must be remembered that tourists want to visit PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, which, if we overexploit, future visitors may not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term, hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority in the matter…” (Underline added).
In conclusion, the result of the study conducted by the Chamber demonstrates that the defendant authorities increased the permitted visitation to PNMA without applying the respective technical tools, even though it was evident that the park's installed capacity would be insufficient to guarantee the balance between the conservation of nature and its enjoyment by visitors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is granted. Given that the flow model applied in December 2022 indicates a carrying capacity of 1120 daily visitors, it is ordered that daily visitation be reduced to that amount, without prejudice to a new technical study determining such capacity under the park's current conditions. (…)” For purposes of classifying the different management categories of protected wilderness areas, the following technical criteria are established for each of them:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>(…)</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>c) National Parks: Geographic areas, terrestrial, marine, marine-coastal, freshwater, or a combination thereof, of national importance, established for the protection and conservation of natural beauties and biodiversity, as well as for enjoyment by the public. These areas contain one or several ecosystems in which the species, habitats, and geomorphological sites are of special scientific, cultural, educational, and recreational interest or contain a natural landscape of great beauty. (…)”</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span> </span><span> </span><span>In the specific case of the PNMA, the Chamber emphasizes that it has its own regulation, specifically, the Reglamento de Uso Público para el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio (Decreto Ejecutivo nro. 22482-MIRENEM). As relevant to the object of this proceeding, that decree provides:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span> </span><span>“Considering:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span> </span><span> </span><span>(…)</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>3º-That in accordance with an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), carried out on the Manuel Antonio National Park, uncontrolled visitation is causing its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>4º-That the administration of the lands owned by the State that make up this National Park corresponds to the Servicio de Parques Nacionales of the Ministerio de Recursos Nacionales, Energía y Minas, which must ensure that a true balance exists between visitation and the conservation of the Park's resources, in order to assure the perpetual preservation of this wilderness area. Therefore,</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>THEY DECREE:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span> </span><span>Article 1º-This regulation aims to improve the quality of the visitor experience at the Manuel Antonio National Park and to secure its preservation in perpetuity.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>(…)</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>Article 3: On the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of the public use zone (high intervention): Based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC shall determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation at the different authorized sites, via administrative resolution. (…)” (The underlining is added).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>Based on the provisions just transcribed, the Chamber establishes that the primary purpose of national parks (among them, the PNMA) is the conservation of the ecosystems present in their respective areas or zones. A secondary objective is to enable people’s recreation and enjoyment of the nature found within them. This order of precedence derives not only from the regulations, but is the consequence of the dependence the second has on the first. That is, the requirement for people to be able to enjoy nature is inexorably the conservation of nature; if it is not conserved, what one intends to visit disappears. In the case of the PNMA, the rationale (ratio) of the Reglamento de Uso Público para el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio was manifest in pointing out that visitation was causing “…its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation,” which is why it was necessary to “…ensure that a true balance exists between visitation and the conservation of the Park's resources, in order to assure the perpetual preservation of this wilderness area.” In that same line of thinking, a measure contemplated by that regulatory body to achieve the cited balance and ensure the park's conservation is the regulation of the number of visitors in the park's public use zones. Thus, the determination of visitation shall be based “…on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC…” (Article 3). The Chamber endorses this requirement, given that it is an expression of the principle of objectification of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental):</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>“Regarding the environment, the object of the fundamental right set forth, our Constitution also requires that it be “healthy.” The requirement “healthy” leads us to the “regenerative capacity” and the “succession capacity” to guarantee life. From both requirements: “healthy” and “ecologically balanced,” the need for sustainable and enduring development emerges; quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now then, with the concepts of “environment,” “healthy,” “ecologically balanced,” the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that, under the terms of Articles 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública and 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, state actions in environmental matters must be based on and cannot contradict the unambiguous rules of science and technique in order to achieve the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, a “greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country.” Regarding the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unambiguous rules of science and technique, the Chamber has called it the principle of objectification of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental): “The objectification of the environmental protection (…) is a principle that in no way can be confused with the former [precautionary principle or “principle of prudent avoidance”], as, derived from the provisions of Articles 16 and 160 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, it translates into the need to substantiate decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to acts and to provisions of a general nature—both legal and regulatory—, from which derives the requirement of linkage to science and technique, thereby conditioning the Administration’s discretion in this matter. So that, in view of the results derived from those technical studies—such as environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental)—, if objective technical criteria are evidenced that denote the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or people's health, it becomes obligatory to discard the proposed project, work, or activity; and in case of a “reasonable doubt,” it becomes obligatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.” (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).” (Resolution nro. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012, reiterated in resolution nro. 2022-012509 of 12:10 p.m. on May 31, 2022).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>Furthermore, the application of the preventive principle in environmental matters also obliges the Chamber to take measures to prevent the impugned administrative conduct from negatively impacting the ecosystems protected by the PNMA. As indicated supra, this principle states:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>“…the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned upon compliance with certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are clearly defined risks identified as at least probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits guaranteeing the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts.”</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>The statements of the respondent party reveal that there is a clear risk to the ecosystems of the PNMA if visitation is not regulated by means of technical tools that allow establishing the load that this park can sustainably handle. What was indicated in official communication (oficio) nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, is reiterated:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>“…Without a doubt, and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should rather be being received at this moment; which represents an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental and sustainability conditions of the sector enabled for visitors. It must be remembered that tourists wish to visit the PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, which, if we over-exploit, future visitors might perhaps not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term, hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the competent authority…” (The underlining is added).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>In conclusion, the result of the study carried out by the Chamber demonstrates that the respondent authorities increased the permitted visitation to the PNMA without applying the respective technical tools, even though it was evident that the park's installed capacity would be insufficient to guarantee the balance between nature conservation and its enjoyment by visitors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is granted. Given that the flow model applied in December 2022 indicates a carrying capacity of 1120 daily visitors, it is ordered to reduce daily visitation to that amount, without prejudice to a new technical study determining such capacity under the park's current conditions. (…)”</span></p></div></body></html> In the case of the PNMA, the rationale of the Public Use Regulations for the Manuel Antonio National Park was clear in pointing out that visitation was causing “…its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation,” and that it was therefore necessary to “…ensure a true balance between visitation and the conservation of the Park’s resources, in order to guarantee the perpetual preservation of this wild area.” In the same vein, a measure contemplated by that regulatory body to achieve the aforementioned balance and ensure the park’s conservation is the regulation of the number of visitors in the park’s public use areas. Thus, the determination of visitation shall be based “…on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC…” (article 3). The Chamber endorses this requirement, given that it is an expression of the principle of objectivization of environmental protection:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>“With regard to the environment, the object of the fundamental right set forth, our Constitution also requires it to be ‘healthy.’ The requirement of ‘healthy’ leads us to ‘regenerative capacity’ and ‘succession capacity’ to guarantee life. From both requirements—‘healthy’ and ‘ecologically balanced’—arises the need for sustainable and supportable development; quality of life and environmental quality depend on this. Now, with the concepts of ‘environment,’ ‘healthy,’ and ‘ecologically balanced,’ the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that, under the terms of articles 16 of the General Public Administration Act and 38 of the Organic Environmental Act, State actions in environmental matters must be based on, and cannot contradict, the unequivocal rules of science and technique in order to achieve full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, moreover, a ‘greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country.’ Regarding the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technique, the Chamber has called this the principle of objectivization of environmental protection: ‘The objectivization of environmental protection (…) is a principle that in no way can be confused with the previous one [the precautionary principle or “principle of prudent avoidance”], insofar as, derived from the provisions of articles 16 and 160 of the General Public Administration Act, it translates into the need to accredit decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to acts and to provisions of a general nature—both legislative and regulatory—from which derives the requirement of being bound to science and technique, thereby conditioning the Administration’s discretion in this matter. So that, in light of the results derived from those technical studies—such as environmental impact assessments—if an objective technical criterion is evidenced denoting the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or human health, it is mandatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the event of a “reasonable doubt,” it is mandatory to take decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.’ (Chamber Judgment Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).” (Resolution No. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012, reiterated in Resolution No. 2022-012509 of 12:10 p.m. on May 31, 2022).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>Furthermore, the application of the preventive principle in environmental matters also obligates the Chamber to take measures to prevent the reproached administrative conduct from negatively impacting the ecosystems protected by the PNMA. As indicated supra, that principle states:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>“…the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned on the fulfillment of certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are risks clearly defined and identified at least as probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits guaranteeing the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts.”</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>The statements of the respondent party reveal that there is a clear risk to the ecosystems of the PNMA if visitation is not regulated through technical tools that allow establishing the load that this park can handle sustainably. What was indicated in official communication No. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, is reiterated:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>“…Without a doubt, and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should actually be being received at this time; which represents an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental conditions and sustainability of the sector enabled for visitors. One must remember that tourists wish to visit the PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, the same wildlife that, if we overexploit, future visitors may perhaps not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term; hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority in this matter…” (Emphasis added).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>In conclusion, the result of the study carried out by the Chamber demonstrates that the respondent authorities increased the permitted visitation to the PNMA without applying the respective technical tools, even when it was evident that the installed capacity of the park would be insufficient to guarantee the balance between the conservation of nature and its enjoyment by visitors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is granted. Given that the flow model applied in December 2022 indicates a carrying capacity of 1120 daily visitors, it is ordered that daily visitation be reduced to that amount, without prejudice to a new technical study determining such capacity under the park’s current conditions. (…)”</span></p></div></body></html>
011233-23. AMBIENTE. ACUSA QUE EL PARQUE NACIONAL MANUEL ANTONIO RECIBE UNA GRAN CANTIDA DE VISITANTES QUE ESTÁN DETERIORANDO EL ECOSISTEMA Y SOSTENIBILIDAD DEL PARQUE, ADEMÁS DE QUE NO EXISTE ESTUDIOS CIENTÍFICOS QUE RESPALDEN LA CARGA TURÍSTICA. CON LUGAR. SE ORDENA UN PLAZO DE 24 HORAS PARA REDUCIR LA VISITACIÓN A LA CAPACIDAD DE CARGA CALCULADA EN EL MODELO DE FLUJO APLICADO EN DICIEMBRE DE 2022. VCG06/2023 “(…) VI.- Sobre el caso concreto. En el sub examine, el recurrente señala que el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio (PNMA) recibe diariamente unas 3000 personas. Acusa que tal cantidad de visitantes deteriora el ecosistema y la sostenibilidad del parque. Apunta que no hay estudios científicos que respalden esa carga turística, pues el último es de 2010 y únicamente justificaba una visitación diaria máxima de 600 personas. Considera que se viola el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
Luego de analizar los autos, la Sala tuvo por probado que, mediante acuerdo nro. 12 de la sesión ordinaria nro. 06-2014 del 23 de junio de 2014, el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación aprobó la “Herramienta para el manejo de los flujos de visitación en las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del SINAC” e instruyó al director ejecutivo para que la oficializara. En 2016 se efectúo el primer trabajo de campo en playas y senderos del sector del PNMA para identificar posibles indicadores a monitorear y crear la línea base en los casos requeridos. En 2018, el Comité Científico Técnico del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central acordó la implementación de la herramienta para las áreas silvestres protegidas de esa área de conservación. Con respecto a la visitación diaria del PNMA, mediante resolución nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 de las 15:05 horas del 30 de abril de 2021, la parte accionada estableció un máximo de 1500 visitantes diarios. Luego, por resolución nro. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las 15:20 horas del 5 de agosto de 2021, la autoridad recurrida aumentó el aforo a un máximo de 2000 visitantes diarios. Asimismo, se tuvo como hecho incontrovertido -lo que se deriva también de las pruebas aportadas con el informe rendido (véanse, por ejemplo, los oficios SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 y SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023)- que las autoridades accionadas aumentaron este año el aforo permitido a 3000 visitantes diarios. Como consecuencia de lo anterior, varios días de abril de 2023 registraron cantidades de visitación superiores a las 2000 personas: 2 de abril, 2592 personas; 3 de abril, 2867 personas; 5 de abril, 2765; 6 de abril, 2754 personas; 7 de abril, 2734 personas; 8 de abril, 2755 personas; 9 de abril, 2746 personas. Atinente a este tema, la Administración recurrida estima que la visitación del PNMA corresponde actualmente a un 267.9% de la capacidad instalada. Por este motivo, mediante oficio nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 del 16 de marzo de 2023, el director regional y la directora de Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central externaron al director ejecutivo del SINAC su preocupación por las decisiones jerárquicas concernientes a la visitación del PNMA. En cuanto a la afectación al ecosistema, ese oficio indicó: “…Sin lugar a dudas y tal y como se indicó líneas arriba, haber aumentado la capacidad de carga a 3000 visitantes (50% de más del límite que se venía manejando) supone una carga bruta total de más del 200%, como se indicó en el primer apartado, por encima de lo que se debería más bien estar recibiendo en este momento; lo que supone un riesgo inminente de deterioro a las condiciones ambientales y de sostenibilidad del sector habilitado para visitantes. Hay que recordar que los turistas desean visitar el PNMA por su belleza escénica y biodiversidad, en gran medida por la oportunidad de observar fauna silvestre, misma que si sobre explotamos, no tendrían quizás a corto o mediano plazo la oportunidad de observar los futuros visitantes, por ello el balance entre protección y desarrollo turístico que debemos promover como autoridad en la materia…” En igual sentido, por oficio nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 del 17 de abril de 2023, el director regional del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central comunicó al director ejecutivo del SINAC: “Por todo lo anterior, y en apego a las funciones encomendadas por Ley, artículo 50 de nuestra constitución política, artículos 31 y 61 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y 25 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, y al principio indubio (sic) pro natura, bajo la responsabilidad en el ejercicio de mi cargo de aplicar el ordenamiento jurídico que rigen la materia, asimismo, de implementar las políticas nacionales y todas las indicadas en el ordenamiento jurídico y técnico vinculante, así como el deber jerárquico en el ámbito geográfico a mi cargo de implementar, evaluar y sistematizar, las políticas, lineamientos, metodologías, normas y estrategias internas; por todo lo expuesto anteriormente, es mi deber que ante la ausencia de instrucciones y directrices directas de manera formal y escrita por parte de mis jerarquías en cuanto al cambio y aplicación de una capacidad de carga, superior a la establecida mediante la aplicación de la herramienta de capacidad de carga y no siendo además oficializada por resolución administrativa alguna, esta dirección no tiene base legal y técnica, así como capacidad presupuestaria y de personal, para continuar recibiendo la visitación de 3000 personas diarias dentro del PNMA, por lo anterior en apego al deber de conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad y de los servicios ecosistémicos que permitan asegurarles a todos los ciudadanos un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, se le comunica que a partir del día 30 de abril del 2023, el área de conservación estará solicitando formalmente al encargado de la fiscalización del SICORE, se aplique la resolución SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las quince horas veinte minutos del cinco de agosto del dos mil veinte uno, vigente a la fecha, en el sentido de reducir la capacidad de reservaciones a dos mil personas”. Adicionalmente, es de suma relevancia para la resolución del sub iudice, que la Sala no pudo verificar la aplicación de las herramientas técnicas respectivas para aumentar la visitación del PNMA.
Los hechos anteriores evidencian que la cantidad de visitación del PNMA sobrepasa la capacidad de ese parque en detrimento de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Incluso, más allá del reproche esgrimido por el accionante, tal situación se desprende de las propias manifestaciones de los informantes. Verbigracia, dichas autoridades estimaron que la visitación actual del PNMA corresponde a un 267.9% de la capacidad instalada. Obsérvese que, según el modelo de flujo de visitantes, efectuado en diciembre de 2022, la capacidad de carga es de 1120 visitantes diarios. Empero, para esta época, el aforo diario supera por mucho esa cantidad, ya que el PNMA recibió un promedio superior a las 2500 personas diarias durante los primeros días de abril de 2023.
En el plano normativo, primeramente, la Sala destaca la ‘Convención para la protección de la flora, fauna y bellezas escénicas naturales de los países de américa’ (ley nro. 3763):
“Los Gobiernos Americanos deseosos de proteger y conservar en su medio ambiente natural, ejemplares de todas las especies y géneros de su flora y su fauna indígenas, incluyendo las aves migratorias, en número suficiente y en regiones lo bastante vastas para evitar su extinción por cualquier medio al alcance del hombre; y Deseosos de proteger y conservar los paisajes de incomparable belleza, las formaciones geológicas y extraordinarias, las regiones y los objetos naturales de interés estético o valor histórico o científico, y los lugares donde existen condiciones primitivas dentro de los casos a que esta Convención se refiere; y Deseosos de concertar una convención sobre la protección de la flora, la fauna, y las bellezas escénicas naturales dentro de los propósitos arriba enunciados han convenido en los siguientes artículos:
ARTICULO 1 Definición de los términos y expresiones empleados en esta Convención.
1.-Se entenderá por Parques Nacionales: Las regiones establecidas para la protección y conservación de las bellezas escénicas naturales y de la flora y la fauna de importancia nacional, de las que el público pueda disfrutar mejor al ser puestas bajo la vigilancia oficial.
(…)
ARTICULO 3 (…)
Los Gobiernos Contratantes convienen además en proveer los parques nacionales de las facilidades para el solaz y la educación del público, de acuerdo con los fines que persigue esta Convención”.
En consonancia con lo anterior, el Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad (decreto ejecutivo nro. 34433) dispone:
“Artículo 70.-Categorías de manejo de ASP. Para efectos de la clasificación de las distintas categorías de manejo de áreas silvestres protegidas se establecen los siguientes criterios técnicos para cada una de ellas:
(…)
“Considerando:
(…)
3º-Que de conformidad con un estudio de impacto ambiental, efectuado sobre el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, la visitación no controlada esta (sic) provocando su deterioro en forma acelerada, creando un grave riesgo para su preservación futura.
4º-Que administración de los terrenos propiedad del Estado que conforman este Parque Nacional, le corresponde al Servicio de Parques Nacionales del Ministerio de Recursos Nacionales, Energía y Minas, debiendo velar porque exista un verdadero equilibrio entre la visitación y la conservación de los recursos del Parque, con el fin de asegurar la preservación a perpetuidad de esta área silvestre. Por tanto,
DECRETAN:
Artículo 1º-EI presente reglamento tiene como finalidad mejorar la calidad de experiencia del visitante al Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio y procurar su preservación a perpetuidad.
(…)
Artículo 3: Sobre la capacidad de carga de la zona de uso público (alta intervención): Basados en los resultados de la aplicación de las herramientas técnicas establecidas por el SINAC, la Dirección Regional del ACOPAC determinará el aumento, disminución o regulación de la visitación de los diferentes sitios autorizados, vía resolución administrativa. (…)” (El subrayado es agregado).
Con base en las disposiciones recién transcritas, la Sala establece que la finalidad prioritaria de los parques nacionales (entre ellos, el PNMA) es la conservación de los ecosistemas presentes en sus respectivas áreas o zonas. Un objetivo secundario es posibilitar a las personas el esparcimiento y el disfrute de la naturaleza que hay en ellos. Este orden de prelación no se deriva únicamente de la normativa, sino que es la consecuencia de la dependencia que el segundo tiene de la primera. Es decir, el requisito para que las personas puedan disfrutar de la naturaleza es inexorablemente la conservación de la naturaleza; si esta no se conserva, desaparece lo que se pretende visitar. En el caso del PNMA, la ratio del Reglamento de Uso Público para el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio fue manifiesta en señalar que la visitación causaba “…su deterioro en forma acelerada, creando un grave riesgo para su preservación futura”, por lo que se debía “…velar porque exista un verdadero equilibrio entre la visitación y la conservación de los recursos del Parque, con el fin de asegurar la preservación a perpetuidad de esta área silvestre”. En ese mismo orden de ideas, una medida que contempla ese cuerpo normativo para alcanzar el citado equilibrio y asegurar la conservación del parque es la regulación de la cantidad de visitantes en las zonas de uso público del parque. Así, la determinación de la visitación se basará “…en los resultados de la aplicación de las herramientas técnicas establecidas por el SINAC…” (artículo 3). La Sala avala esta exigencia, dado que es una expresión del principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental:
“En cuanto al ambiente, objeto del derecho fundamental expuesto, nuestra Carta Magna exige además que sea “sano”. La exigencia “sano” nos conduce a la “capacidad regenerativa” y a la “capacidad de sucesión” para garantizar la vida. De ambos requisitos: “sano” y equilibrado” se desprende la necesidad de un desarrollo sostenible y sustentable; la calidad de vida y la calidad ambiental dependen de ello. Ahora bien, con los conceptos de “ambiente”, “sano” “ecológicamente equilibrado”, la norma constitucional introdujo la ciencia y la técnica en las decisiones ambientales, sean estas legislativas o administrativas, de tal manera que, en los términos de los ordinales 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, las actuaciones estatales en materia ambiental deben fundarse y no pueden contradecir las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica en aras de lograr el goce pleno y universal a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y, además, un “mayor bienestar para todos los habitantes del país”. En cuanto al sometimiento de las decisiones legislativas y administrativas a las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica, la Sala lo ha denominado principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental: “De la objetivación de la tutela ambiental (…) es un principio que en modo alguno puede confundirse con el anterior [principio precautorio o “principio de la evitación prudente”], en tanto, como derivado de lo dispuesto en los artículos 16 y 160 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia, tanto en relación con actos como de las disposiciones de carácter general -tanto legales como reglamentarias-, de donde se deriva la exigencia de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica con lo cual, se condiciona la discrecionalidad de la Administración en esta materia. De manera que en atención a los resultados que se deriven de esos estudios técnicos -tales como los estudios de impacto ambiental-, si se evidencia un criterio técnico objetivo que denote la probabilidad de un evidente daño al ambiente, los recursos naturales o a la salud de las personas, es que resulta obligado desechar el proyecto, obra o actividad propuestas; y en caso de una "duda razonable" resulta obligado tomar decisiones en pro del ambiente (principio pro-natura), que puede traducirse en la adopción, tanto de medidas compensatorias como precautorias, a fin de proteger de la manera adecuada el ambiente.” (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).” (Resolución nro. 2012-13367 de las 11:33 horas del 21 de setiembre de 2012, reiterada en la resolución nro. 2022-012509 de las 12:10 horas del 31 de mayo de 2022).
Por otro lado, la aplicación del principio preventivo en materia ambiental también obliga a la Sala a tomar medidas para evitar que la conducta administrativa reprochada incida de manera negativa en los ecosistemas que protege el PNMA. Según se indicó supra, ese principio señala:
“…el principio preventivo demanda que, cuando haya certeza de posibles daños al ambiente, la actividad afectante deba ser prohibida, limitada, o condicionada al cumplimiento de ciertos requerimientos. En general, este principio aplica cuando existen riesgos claramente definidos e identificados al menos como probables; asimismo, tal principio resulta útil cuando no existen informes técnicos o permisos administrativos que garanticen la sostenibilidad de una actividad, pero hay elementos suficientes para prever eventuales impactos negativos.” Las manifestaciones de la parte recurrida revelan que existe un riesgo claro para los ecosistemas del PNMA, si la visitación no es regulada mediante herramientas técnicas que permitan establecer la carga que puede manejar ese parque de manera sostenible. Se reitera lo indicado en el oficio nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 del 16 de marzo de 2023:
“…Sin lugar a dudas y tal y como se indicó líneas arriba, haber aumentado la capacidad de carga a 3000 visitantes (50% de más del límite que se venía manejando) supone una carga bruta total de más del 200%, como se indicó en el primer apartado, por encima de lo que se debería más bien estar recibiendo en este momento; lo que supone un riesgo inminente de deterioro a las condiciones ambientales y de sostenibilidad del sector habilitado para visitantes. Hay que recordar que los turistas desean visitar el PNMA por su belleza escénica y biodiversidad, en gran medida por la oportunidad de observar fauna silvestre, misma que si sobre explotamos, no tendrían quizás a corto o mediano plazo la oportunidad de observar los futuros visitantes, por ello el balance entre protección y desarrollo turístico que debemos promover como autoridad en la materia…” (El subrayado es agregado).
En conclusión, el resultado del estudio efectuado por la Sala demuestra que las autoridades accionadas aumentaron la visitación permitida al PNMA sin aplicar las herramientas técnicas respectivas, aun cuando se evidenciaba que la capacidad instalada del parque sería insuficiente para garantizar el equilibrio entre la conservación de la naturaleza y su disfrute por parte de los visitantes. En virtud de lo expuesto, se declara con lugar el recurso. Visto que en el modelo de flujo aplicado en diciembre de 2022 se indica una capacidad de carga de 1120 visitantes diarios, se ordena reducir la visitación diaria a esa cantidad, sin demérito de que un nuevo estudio técnico determine tal capacidad en las condiciones actuales del parque. (…)”
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.