Forest possession by small farmer protected through interdictPosesión de bosque por campesino tutelable vía interdicto

IV.- The public agrarian defender of the plaintiff files an appeal, stating the following grievances: First ground, contradictory reasoning: The defender states that the plaintiff at no time claimed to have an ecological possession (posesión ecológica) over the property, since what he textually indicated in the complaint is that he has maintained the farm for forest conservation (conservación del bosque); therefore, there is contradictory reasoning by the judge, as the judge speaks of there being no ecological or agrarian possession (posesión agraria) when that was not alleged by his represented party; it is an interpretation by the judge without any basis. Second ground: assessment of the evidence by the judge: In her opinion, there are a series of contradictions that the judge does not observe: a). On the one hand, the defendant shields himself by claiming to be a laborer on the farm, which is owned by a Mrs. [Nombre1], who does not appear in the proceedings, as she is only spoken of by references, and the literal certification presented speaks of a cancellation of the registration; b). Likewise, documents from the Municipality of Carrillo are presented as evidence for better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver), where the same Mrs. [Nombre1] appears making a donation, using the map presented by the defendant, with the defendant later alleging that contract was rescinded, without presenting the rescission, only a document stating certain date, prepared by the directing attorney of this proceeding, executed on September 2, 2003, without the supposed contract being incorporated; c). The judge does not observe the contradictions presented among the defendant's witnesses, such as that none are residents of the area, they are even from outside Guanacaste. There are contradictions in the witnesses' statements; for example, in the case of witness [Nombre2], he textually stated: "I do not know who the adjoining landowners are; I understand that Don [Nombre3] has negotiated with them to cover the cost of the firebreaks (rondas)"; however, if we observe the deed that was presented before the Municipality of Carrillo, executed before Notary Verny Valerio Hernández, visible at folio 77, paradoxically this witness appears as an adjoining landowner of the farm described in that public deed, the same document based on the cadastral map presented by the defendant in this proceeding; d) the defendant's strategy has been to present the defendant as a laborer on the farm and then try to show an administrative relationship between [Nombre1] and Mr. [Nombre3], given that said lady is a ghost in the proceedings; e) Another contradiction has to do with the existence of [Nombre3], who is said to be a resident of Upala, and later there is talk of a [Nombre3], resident of San Francisco de Dos Ríos. There exists a third ground of appeal but in reality it is a summary of the appellant's objections to the conclusions reached by the Agrarian Judge: a. It is not true that her client holds an ecological possession (posesión ecológica); it is a non-commercial forest possession (posesión forestal no empresarial); b. The plaintiff's witnesses have shown that laborers are hired to make fences and firebreaks (rondas), since the interest is forest conservation (conservación del bosque), which has been accredited through the judicial inspections (reconocimientos); logging activities (actividad de voltea) cannot be carried out, as the aim is to protect those resources, considering a spring (ojo de agua); c. The argument that the land was leased by the IDA and therefore should have been cultivated is incorrect, since the lessee is giving the proper use to the lands, as the necessary maintenance to conserve that forest has been continued; d. The conclusion reached by the Judge that the land was practically abandoned at the time Mr. [Nombre3], the defendant [Nombre4], and the other hired laborers entered the land is incorrect, as it is not true that it was abandoned, because the evidence is clear and conclusive regarding the acts carried out by his client, as current and momentary possession (posesión actual y momentánea). Thus, Mr. [Nombre5] states: "for a long time I have seen [Nombre6] enter this area and I know him as the owner, he has even sought me out to help him make fences..."; [Nombre5] states: "I have not done work on this property for six months; before that I made firebreaks (rondas) and put up new posts and wire" and [Nombre7]: "I know this farm because every year I make the firebreaks (rondas) at the request of Don [Nombre6]." Possession does not require being personal, and regarding the fallen fence that, since the first judicial inspection (reconocimiento), traces of old barbed wire are seen on that boundary line and later it continues well fenced; e. There is a contradiction in the defendant's witnesses, as they allege the existence of a [Nombre1], but there is no proof that she exists; they are not from the area, while [Nombre6]'s witnesses, who are from the area, indicate that it is Don [Nombre6] who has been there; f.) Finally, regarding the evidence for better provision (prueba para mejor proveer) of the sale contract, where [Nombre8] supposedly buys from Mrs. [Nombre1], based on cadastral map G-848477-89, executed before Notary Verny Valerio Hernández at 3:00 p.m. on May 26, 2003, if that contract is given validity, it is contradictory to everything stated by witnesses [Nombre9], [Nombre3], and [Nombre2], and furthermore it is later alleged by [Nombre4] that this contract was rescinded.

V.- In relation to what is discussed here, it must first be stated, for the purpose of substantiating the manner in which the matter is resolved, that the possessory action (interdicto) is a summary proceeding that seeks to protect the momentary and actual possession (posesión momentánea y actual) of real property. As established in Article 457 of the Civil Procedure Code, applied supplementarily by authorization of Articles 26 and 79 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, issues of ownership or definitive possession are in no way analyzed. It is an institute that manifests society's interest in protecting a situation that appears to be current, while the right is being discussed in another forum. Possession ad interdictan, as it is known in doctrine, is expressed then as a de facto power held over a thing, which is demonstrated through the performance of a series of possessory acts. In agrarian matters, possessory action protection classically acquired particular characteristics, since in the case of agrarian property or possession, the acts executed by virtue of that de facto power had to correspond to the nature of the assets. In other words, if the economic and social function of agrarian property is of a productive nature in its subjective profile, suitable for the production of plants and animals through the biological cycle, the acts had to be those specific to agrarian activities of cultivating plants or raising animals, or tending toward them. With the development of Environmental Law, under the protection of an emerging new global awareness, the different branches of law suffered modifications in their institutes to adapt to the new principles that arose with this discipline. Those new principles, in the case of Costa Rica, have constitutional status with the reform of Article 50, which established as a right of every citizen to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; they were also embodied through special laws, such as the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley Forestal, Ley de Biodiversidad, and Ley de Suelos. In particular, the Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788 of April 30, 1998, established in its Article 8 that, as part of the economic and social function, all real properties must fulfill an environmental function. Meanwhile, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554 of October 4, 1995, establishes in its Article 2, subsection a) that the State and individuals must participate in the conservation and sustainable use of the environment; finally, and without intending to be exhaustive, Article 19 of the Ley Forestal 7575, of February 5, 1996, prohibits land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) on lands covered with forest. This new vision is received by Agrarian Law, enriching its institutes of agrarian property and possession, and broadening the object of the discipline. In the case of agrarian possession (posesión agraria), it is understood that the acts carried out must be of such a nature that they respect the rational use of natural resources and allow two third-generation human rights to be combined: the right to development of peoples and the right to the environment, synthesized in the concept of sustainable or sustainable development. Within the genus of agrarian property, one of its species is forest agrarian property (propiedad agraria forestal), which, due to the environmental services it provides, has a more complex function than other types of agrarian property, since it is suitable for conservation and also for production. In fact, we have already seen that in the case of owners with private forest, only technical management of the forest is permitted, not land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo).

VI.- Having clarified the above, it must now be added that it is not within the nature of this proceeding to analyze the documents and evidence offered by both parties in relation to the right held by a supposed owner of the property or by the plaintiff as a lessee of a public institution. That could be the subject of another proceeding if it is of interest to any of them. What interests us here, as we have already advanced, is to rule on the momentary and actual possession (posesión momentánea y actual). Therefore, we will refer to the different grievances raised by the defender only insofar as they relate to the possessory action (acción interdictal). As for the first ground of grievance, the defender claims an incorrect assessment of the validity of the plaintiff's possession, which the judge considers does not meet the requirements to be considered ecological possession (posesión ecológica). In this regard, we must state that the appellant is correct when she points out that there is an incorrect assessment by the lower court judge regarding the possessory acts carried out by the plaintiff. In this instance, it has been accredited that the property is mountainous, and within the property there even exists a spring (naciente) (see proven fact number 5 of this judgment). To reach this conclusion, the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) visible at folio 68 has been taken into account, in which the following is accredited: "The situation is similar to that described in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) carried out on July twenty-first, two thousand three, on the occasion of the precautionary measure. It is observed that the area cleared toward the spring (ojo de agua) and toward the mountain has increased. Some small-diameter trees cut with a chainsaw are observed…." That fact is complemented by other evidentiary elements contributed to the case file. First, a judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) carried out on the occasion of a precautionary measure, in which it is stated: "behind the construction, the terrain is a thicket..." (folio 17 verso). Also, the map of the farm presented by the defendant, visible at folio 28, in which the nature of the farm is indicated to be mountainous. And the references of witnesses [Nombre10], at folio 68 verso, [Nombre11] at folio 69, [Nombre5] at folio 70, [Nombre2] at folio 71, [Nombre7] at folio 71 verso, some from the plaintiff's side and others from the defendant's, to the trees of the farm, the spring (ojo de agua), and to the acts carried out by them inside the farm, limited to making firebreaks (rondas), on the fences, not reporting cultivation activities, nor of any other type, except those that are denounced as disturbing acts by the plaintiff, which are the construction of a wooden house and a small cornfield behind it. All of this coincides with the plaintiff's statement that his possession consists of forest conservation (conservación del bosque) tasks, such as fencing, clearing (chapeo), and care of the firebreaks (rondas) (folio 2). Well then, the lower court judge held as proven facts the performance of such acts of clearing (chapeo), fencing, and care of firebreaks (rondas), but qualifies them as isolated acts (proven fact 1 of the first instance judgment). Furthermore, it was held as proven that it was between March and May of two thousand three that the defendant and other laborers hired by [Nombre3] cleared the land, repaired the fences, made firebreaks (rondas), sowed corn, and built a small corn house (proven fact 2 of that same judgment). Even so, the judge considered that the plaintiff did not prove having exercised effective agrarian or ecological possession (posesión agraria o ecológica) on the land (unproven fact 1). In his substantive analysis, the judge contributes to the analysis some jurisprudential precedents developed by this same Tribunal regarding the requirements demanded of the ecological possessor, especially the combination of protecting ecosystems with acts that demonstrate his presence on the site and his intention to conserve. The concept of ecological possession (posesión ecológica) is undoubtedly a great advance in Costa Rican agro-environmental law. It corresponds to a period of Environmental and Agrarian Law in which great emphasis is already being placed on the issue of natural resource conservation. And it was not for nothing, given the alarming loss of ecosystems at the national and international levels. According to the elaboration made by the Agrarian Tribunal: "In ecological possession (posesión ecológica), the de facto power must fall upon a territorial area where an ecosystem exists, and the possessory acts must be directed at protecting said ecosystems, seeking the study and scientific research of all the interrelations existing there, whether they are living plant beings (and not only forests) or animals, and their relationship with conservation and human existence itself. In other terms, the possessory acts in ecological possession (posesión ecológica) would be both omissive and active, the combination of which allows the ecological balance to be conserved. Therefore, the subject or 'ecological possessor' must be a natural or legal person with sufficient technical capacity and knowledge of ecological balance and ecosystem management. The structure of ecological possession (posesión ecológica), that is, the set of rights and obligations deriving from it, would be subject to a series of obligations contained in various special laws such as the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley Forestal, the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, the Ley de Salud, the Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, etc., as well as all those International Conventions signed by our country for the protection of the environment. In general, the applicable legal regime would be agro-environmental law. Even the resolution of conflicts arising from the exercise of ecological possession (posesión ecológica), in the absence of special regulations, must reflect the principles of Ecological Law, which, especially at the constitutional level, have been created, such as: The protection of the landscape, the rational exploitation of resources, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment." (Voto 147-98 of the Agrarian Tribunal). In that same sense, see Votos 77-97 and 154-97. More recently, the Tribunal has carried out other analyses in order to incorporate new principles that enrich the topic of ecological possession (posesión ecológica) with other aspects (in that sense, see Voto 311-F-03). The conceptual evolution is fundamental to bear in mind, since the judge, in accordance with Article 10 of the Civil Code, has the obligation to interpret the norms according to the context and social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and purpose. Therefore, in a condensed form, we summarize what the evolution of that legal and social reality has been. It was at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), known as the Rio Summit, held in 1992, that new principles for the international community were consistently elaborated, developed in various legal instruments such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the so-called Agenda 21 which was an Action Plan to promote sustainable development; in addition, a Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests was issued, and two legally binding instruments were opened for signature: the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity; negotiations were also initiated on the Convention to Combat Desertification, which was opened for signature in 1994 and entered into force in December 1996, all of them subscribed to by our country. Finally, at the Johannesburg Summit in 2002, follow-up was given to the Rio Agreements. As a consequence of these new principles incorporated into our legal system, we speak today of the concept of sustainable development, which is already included in the current Ley Forestal in its first article, which establishes, of interest: "This law establishes as an essential and priority function of the State to ensure the conservation, protection, and administration of natural forests and the production, utilization, industrialization, and promotion of the country's forest resources destined for that purpose, in accordance with the principle of adequate and sustainable use of renewable natural resources. It will also ensure the generation of employment and the increase in the standard of living of the rural population, through their effective incorporation into silvicultural activities." (emphasis ours). In the same sense, the concept was regulated in Article 2, subsection c) of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and in the Ley de Biodiversidad in its Article 9, which we transcribe in the relevant part: Article 9: General principles: The following, among others, constitute general principles for the effects of the application of this law: …4. Intra- and intergenerational equity. The State and individuals shall ensure that the use of the elements of biodiversity is utilized in a sustainable manner, so that the possibilities and opportunities for its use and its benefits are guaranteed in a just manner for all sectors of society and to satisfy the needs of future generations. "Both in the case of the Ley de Biodiversidad and the Ley de Suelos, there is a true obligation of the Agrarian Jurisdiction to apply these principles because both one law and the other granted competence to the Agrarian Tribunals to hear actions derived from them (Articles 108 of the Ley de Biodiversidad and 54 of the Ley de Suelos). The principle of sustainable development incorporated into our legislation contemplates at least three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental or ecological. This means that when analyzing a case of biodiversity, forest resources, or the environment in general, we must take into account that sustainable development is achieved not only through ecological preservation but also by achieving a balance with the social dimension that seeks development with equity for rural inhabitants, and the so-called economic dimension that understands it is necessary to give value to our natural resources. In the case of agrarian possession (posesión agraria), then, which always reported an economic and social function, it now incorporates the environmental dimension, and in the case of ecological possession (posesión ecológica), it is enriched with the dimensions of sustainable development. For the case we are analyzing, and for which we have made this recount, in order to carry out an adequate interpretation, it is important to bear in mind that, if the nature of the asset that is the object of possession is indeed that of being a forest, and therefore subject to the restrictions specific to these resources, the possessory acts carried out by the plaintiff, consisting of firebreaks (rondas), fencing, and care of firebreaks (rondas) (proven fact 1 in the judgment), are the appropriate ones for the conservation of the resource. The demand made by the judge that the possessor carry out other activities, typical of a technician with knowledge in ecological balance and ecosystem management, proves excessive in this case, in which we are in the presence of possession by a peasant of scarce resources, which is revealed in his application to be assisted by the public defense, which would be congruent with the integral vision of sustainable development, where it is taken into account that the inhabitants of the forests are rural communities, who have evident economic limitations. In any case, the acts carried out by the plaintiff are the basic ones for maintaining the existing forest; thus, they would not be complementary or accessory. To this, it must be added that the plaintiff precisely takes care of the possession of the resource, filing a complaint in this forum within the limited period offered by the filing of the possessory action (interdicto) and requesting precautionary measures to prevent the execution of activities that might not be sustainable. We reiterate, in the interpretation that must be made in this case, under the principle of sustainable development, the environmental dimension would be taken into account, but also the economic and social dimension, understood as the right of rural communities to benefit sustainably from natural resources, considering the economic possibilities that those same communities have, where an investment in technology or highly trained human resources could not be demanded. Precisely in the authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests, arising from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio in 1992, the following was established as principle 5.a: "National forest policies should recognize and duly support the identity, culture and interests and respect the rights of indigenous people, their communities and other communities and forest dwellers. Appropriate conditions should be promoted for these groups to enable them to have an economic interest in the use of forests, to carry out economic activities, and to achieve and maintain a cultural identity and a social organization, as well as an adequate level of livelihood and well-being, which could be done, among other things, through land tenure systems that serve as an incentive for the sustainable management of forests..."" There is a contradiction among the witnesses for the defendant, as they allege the existence of a [Nombre1], yet there is no proof that she exists, they are not from the area, while those for [Nombre6], who are from the area, indicate that it is Mr. [Nombre6] who has been there; f.) Finally, regarding the evidence submitted for better provision of the sale contract, where [Nombre8] supposedly purchases from Mrs. [Nombre1], based on cadastral map G-848477-89, executed before Notary Verny Valerio Hernández at 3:00 p.m. on May 26, 2003, if that contract is given validity, it contradicts everything stated by witnesses [Nombre9], [Nombre3], and [Nombre2], and furthermore, [Nombre4] later alleges that this contract was rescinded. **V.-** In relation to what is being discussed here, it must first be stated, for the purpose of substantiating the manner in which the matter is resolved, that the interdict (interdicto) is a summary proceeding intended to protect momentary and current possession of real estate. As established by Article 457 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), applied supplementarily by authorization of Articles 26 and 79 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), matters of ownership or definitive possession are in no way analyzed. It is an institution that manifests society's interest in protecting a situation that presents itself as current, while the right is being discussed in another forum. Possession ad interdictan, as it is known in doctrine, is therefore expressed as a de facto power held over a thing, which is demonstrated through the performance of a series of acts of a possessory nature. In agrarian matters, interdictal protection classically acquired particular characteristics, since in the case of agrarian property or possession, the acts executed by virtue of that de facto power had to correspond to the nature of the assets. In other words, if the economic and social function of agrarian property is productive in its subjective profile, suitable for the production of plants and animals through the biological cycle, the acts had to be those typical of agrarian activities of cultivating plants or raising animals, or tending towards that. With the development of Environmental Law, under the protection of an emerging new planetary awareness, the different branches of Law underwent modifications in their institutions to adapt to the new principles that emerged with this discipline. These new principles, in the case of Costa Rica, have constitutional rank with the reform to Article 50, which established every citizen's right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; they were also embodied through special laws, such as the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), and the Soil Law (Ley de Suelos). In particular, Biodiversity Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998, established in its Article 8 that as part of the economic and social function, all real properties must fulfill an environmental function. For its part, the Organic Environmental Law, No. 7554 of October 4, 1995, establishes in its Article 2, subsection a), that the State and private parties must participate in the conservation and sustainable use of the environment; finally, and without being exhaustive, Article 19 of the Forestry Law 7575, of February 5, 1996, prohibits land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) on lands covered by forest. This new vision is received by Agrarian Law, enriching its institutions of agrarian property and possession, and expanding the object of the discipline. In the case of agrarian possession, it is understood that the acts performed must be of such a nature that they respect the rational use of natural resources and allow for the conjugation of two third-generation human rights, the right to development of peoples and the right to the environment, synthesized in the concept of sustainable or sustainable development. Within the genus of agrarian property, one of its species is forest agrarian property, which, due to the environmental services it provides, has a more complex function than other types of agrarian property, as it is suitable for conservation and also for production. In fact, we have already seen that in the case of owners with private forest, only the technical management of the forest is permitted, not the land-use change. **VI.-** Having clarified the above, it must now be added that it is not proper to the nature of this proceeding to analyze the documents and evidence offered by both parties in relation to the right assisting an alleged property owner of the real estate or the plaintiff as a lessee of a public institution. This could be the subject of another proceeding if it is of interest to either of them. What interests us here, as we have already anticipated, is to rule on momentary and current possession. Therefore, we will refer to the different grievances raised by the public defender only insofar as they correspond to the interdictal action. Regarding the first ground of grievance, the defender claims an incorrect assessment of the validity of the plaintiff's possession, which the judge considers does not meet the requirements to be considered ecological possession (posesión ecológica). In this regard, we must say that the appellant is correct in pointing out that there is an incorrect assessment by the lower court judge regarding the possessory acts performed by the plaintiff. In this instance, it has been accredited that the property is mountainous, and within the property, there is even a spring (naciente) (see proven fact number 5 of this judgment). To reach such a conclusion, the judicial inspection visible on page 68 has been taken into account, which certifies the following: *“The situation is similar to that described in the judicial inspection carried out on July twenty-first, two thousand three, on the occasion of the precautionary measure. It is observed that the area cleared towards the spring and towards the mountain has increased. Some small-diameter trees cut with a chainsaw are observed….”* This fact is complemented by other evidentiary elements contributed to the case file. Firstly, a judicial inspection carried out on the occasion of a precautionary measure in which it is stated: “behind the construction, the land is a thicket ...” (page 17 verso). Also, the property map presented by the defendant, visible on page 28, in which it is indicated that the nature of the property is mountainous. And the references from the witnesses [Nombre10], on page 68 verso, [Nombre11], on page 69, [Nombre5], on page 70, [Nombre2], on page 71, [Nombre7], on page 71 verso, some from the plaintiff's side and others from the defendant's, to the trees of the property, the spring, and the acts performed by them within the property, limited to creating firebreaks (rondas), on the fences, not reporting cultivation activities, nor of any other type, except those that are denounced as disturbing acts by the plaintiff, which are the construction of a wooden house and a small corn crop behind it. All this coincides with the plaintiff's statement to the effect that his possession consists of forest conservation tasks, such as fencing, clearing, and maintaining the firebreaks. (page 2). Well then, the lower court judge took as proven facts the performance of such acts of clearing, fencing, and maintaining firebreaks, but qualifies them as isolated acts (proven fact 1 of the first-instance judgment). Additionally, he took as proven that it was between March and May of two thousand three that the defendant and other laborers hired by [Nombre3] cleared the land, fixed the fences, made firebreaks, planted corn, and built a small corn house (proven fact 2 of that same judgment). Even so, he considered that the plaintiff had not proven having exercised effective agrarian or ecological possession on the land (unproven fact 1). In his substantive analysis, the judge contributes to the analysis some jurisprudential precedents developed by this same Tribunal regarding the requirements demanded of the ecological possessor, especially the combination of protecting ecosystems with acts that demonstrate their presence on the site and their intention to conserve. The concept of ecological possession is undoubtedly a great advancement in Costa Rican Agro-environmental Law. It corresponds to a period of Environmental and Agrarian Law in which great emphasis is already placed on the conservation of natural resources. And rightfully so, given the alarming loss of ecosystems at a national and international level. According to the elaboration made by the Agrarian Tribunal: *“In ecological possession, the de facto power must fall upon a territorial area where an ecosystem exists, and the possessory acts must be aimed at protecting said ecosystems, seeking the study and scientific research on all the interrelationships existing there, whether they involve plant living beings (and not only forests) or animals, and their relationship with conservation and human existence itself. In other terms, the possessory acts in ecological possession would come to be both omissive and active, the combination of which allows for the conservation of ecological balance. Therefore, the subject or ‘ecological possessor’ must be a natural or legal person with sufficient technical capacity and knowledge of ecological balance and ecosystem management. The structure of ecological possession, that is, the set of rights and obligations derived from it, would be subject to a series of obligations contained in various special laws such as the Organic Environmental Law, the Forestry Law, the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), the Health Law (Ley de Salud), the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), etc., as well as all those international conventions signed by our country for the protection of the environment. In general, the applicable legal regime would be agro-environmental law. Even the resolution of conflicts arising from the exercise of ecological possession, in the absence of special regulations, must reflect the principles of Ecological Law, which, especially at the constitutional level, have been created, such as: The protection of the landscape, the rational exploitation of resources, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.”* **(Voto 147-98 of the Agrarian Tribunal)** In the same vein, Votos 77-97 and 154-97 can be consulted. More recently, the Tribunal has conducted other analyses in order to incorporate new principles, which enrich the topic of ecological possession with other aspects. (In that sense, Voto 311-F-03 can be consulted). This conceptual evolution is fundamental to keep in mind, since the judge, in accordance with Article 10 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), has the obligation to interpret the norms according to the context and social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and purpose. Therefore, we summarize in condensed form what the evolution of that legal and social reality has been. It was at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), known as the Rio Summit, held in 1992, that new principles for the international community were consistently developed, elaborated in several legal instruments such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the so-called Agenda XXI, which was a Plan of Action to promote sustainable development, a non-binding Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests was issued, and two instruments with legal force were opened for signature, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity; negotiations were also initiated on the Convention to Combat Desertification, which was opened for signature in 1994 and entered into force in December 1996, all of them signed by our country. Finally, at the 2002 Johannesburg Summit, follow-up was given to the Rio Agreements. As a consequence of these new principles incorporated into our legal system, we now speak of the concept of sustainable development, which is already included in the current Forestry Law in its first article: which establishes, in what is of interest: *“This law establishes as an essential and priority function of the State, to ensure the conservation, protection, and administration of natural forests and the production, utilization, industrialization, and promotion of the country's forest resources destined for that purpose, in accordance with the principle of adequate and sustainable use of renewable natural resources. It will also ensure the generation of employment and the increase in the standard of living of the rural population, through their effective incorporation into silvicultural activities.”* (emphasis is ours). In the same sense, the concept was regulated in Article 2, subsection c) of the Organic Environmental Law and in the Biodiversity Law in its Article 9, which we transcribe in what is of interest: *Article 9: General principles: The following, among others, constitute general principles for the purposes of the application of this law: …4. Intra and intergenerational equity. The State and private parties shall ensure that the elements of biodiversity are used in a sustainable manner, so that the possibilities and opportunities for their use and benefits are guaranteed in a fair manner for all sectors of society and to satisfy the needs of future generations.”* In the case of both the Biodiversity Law and the Soil Law, there is a true obligation for the Agrarian Jurisdiction to apply these principles, since both one law and the other granted competence to the Agrarian Tribunals to hear actions arising from them (Articles 108 of the Biodiversity Law and 54 of the Soil Law). The principle of sustainable development incorporated into our legislation contemplates at least three dimensions, the economic, the social, and the environmental or ecological. This means that when analyzing a case of biodiversity, forest resources, or the environment in general, we must take into account that sustainable development is not only achieved through ecological preservation, but also by achieving balance, with the social dimension that seeks development with equity for rural inhabitants and the so-called economic dimension that understands it is necessary to give value to our natural resources. In the case of agrarian possession, then, which always entailed an economic and social function, it now incorporates the environmental dimension, and in the case of ecological possession, it is enriched with the dimensions of sustainable development. For the case we are analyzing, and for which we have made this account, in order to carry out an adequate interpretation, it is important to bear in mind that, if indeed the nature of the asset subject to possession is that of being a forest, and therefore subject to the restrictions typical of these resources, the possessory acts carried out by the plaintiff, consisting of creating firebreaks, fencing, and maintaining firebreaks (proven fact 1 in the judgment) are appropriate for the conservation of the resource. The demand made by the judge that the possessor perform other activities, typical of a technician with knowledge of ecological balance and ecosystem management, is excessive in this case, in which we are in the presence of possession by a peasant of scarce resources, which is revealed in his request to be assisted by the public defense, which would be congruent with the integral vision of sustainable development, where it is taken into account that the inhabitants of the forests are rural communities, which have evident economic limitations. In any case, the acts performed by the plaintiff are the basic ones to maintain the existing forest, so they would not be complementary or accessory. To this must be added that the plaintiff precisely cares for the possession of the resource, suing through this path within the limited timeframe that the filing of the interdict offers and requesting precautionary measures to prevent the execution of activities that might not be sustainable. We reiterate, in the interpretation that must be made in this case, under the principle of sustainable development, the environmental dimension would be taken into account, but also the economic and social dimension, understood as the right of rural communities to benefit sustainably from natural resources, taking into account the economic possibilities that these same communities have, where the investment in technology or highly qualified human resources could not be demanded. Precisely in the authoritative, non-legally binding Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests, arising from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio, in 1992, Principle 5.a was established as follows: *“National forest policies should recognize and duly support the identity, culture and the rights of indigenous people, their communities and other communities and forest dwellers. Appropriate conditions should be promoted for these groups to enable them to have an economic interest in the use of forests, perform economic activities, and achieve and maintain cultural identity and social organization, as well as an adequate level of livelihood and well-being, including through land tenure systems which serve as an incentive for the sustainable management of forests...”* And Article 54 of the Ley de Suelos.", "ramaDerecho": "Agrarian Law", "redactor": "Carlos Bolaños Céspedes", "restrictores": [ "Concept and purpose", "Concept and legal nature of its regulation", "Concept and requirements that the possessor must fulfill", "Necessary application of the principle of sustainable development in the interpretation of agro-environmental norms", "Analysis of the requirements that the ecological possessor must meet" ], "rutaTesauro": [ "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Agrario", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Agrario||Posesión agraria", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Agrario||Posesión agraria||Posesión agraria sostenible", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Ambiental", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Ambiental||Recursos naturales", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Ambiental||Recursos naturales||Posesión ecológica", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Procesal Agrario", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Procesal Agrario||Disposiciones generales del Derecho Procesal Agrario", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Procesal Agrario||Disposiciones generales del Derecho Procesal Agrario||Juez agrario", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Procesal Agrario||Procesos agrarios", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Procesal Agrario||Procesos agrarios||Interdicto agrario" ], "sentenciasRelacionadas": [ "sen-1-0034-219377", "sen-1-0034-220874", "sen-1-0034-222987", "sen-1-0034-235024" ], "sourceName": "Documentos", "subNumeroDocumento": "1", "TemasYSubtemas": [ { "id": 3, "nombre": "Agrarian Judge", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Necessary application of the principle of sustainable development in the interpretation of agro-environmental norms" } ] }, { "id": 4, "nombre": "Agrarian Interdict", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Concept and purpose" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Necessary application of the principle of sustainable development in the interpretation of agro-environmental norms" } ] }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Ecological Possession (Posesión ecológica)", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 2, "nombre": "Necessary application of the principle of sustainable development in the interpretation of agro-environmental norms" }, { "id": 1, "nombre": "Concept and requirements that the possessor must fulfill" } ] }, { "id": 1, "nombre": "Sustainable Agrarian Possession (Posesión agraria sostenible)", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 3, "nombre": "Necessary application of the principle of sustainable development in the interpretation of agro-environmental norms" }, { "id": 1, "nombre": "Concept and legal nature of its regulation" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Analysis of the requirements that the ecological possessor must meet" } ] } ], "tipoContenido": "Majority vote", "tipoDocumento": "EXT", "tipoInformacion": "Judicial Resolution", "tipoResolucion": "On the Merits", "tipoTexto": "1", "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [], "html": "<html><head><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" /><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Style-Type\" content=\"text/css\" /><meta name=\"generator\" content=\"Aspose.Words for .NET 23.6.0\" /><title></title></head><body style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt\"><div><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">\"IV.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">The plaintiff's public agrarian defender files an appeal, stating the following grievances: First ground, contradictory reasoning: The defender states that the plaintiff has never claimed to have ecological possession (posesión ecológica) over the property, since what he literally stated in the complaint is that he has maintained the farm for forest conservation, therefore there is contradictory reasoning by the judge; the judge speaks of there being no ecological or agrarian possession, when his client has not alleged that, it is an interpretation by the judge without any basis. Second ground: assessment of the evidence by the judge: In her opinion, there are a series of contradictions that the judge does not observe: a). On one hand</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> the defendant hides behind the fact that he is a laborer on the farm, which is owned by a lady [Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, who does not appear in the proceeding, as she is only spoken of by references, and the literal certification presented speaks of a cancellation of the registration, b).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Likewise, documents from the Municipality of Carrillo are presented as evidence for a better resolution</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> where the same lady [Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">appears making a donation, using the map presented by the defendant, with the defendant later alleging that contract was rescinded, without presenting the rescission, only a document that claims a certain date, prepared by the lawyer directing this proceeding, executed on September 2, 2003, without the supposed contract being incorporated, c). The judge does not observe the contradictions that appear among the defendant's witnesses, such as that none is a neighbor of the place, they are even from outside Guanacaste. There are contradictions in the witnesses' statements, for example in the case of witness [Nombre2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">he literally said: “I do not know who the adjoining landowners are, I understand that Mr. [Nombre3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">has made negotiations with them to cover the cost of the firebreaks (rondas)”; however, if we look at the deed that was presented to the Municipality of Carrillo, executed before Notary Verny Valerio Hernández, visible on folio 77, paradoxically this witness appears as an adjoining landowner of the farm described in that public deed, the same document that is based on the cadastral map presented by the defendant in this proceeding,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> d) the defendant's strategy has been to present the defendant as a laborer on the farm and then they try to suggest an administrative relationship between [Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">and Mr. [Nombre3], given that this lady is a ghost in the proceeding, e) Another contradiction has to do with the existence of [Nombre3], who is said to be a resident of Upala, and later there is talk of a [Nombre3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, resident of San Francisco de Dos Ríos. There is a third ground of appeal regarding agrarian matters but it is actually a summary of the appellant's objections to</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> the conclusions reached by the Agrarian Judge: a. It is not true that his client has ecological possession, it is a non-commercial forest possession, b. The plaintiff's witnesses have demonstrated that laborers are hired to make fences and firebreaks (rondas), since what matters is forest conservation, which has been accredited through the inspections, no logging activity can be carried out, since the aim is to protect those resources including a spring (ojo de agua), c. The argument that the land had been leased by the IDA and that therefore it should be cultivated is not correct, since the lessee is giving the land the appropriate use, as the necessary maintenance to conserve that forest has continued, d. The conclusion reached by the Judge that the land was practically abandoned at the time Mr. [Nombre3], the defendant [Nombre4]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">and other hired laborers entered the land is incorrect, since it is not true that it was abandoned, because the evidence is clear and conclusive regarding the acts carried out by his client, as current and momentary possession. Thus, Mr. [Nombre5]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">says: “for a long time I have seen [Nombre6] enter this area and I know him as the owner, he has even sought me out to help him make fences…”; [Nombre5]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">says: “I have not done work on this property for six months, before that I made firebreaks and put up new posts and wire” and [Nombre7]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">: “I know this farm because every year I make the firebreaks (rondas) at the request of Mr. [Nombre6]”. Possession does not require being personal and regarding the fallen fence that, since the first inspection, traces of old barbed wire are seen on that boundary line and then it continues well fenced; e. There is a contradiction by the witnesses of the defendant party as they allege the existence of a [Nombre1], because there is no proof that she exists, they are not from the area, while those of [Nombre6], who are from the area, indicate that it is Mr. [Nombre6]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">who has been there; f.) Finally, regarding the evidence for a better decision of the sale contract, where [Nombre8]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">supposedly buys from Mrs. [Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, based on the cadastral map G-848477-89, executed before Notary Verny Valerio Hernández at 3:00 PM on May 26, 2003, if validity is given to that contract, it is contradictory with everything said by witnesses [Nombre9]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, [Nombre3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">and [Nombre2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">and also it is later alleged by [Nombre4] that this contract was rescinded. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">V.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">In relation to what is discussed here, it must first be stated, with the purpose of substantiating how the matter is resolved, that the interdict (interdicto) is a summary proceeding that aims to protect momentary and current possession of real property. As established in Article 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applied supplementarily by authorization of Articles 26 and 79 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, issues of ownership or definitive possession are in no way analyzed. It is a legal device that manifests society's interest in protecting a situation that appears as current, while the right is discussed in another venue. Possession ad-interdictam, as it is known in legal doctrine, is therefore expressed as a de facto power one has over a thing, which is demonstrated by carrying out a series of acts of a possessory nature. In agrarian matters, interdictal protection</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> classically acquired</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> particular characteristics, given that in the case of agrarian property or possession, the acts executed by virtue of that de facto power had to correspond to the nature of the goods. In other words, if the economic and social function of agrarian property is productive in its subjective profile,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> suitable for the production of plants and animals through the biological cycle, the acts had to be those typical of agrarian activities of plant cultivation or animal husbandry, or tend towards that. With the development of Environmental Law, under the protection of an emerging new global awareness, the different branches of Law underwent modifications in their institutions to adapt to the new principles that emerged with this discipline. These new principles, in the case of Costa Rica, have constitutional rank with the reform of Article 50, which established as a right of every citizen to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; they were also embodied through special laws, such as the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley Forestal,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Ley de Biodiversidad and Ley de Suelos. In particular, the Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788 of April 30, 1998, established in its Article 8</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> as part of the economic and social function, all real properties must fulfill an environmental function. For its part, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554 of October 4, 1995, establishes in its Article 2, subsection a) that the State and individuals must participate in the conservation and sustainable use of the environment; finally, and without attempting to be exhaustive, Article 19 of the Ley Forestal 7575, of February 5, 1996, prohibits land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) on lands covered with forest. This new vision is received by Agrarian Law, enriching its institutions of agrarian property and possession, and broadening the scope of the discipline. In the case of agrarian possession, it is understood that the acts carried out must be of such a nature that they respect the rational use of natural resources and allow the combination of two third-generation human rights, the right to development of peoples and the right to the environment, synthesized in the concept of sustainable development.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Within the genus of agrarian property, one of its species is forest agrarian property, which, due to the environmental services it provides, has a more complex function than other types of agrarian property, as it is suitable for both conservation and production. In fact, we have already seen that in the case of owners with private forest, only technical forest management is permitted, not land-use change. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">VI.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Having clarified the above, it must now be added that it is not in the nature of this proceeding to analyze the documents and evidence offered by both parties in relation to the right that assists a supposed owner of the property or the plaintiff as lessee of a public institution. That could be the subject of another proceeding if either of them is interested. What is of interest to us here, as we have already stated, is to rule on momentary and current possession. Therefore, we will refer to the different grievances raised by the defender only with regard to what corresponds to the interdictal action. Regarding the first ground of grievance, the defender claims an incorrect assessment of the validity of the plaintiff's possession, which the judge considers does not meet the requirements to be considered ecological possession. In this regard, we must say the appellant is correct when she points out that there is an incorrect assessment by the trial judge regarding the possessory acts carried out by the plaintiff. In this instance, it has been accredited that the property is mountainous,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> and</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> within</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> the property there is even a spring (naciente) (see proven fact number 5 of this judgment).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> To reach this conclusion, the judicial inspection</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> visible on folio 68 has been taken into account, in which the following is accredited: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">“ The situation is similar to that described in the judicial inspection carried out on July twenty-first, two thousand three, on the occasion of the precautionary measure. It is observed that the area that has been cleared towards the spring (ojo de agua) and towards the mountain has increased. Some small-diameter trees cut with a chainsaw are observed ….”. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">That fact is complemented by other evidentiary elements contributed to the case file. Firstly, a judicial inspection carried out on the occasion of a precautionary measure in which it is stated: “ behind the construction the land is a wooded hill (monte) ...” (folio 17 verso) Also</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> the map of the farm presented by the defendant, visible on folio 28, in which the nature of the farm is indicated as mountainous. And the references of the</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> witnesses [Nombre10]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, on folio 68 verso, [Nombre11]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">on folio 69, [Nombre5]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">on folio 70, [Nombre2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">on folio 71, [Nombre7]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">on folio 71 verso, some from the plaintiff's side and others from the defendant's, to the trees on the farm, the spring (ojo de agua) and to the acts carried out by them within the farm, limited to making firebreaks (rondas), on the fences, not reporting cultivation activities,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> nor of any other type, except for those reported as disturbing acts by the plaintiff, which are the construction of a wooden house and a small maize planting behind it.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> All of this coincides with the plaintiff's statement that his possession consists of forest conservation tasks, such as fencing, clearing (chapeo) and the care of firebreaks (rondas). (folio 2). Well, the trial judge considered as proven facts the performance of such acts of clearing, fencing and care of firebreaks, but classifies them</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> as isolated acts (proven fact 1 of the first-instance judgment). Moreover, it was demonstrated that it was between March and May two thousand three that the defendant and other laborers hired by [Nombre3] cleared the land, fixed the fences, made firebreaks (rondas), planted maize and built a small maize house, (proven fact 2 of that same judgment). Even so, it was considered that the plaintiff did not demonstrate having exercised effective agrarian or ecological possession on the land (unproven fact 1). In his substantive analysis, the judge contributes to the analysis some jurisprudential precedents</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> developed</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> by this same Tribunal</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> regarding the requirements demanded of the ecological possessor, especially the combination of ecosystem protection with acts that demonstrate their presence on the site and their intention to conserve. The concept of ecological possession is undoubtedly a great advance in Costa Rican agro-environmental law. It corresponds to a period of Environmental and Agrarian Law</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> in which great emphasis is already placed</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> on the conservation of natural resources. And it was not for less given the alarming loss of ecosystems at the national and international level.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> According to the elaboration made by the Agrarian Tribunal: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">“ In ecological possession, the</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> de facto power must fall on a territorial area where an ecosystem exists, and the possessory acts must be aimed at protecting said ecosystems, seeking the study and scientific research of all the interrelationships existing there, whether they involve living plant beings (and not only forests) or animals, and their relationship with conservation and human existence itself. In other terms, the possessory acts in ecological possession would come to be both omissive and active, whose combination allows the conservation of ecological balance. Therefore, the subject or “ecological possessor”, must be a natural or juridical person with sufficient technical capacity and knowledge of ecological balance and ecosystem management. The structure of ecological possession, that is, the set of rights</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> and obligations</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> derived from it would be subject to a series of obligations contained in various special laws such as the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley Forestal, the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, the Ley de Salud, the Ley de la Zona marítimo terrestre, etc., as well as all those International Conventions signed by our country for the protection of the environment. In general, the applicable legal regime would be agro-environmental law. Even the resolution of conflicts arising from the exercise of ecological possession, in the absence of special regulations, must reflect the principles of Ecological Law, which, especially at the constitutional level, have been created, such as: The protection of the landscape, the rational exploitation of resources, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.” </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">( Vote 147-98 of the Agrarian Tribunal ) </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">In this same vein, votes 77-97 and 154-97 can be consulted. More recently, the Tribunal has carried out other analyses to incorporate new principles, which enrich the topic of ecological possession with other aspects. (in this sense, Vote 311-F-03</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> can be consulted). It is fundamental to consider this conceptual evolution, since the judge, in accordance with Article 10 of the Civil Code, has the obligation to interpret the norms according to the context and social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, attending fundamentally to their spirit and purpose. Therefore, in summarized form, we summarize what the evolution of that legal and social reality has been.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> It was at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) known as the Rio Summit, held in 1992, that new principles for the international community were consistently elaborated, developed in various legal instruments such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the so-called Agenda XXI which was a Plan of Action to promote sustainable development, in addition a Declaration</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> of Principles concerning forests of a non-binding nature was issued, and two instruments with legal force were opened for signature, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, negotiations also began on the Convention to Combat Desertification which was opened for signature in 1994 and entered into force in December 1996, all of them subscribed to by our country. Finally, at the Johannesburg Summit of 2002, the Rio Agreements were followed up on. As a consequence of these new principles incorporated into our legal system, today we speak of the concept of sustainable development, which is already included in the current Ley Forestal in its first article: which establishes what is of interest: “ </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">This law establishes as an essential and priority function of the State, to ensure the conservation, protection and administration of natural forests and the production, use, industrialization and promotion of the country's forest resources destined for this purpose, </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">in accordance with the principle of adequate and sustainable use of renewable natural resources. It will also ensure the generation of employment and the increase in the standard of living of the rural population, through its effective incorporation into silvicultural activities.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">”.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> (the underlining is ours) </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">In the same vein, the concept was regulated in Article 2, subsection c) of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and in the Ley de Biodiversidad</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> in its Article 9, which we transcribe in what is of interest: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">Article 9: General principles: The following, among others, constitute general principles for the effects of the application of this law: …4. Intra- and intergenerational equity. The State and individuals shall ensure that the use of the elements of biodiversity is carried out sustainably, so that the possibilities and opportunities for its use and its benefits are guaranteed in a fair manner for all sectors of society and to satisfy the needs of future generations. “</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Both in the case of the Ley de Biodiversidad, and the Ley de Suelos, there is a genuine obligation of the Agrarian Jurisdiction to apply these principles, since both one law and the other granted the Agrarian Tribunals jurisdiction to hear actions derived from them (Articles 108 of the Ley de Biodiversidad and 54 of the Ley de Suelos). The principle of sustainable development incorporated into our legislation contemplates at least three dimensions, the economic, the social, and the environmental or ecological. This means that when analyzing a case of biodiversity, forest resources, or the environment in general, we must take into account that sustainable development is achieved not only through ecological preservation, but also by achieving balance, with the social dimension that seeks development with equity for rural inhabitants, and the so-called economic dimension that understands it is necessary to give value to our natural resources.

In the case of agrarian possession, then, which always reported an economic and social function, it now incorporates the environmental dimension, and in the case of ecological possession, it is enriched with the dimensions of sustainable development. For the case we are analyzing and for which we have made this recount, in order to carry out an adequate interpretation, it is important to bear in mind that, if indeed the nature of the property subject to possession is that of being a forest, and therefore subject to the restrictions inherent to these resources, the possessory acts carried out by the plaintiff, consisting of firebreaks (rondas), fencing, and maintenance of firebreaks (proven fact 1 in the judgment), are appropriate for the conservation of the resource. The requirement made by the adjudicator that the possessor carry out other activities, typical of a technician with knowledge in ecological balance and ecosystem management, proves excessive in this case, in which we are in the presence of possession by a peasant of scarce resources, which is revealed in his request to be served by the public defense, something that would be congruent with the integral vision of sustainable development, where it is taken into account that the inhabitants of the forests are rural communities that have evident economic limitations. In any case, the acts carried out by the plaintiff are the basic ones for maintaining the existing forest, and therefore they would not be complementary or accessory. To this must be added that the plaintiff precisely looks after the possession of the resource, suing in this manner within the limited period offered by the filing of the interdict and requesting precautionary measures to prevent the execution of activities that might not be sustainable. We reiterate that in the interpretation that must be made in this case, under the principle of sustainable development, the environmental dimension would be taken into account, but also the economic and social one, understood as the right of rural communities to benefit sustainably from natural resources, taking into account the economic possibilities that those very communities have, where investment in technology or highly trained human resources could not be demanded. Precisely in the authoritative declaration of principles for a global consensus regarding the management, conservation, and sustainable development of all types of forests, arising from the United Nations Convention on Environment and Development, held in Rio in 1992, the following was established as principle 5.a: “Each country's forest policy should recognize and duly support the culture and interests and respect the rights of indigenous populations, their communities and other communities, and the inhabitants of forested areas. Appropriate conditions should be promoted for these groups to enable them to have an economic interest in the use of forests, develop economic activities, and achieve and maintain a cultural identity and social organization, as well as an adequate level of sustenance and well-being, which could be done, among other things, through land tenure systems that serve as an incentive for the sustainable management of forests...”

"IV.- La defensora pública agraria del actor interpone apelación manifestando como agravios los siguientes: Primer motivo, fundamentación contradictoria: Manifiesta la defensora, el actor en ningún momento ha referido, tenga una posesión ecológica sobre el inmueble, pues lo que textualmente señaló en la demanda es que el fundo lo ha mantenido para conservación del bosque, por tanto existe una fundamentación contradictoria del juzgador, el juez habla de que no existió posesión ecológica o agraria, cuando eso no lo ha alegado su representado, se trata de una interpretación del juez sin ningún fundamento. Segundo motivo: valoración de la prueba por parte del juzgador: A su juicio se presentan una serie de contradicciones que el juez no observa: a). Por una parte el demandado se escuda en que es peón de la finca, la cual es propiedad de una señora [Nombre1] , la cual no aparece en el proceso, pues solo se habla de ella por referencias, y la certificación literal presentada, habla de una cancelación de la inscripción, b). Asimismo se presenta como prueba para mejor resolver documentos de la Municipalidad de Carrillo donde aparece la misma señora [Nombre1] realizando una donación, utilizando el plano presentado por el demandado, alegando posteriormente el accionado ese contrato se rescindió, sin presentar la rescisión, solo un documento que dice fecha cierta, confeccionado por el abogado director de este proceso, realizado el 2 de setiembre del 2003, sin que esté incorporado el supuesto contrato, c). El juez no observa las contradicciones que se presentan entre los testigos de la demandada, como que ninguno es vecino del lugar, incluso son de fuera de Guanacaste. Existen contradicciones en las declaraciones de los testigos, por ejemplo en el caso del testigo [Nombre2] éste dijo textualmente: “ No se quienes son los colindantes entiendo que don [Nombre3] ha hecho negociaciones con ellos para cubrir el costo de las rondas”; no obstante, si observamos la escritura que se presentó ante la Municipalidad de Carrillo, realizada ante el Notario Verny Valerio Hernández, visible a folio 77, paradójicamente este testigo aparece como colindante del fundo que se encuentra en esa escritura pública, mismo documento que tiene como base el plano catastrado que presenta el demandado en este proceso, d) la estrategia de la demandada ha sido aparecer al demandado como peón de la finca y luego tratan de hacer ver una relación de administración de [Nombre1] con el señor [Nombre3] , siendo que esa señora es un fantasma en el proceso, e) Otra contradicción tiene que ver con la existencia de [Nombre3] , de quien se dice es vecino de Upala, y luego se habla de un [Nombre3] , vecino de San Francisco de Dos Ríos. Existe un tercer motivo de agrario pero en realidad se trata de un resumen sobre las objeciones de la apelante a las conclusiones a que llega el Juez Agrario: a. No es cierto que su defendido tenga una posesión ecológica, se trata de una posesión forestal no empresarial, b. Los testigos del actor han demostrado que se contratan peones para hacer cercas y rondas, pues lo que interesa es la conservación del bosque, lo cual ha sido acreditado mediante los reconocimientos, no se puede hacer actividad de voltea, pues se busca proteger esos recursos en cuenta un ojo de agua, c. El argumento de que el terreno haya sido dado en arrendamiento por el IDA y que por tanto debiera estar cultivado, no es correcto pues el arrendatario le está dando el uso adecuado a la tierras, pues se ha continuado con el mantenimiento necesario para conservar ese bosque d. La conclusión a que llega el Juez en cuanto a que el terreno estaba prácticamente en abandono al momento de que ingresan al terreno el señor [Nombre3] , el demandado [Nombre4] y demás peones contratados es incorrecto, pues no es cierto que estuviera en abandono, pues la prueba es clara y contundente en cuanto a los actos realizados por su defendido, como posesión actual y momentánea. Así el señor [Nombre5] dice: “ durante mucho tiempo he visto a [Nombre6] entrar a esta zona y a él lo conozco como dueño incluso me ha buscado para que le ayude a hacer cercos…”; [Nombre5] dice: “ Hace seis meses no realizo trabajos en esta propiedad, antes de eso hacía rondas y ponía postes nuevos y alambre” y [Nombre7] : “ Esta finca la conozco porque todos los años hago las rondas a encargo de don [Nombre6]”. La posesión no requiere ser personal y en cuanto al cerco caído que, desde el primero reconocimiento se ve en ese lindero rastros de alambre de púas viejo y después continúa bien cercado; e. Hay contradicción de los testigos de la parte demandada pues alegan existencia de una [Nombre1] , pues no hay prueba de que exista, no son de la zona, mientras que los de [Nombre6] , que son de la zona, indican que es don [Nombre6] quien ha estado allí; f.) Finalmente en cuanto a la prueba para mejor proveer del contrato de venta, donde [Nombre8] supuestamente compra a dona [Nombre1] , con base en el plano catastrado G-848477-89, celebrado ante el Notario Verny Valerio Hernández a las 15:00 hrs del 26 de mayo del 2003, si se le da validez a ese contrato el mismo es contradictorio con todo lo que dijeron los testigos [Nombre9] , [Nombre3] y [Nombre2] y además luego se alega por parte de [Nombre4] , ese contrato fue rescindido. V.- En relación con lo que aquí se discute debe decirse en primer término y con el propósito de fundamentar la forma en que se resuelve el asunto, el interdicto es un proceso sumario que pretende tutelar la posesión momentánea y actual sobre bienes inmuebles. Tal y como lo establece el artículo 457 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicado supletoriamente por autorización de los artículos 26 y 79 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, de ninguna manera se analizan las cuestiones de propiedad o de posesión definitiva. Es un instituto que manifiesta el interés de la sociedad por proteger una situación que se presenta como actual, mientras se discute en otra vía el derecho. La posesión ad- interdictan como se le conoce en la doctrina se expresa entonces como un poder de hecho que se tiene sobre una cosa, el cual se demuestra mediante la realización de una serie de actos de carácter posesorio. En materia agraria, la tutela interdictal clásicamente adquirió características particulares, por cuanto tratándose de propiedad o posesión agraria, los actos ejecutados en virtud de ese poder de hecho, debían corresponder a la naturaleza de los bienes. En otras palabras, si la función económica y social de la propiedad agraria es de carácter productivo en su perfil subjetivo, apta para la producción de vegetales y animales a través del ciclo biológico, los actos debían ser los propios de las actividades agrarias de cultivo de vegetales o crianza de animales o propender hacia ello. Con el desarrollo del Derecho Ambiental, al amparo de una emergente nueva conciencia planetaria, las distintas ramas del Derecho sufrieron modificaciones en sus institutos para adaptarse a los nuevos principios que surgieron con esta disciplina. Esos nuevos principios, en el caso de Costa Rica, tienen rango constitucional con la reforma al artículo 50, que estableció como derecho de todo ciudadano el gozar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado; también se plasmaron a través de leyes especiales, como la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley Forestal, Ley de Biodiversidad y Ley de Suelos. En particular la Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998, estableció en su artículo 8 como parte de la función económica y social, todas las propiedades inmuebles deben cumplir con una función ambiental. Por su parte la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995 establece en su artículo 2 inciso a) que el Estado y los particulares deben participar en la conservación y utilización sostenible del ambiente; finalmente y sin pretender ser exhaustivos, el artículo 19 de la Ley Forestal 7575, de 5 de febrero de 1996, prohíbe el cambio de uso del suelo en terrenos cubiertos de bosque. Esta nueva visión es receptada por el Derecho Agrario, enriqueciendo sus institutos de la propiedad y posesión agraria, y ampliando el objeto de la disciplina. En el caso de la posesión agraria, se comprende que los actos que se realizan deben ser de naturaleza tal que respeten el uso racional de los recursos naturales y que permitan se conjuguen dos derechos humanos de tercera generación, el derecho al desarrollo de los pueblos y el derecho al ambiente, sintetizados en el concepto desarrollo sostenible o sustentable. Dentro del género de propiedad agraria, una de sus especies es la propiedad agraria forestal, la cual por los servicios ambientales que presta, tiene una función más compleja que otros tipos de propiedad agraria, pues es apta para la conservación y también para la producción. De hecho ya hemos visto que en el caso de propietarios con bosque privado, solo se permite el manejo del bosque en forma técnica, no el cambio de uso del suelo. VI.- Aclarado lo anterior debe agregarse ahora, no es propio de la naturaleza de este proceso entrar a analizar los documentos y pruebas ofrecidos por ambas partes en relación con el derecho que le asiste a una supuesta propietaria del inmueble o al actor como arrendatario de una institución pública. Ello podría ser objeto de otro proceso si es interés de cualquiera de ellos. Lo que nos interesa acá como ya lo hemos adelantado es pronunciarnos sobre la posesión momentánea y actual. Por ello nos referiremos a los diferentes agravios planteados por la defensora únicamente en cuanto a lo que corresponde a la acción interdictal. En cuanto al primer motivo de agravio, reclama la defensora la incorrecta valoración sobre la validez de la posesión del actor, la cual el juez considera no reúne los requisitos para ser considerada como posesión ecológica. Al respecto debemos decir lleva razón la recurrente cuando señala que existe una valoración incorrecta por parte del juzgador de instancia acerca de los actos posesorios realizados por el actor. En esta instancia se ha tenido por acreditado el inmueble es de montaña, y dentro de la propiedad existe incluso un naciente ( ver hecho probado número 5 de esta sentencia ). Para llegar a tal conclusión se ha tenido en cuenta el reconocimiento judicial visible a folio 68, en el cual se acredita lo siguiente: “ La situación es similar a la descrita en el reconocimiento judicial efectuado el veintiuno de julio del dos mil tres con motivo de la medida cautelar. Se observa ha aumentado el área que se ha limpiado hacia el ojo de agua y hacia la montaña. Se observan algunos árboles de diámetros pequeños cortados con motosierra ….”. Ese hecho es complementado por otros elementos probatorios aportados al expediente. En primer lugar un reconocimiento judicial realizado con motivo de una medida cautelar en el que se dice: “ detrás de la construcción el terreno es un monte ...” (folio 17 vuelto) También el plano de la finca presentado por la demandada, visible a folio 28, en el cual se indica la naturaleza de la finca es de montaña. Y las referencias de los testigos [Nombre10] , a folio 68 vuelto, [Nombre11] a folio 69, [Nombre5] a folio 70, [Nombre2] a folio 71, [Nombre7] a folio 71 vuelto, unos de la parte actora y los otros de la demandada, a los árboles de la finca, el ojo de agua y a los actos realizados por ellos dentro de la finca, limitados a la realización de rondas, en las cercas, no reportando actividades de cultivo, ni de otro tipo, salvo las que son denunciadas como actos perturbatorios por parte del actor, que son la construcción de una casa de madera y un pequeño cultivo de maíz detrás de la misma. Todo ello coincide con la afirmación del actor en el sentido de que su posesión consiste en labores de conservación del bosque, como cercado, chapeo y el cuido de las rondas. ( folio 2). Pues bien, el juez de instancia, tuvo como hechos probados, la realización de tales actos de chapeo, cercado y cuido de rondas, pero los califica como actos aislados ( hecho probado1 de la sentencia de primera instancia) Además tuvo por demostrado que fue entre marzo y mayo del dos mil tres que el demandado y otros peones contratados por [Nombre3] , limpiaron el terreno, arreglaron los cercos, hicieron rondas, sembraron maíz y construyeron una casita de maíz, ( hecho probado 2 de esa misma sentencia). Aún así, consideró no demostró el actor haber ejercido una posesión agraria o ecológica efectiva en el terreno ( hecho no probado 1). En su análisis de fondo el juzgador aporta al análisis algunos precedentes jurisprudenciales desarrollados por este mismo Tribunal respecto de los requisitos que se exigen al poseedor ecológico, sobre todo la combinación de la protección a los ecosistemas con actos que demuestren su presencia en el sitio y su intención de conservar. El concepto de la posesión ecológica es indudablemente un gran avance en el Derecho agro- ambiental costarricense. Corresponde a un período del Derecho Ambiental y Agrario en el que ya se hace un gran énfasis en el tema de la conservación de los recursos naturales. Y no era para menos ante la alarmante pérdida de ecosistemas a nivel nacional e internacional. De acuerdo con la elaboración hecha por el Tribunal Agrario: “ En la posesión ecológica el poder de hecho debe recaer sobre un ámbito territorial donde exista un ecosistema, y los actos posesorios deben ir encaminados a proteger dichos ecosistemas, procurando el estudio y las investigaciones científicas sobre todas las interrelaciones ahí existentes tanto si se trata de seres vivos vegetales ( y no únicamente bosques) o animales y su relación con la conservación y la propia existencia humana. En otros términos, los actos posesorios en la posesión ecológica vendrían a ser tanto omisivos como activos, cuya combinación permita conservar el equilibrio ecológico. Por ello el sujeto o “ poseedor ecológico”, debe ser una persona física o jurídica con suficiente capacidad técnica y conocimientos del equilibrio ecológico y manejo de ecosistemas. La estructura de la posesión ecológica, es decir, el conjunto de derechos y obligaciones que de ella se deriven estarían sujetos a una serie de obligaciones contenidas en diversas leyes especiales tales como la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, la Ley Forestal, la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, la Ley de Salud, la Ley de la Zona marítimo terrestre, etc, así como todos aquellos Convenios internacionales firmados por nuestro país para la protección del ambiente. En general el régimen jurídico aplicable sería el derecho agro-ambiental. Incluso la solución de conflictos nacidos del ejercicio de la posesión ecológica, ante ausencia de normativa especial, deben reflejar los principios del Derecho Ecológico, que sobre todo a nivel constitucional, se han creado, tales como: La tutela del paisaje, la explotación racional de los recursos, el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.” ( Voto 147-98 del Tribunal Agrario ) En ese mismo sentido pueden consultarse los votos 77-97 y 154-97) Más recientemente, el Tribunal ha realizado otros análisis a fin de incorporar nuevos principios, que enriquecen con otros aspectos el tema de la posesión ecológica.( en ese sentido se puede consultar el Voto 311-F-03 ). La evolución conceptual es fundamental tenerla en cuenta, por cuanto el juez de conformidad con el artículo 10 del Código Civil, tiene la obligación de interpretar las normas de acuerdo con el contexto y la realidad social del tiempo en que han de ser aplicadas, atendiendo fundamentalmente al espíritu y finalidad de ellas. Por ello en forma condensada resumimos cual ha sido la evolución de esa realidad jurídica y social. Fue en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo (CNUMAD) conocida como Cumbre de Río, celebrada en el año 1992 que se elaboran consistentemente nuevos principios para la comunidad internacional, desarrollados en varios instrumentos legales como la Declaración de Río sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo, la llamada Agenda XXI que era un Plan de acción para promover el desarrollo sostenible, además se emite una Declaración de Principios relativos a los bosques, sin carácter vinculante y se abren a firma dos instrumentos con fuerza jurídica, la Convención Marco sobre Cambio Climático y el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, también se iniciaron negociaciones sobre la Convención de Lucha contra la Desertificación la cual quedó abierta a la firma en 1994 y entró en vigor en diciembre de 1996, todos ellos suscritos por nuestro país. Finalmente en la Cumbre de Johannesburgo del 2002, se le dio seguimiento a los Acuerdos de Río. Como consecuencia de esos nuevos principios incorporados a nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, se habla hoy del concepto de desarrollo sostenible, el cual ya está incluido en la ley Forestal vigente en su artículo primero: que establece en lo de interés: “ La presente ley establece como función esencial y prioritaria del Estado, velar por la conservación, protección y administración de los bosques naturales y por la producción, el aprovechamiento, la industrialización y el fomento de los recursos forestales del país destinados a ese fin, de acuerdo con el principio de uso adecuado y sostenible de los recursos naturales renovables. Además velará por la generación de empleo y el incremento del nivel de vida de la población rural, mediante su efectiva incorporación a las actividades silviculturales.”. ( el subrayado es nuestro ) En el mismo sentido se reguló el concepto en el artículo 2 inciso c) de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y en la Ley de Biodiversidad en su artículo 9, el cual transcribimos en lo que interesa: Artículo 9: Principios generales: Constituyen principios generales para los efectos de la aplicación de esta ley, entre otros, los siguientes: …4. Equidad intra e intergeneracional. El Estado y los particulares velarán porque la utilización de los elementos de la biodiversidad se utilicen en forma sostenible, de modo que las posibilidades y oportunidades de su uso y sus beneficios se garanticen de manera justa para todos los sectores de la sociedad y para satisfacer las necesidades de las generaciones futuras. “ Tanto en el caso de la Ley de Biodiversidad, como la de Suelos, existe verdadera obligación de la Jurisdicción Agraria para aplicar esos principios por cuanto, tanto una ley como la otra le dieron competencia a los Tribunales Agrarios para conocer de las acciones derivadas de ellas ( artículos 108 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y 54 de la Ley de Suelos). El principio del desarrollo sostenible incorporado en nuestra legislación contempla al menos tres dimensiones, la económica, la social y la ambiental o ecológica. Quiere decir que al analizarse un caso de biodiversidad, recursos forestales, o en general del ambiente debemos tomar en cuenta, que el desarrollo sostenible no solo se logra a través de la preservación ecológica, sino también logrando el equilibrio, con la dimensión social que busca un desarrollo con equidad para los habitantes rurales y la llamada dimensión económica que entiende es necesario darle valor a nuestros recursos naturales. En el caso de la posesión agraria entonces, la cual siempre reportó una función económica y social ahora incorpora la dimensión ambiental y en el caso de la posesión ecológica, ésta se enriquece con las dimensiones del desarrollo sostenible. Para el caso que analizamos y para lo cual hemos hecho este recuento, a fin de realizar una interpretación adecuada, es importante tener en cuenta que, si efectivamente la naturaleza del bien objeto de la posesión es la de ser un bosque, y por lo tanto sujeto a las restricciones propias de estos recursos, los actos posesorios desarrollados por el actor, consistentes en rondas, cercado y cuido de rondas ( hecho probado 1 en la sentencia) son los apropiados para la conservación del recurso. La exigencia que hace el juzgador de que el poseedor realizara otras actividades, propias de un técnico con conocimientos en equilibrio ecológico y, manejo de ecosistemas, resultan excesivos en este caso, en el cual estamos en presencia de una posesión a cargo de un campesino de escasos recursos, lo cual se revela en su solicitud para ser atendido por la defensa pública, lo cual sería congruente con la visión integral de desarrollo sostenible, donde se toma en cuenta los habitantes de los bosques son comunidades rurales, que tienen limitaciones económicas evidentes. En todo caso los actos realizados por el actor son los básicos, para mantener el bosque existente, por lo que no serían complementarios o accesorios. A ello habría que agregar, el actor justamente cuida la posesión del recurso, demandando en esta vía dentro del plazo limitado que ofrece la presentación del interdicto y solicitando medidas cautelares para evitar la ejecución de actividades que podrían no ser sostenibles. Reiteramos, en la interpretación que cabe hacer en este caso, bajo el principio del desarrollo sostenible, se estaría tomando en cuenta la dimensión ambiental, pero también la económica y social, entendida como el derecho de las comunidades rurales de beneficiarse sosteniblemente de los recursos naturales, tomando en cuenta las posibilidades económicas que esas mismas comunidades tienen, donde no se podría exigir la inversión en tecnología o recursos humanos altamente capacitados. Justamente en la declaración autorizada, de principios para un consenso mundial respecto a la ordenación, la conservación y el desarrollo sostenible de los bosques de todo tipo, surgida de la Convención sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo de las Naciones Unidas, celebrada en Río, en 1992, se estableció como principio 5.a el siguiente: “ La política forestal de cada país debería reconocer y apoyar debidamente la cultura y los intereses y respetar los derechos de las poblaciones indígenas, de sus comunidades y otras comunidades y de los habitantes de las zonas boscosas. Se deberían promover las condiciones apropiadas para estos grupos a fin de permitirles tener un interés económico en el aprovechamiento de los bosques, desarrollar actividades económicas y lograr y mantener una identidad cultural y una organización social, así como un nivel adecuado de sustentación y bienestar, lo que podría hacerse, entre otras cosas por conducto de sistemas de tenencia de las tierras que sirvieran de incentivo para la ordenación sostenible de los bosques...”