Amparo against banana waste trenches without EIAAmparo contra trincheras de banano sin EIA

*030053240007CO* *030053240007CO* Res: 2005-07288 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty-seven minutes on June tenth, two thousand five.- Amparo action filed by Nombre01, of legal age, single, environmentalist, resident of Limón, bearer of identity card number CED01, in his capacity as an active member of the Natural Resources Vigilance Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Energy-COVIRENAS of Limón and representative of the Natural Resources Vigilance Committee before the Commission for the Management of the Basins of the Bananito, Banano and La Estrella Rivers; against Nombre02 in his capacity as General Manager with powers of Generalísimo Proxy of the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) and against the Human Environment Protection Unit of the Ministry of Health, Huetar Atlántica Region.

Considering:

I.- Proven facts.

Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven: a) that the Huetar Atlántica Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Health authorized the location permit for the project of "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin" (see sworn statements on folio 32); b) that by official letter RHA-UPAH-069-2003 of March sixth, two thousand three, the Head of the Human Environment Protection Unit of the Ministry of Health authorized the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) to restart the construction of the trench project at Finca Surá (folio 13); c) that following a complaint filed by the petitioner, the environmental sanitation technician of the Human Environment Protection Unit of the Ministry of Health conducted an inspection at the site where he was able to corroborate that the work carried out in the banana waste trenches was neither technically nor legally performed, which was evidenced by the large amount of plastics and leachates (lixiviados) at the time of the inspection, without having technical studies approved by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), which is why, via official letter UPAH-155-2003 of May twenty-first, two thousand three, the Director of the Huetar Atlántica Region was requested to issue a sanitary order (orden sanitaria) so that an environmental management plan (plan de gestión ambiental) be presented or that it be ordered to transfer all the banana deposited in the trenches to the Limón sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) and to order the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) to proceed to prevent the leachates emanating from the trenches from flowing into the water sources of the area, with the consequent risk of contamination for surface and groundwater (folio 107); d) that by sanitary order of June seventeenth, two thousand three, the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) was informed that, given that the pits made for banana waste do not have technical studies approved by the SETENA and given the large amount of banana and plastic deposited at the site, it was ordered to deposit the banana and plastic waste currently in the trenches at the sanitary landfill to thus reduce the damage caused to the environment and subsequently cover them with earth and then reforest (folio 106); e) that as of August fourteenth, two thousand three, neither the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) nor any other company has submitted an application for processing any environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental) in relation to the project called "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin" (see report rendered under oath on folio 223); f) that in order to determine if the activity of "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin" requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), it will be mandatory to proceed to submit a Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar), based on which the activity will be evaluated and the assessment instrument that must be requested will be determined (see sworn statements on folio 224).

II.- Object of the appeal. The petitioner alleges that the Huetar Atlántica Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Health authorized the Compañía Bananera Atlántica for the construction project of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin, without having previously required the participation of the SETENA and without Environmental Impact Studies having been conducted, and therefore, to date, the execution of this project is causing serious damage to the environment, for which reason he requests the intervention of this Court.

III.- On the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It is settled jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber to protect the essential content of the right of all citizens to a healthy environment. An example of this thesis is judgment number 3705-93, in which it expressed:

"...The environment, therefore, must be understood as a potential for development to be used appropriately, acting in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships, since, otherwise, its productivity is degraded for the present and the future, and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems occur when the methods of exploiting natural resources lead to degradation of ecosystems beyond their capacity for regeneration, which results in wide sectors of the population being harmed and generates a high environmental and social cost that results in a deterioration of the quality of life; precisely because the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain development and evolution favorable to human beings. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is understanding that although man has the right to make use of the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this matter of the principle of 'harm' (lesión), already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself." Regarding the relationship between the environment and the right to health and life, this court has indicated that:

“The Chamber's concern for stability and ecological harmony has been unwavering, because protecting nature, which is world heritage, is also safeguarding not only the life of man and his health, but also that of humanity on earth, thus developing the content, not only of international conventions on this matter, but also Article 21 of our Political Constitution. This is directly manifested through the judgments issued after the 1994 reform of constitutional Article 50, and even before, through resolutions in which, as the Chamber has stated, “the right to live in a healthy environment has been seen as an inevitable corollary of the right to health, which -in turn- derives from the principle of inviolability of life (judgment N° 5691-98 of seventeen hours fifteen minutes of August fifth, nineteen ninety-eight).

Having set out the Chamber's criterion regarding the subject matter of this amparo, it is necessary to analyze the actions of the authorities involved in granting the permit to the company COBAL and the implication of those actions on the right that the petitioner considers violated.

IV.- On the specific case. The Ministry of Health is the body entrusted with the essential function of ensuring the health of the inhabitants of the Republic, in accordance with Articles 21 of the Constitution, 2 of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), and 2 of the Organic Law of the Ministry of Health (Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud); and therefore it must adopt all general and particular measures necessary to guarantee that constitutional right. Now, it has been demonstrated in the case file that the Ministry of Health granted the company COBAL the location permit for the construction project of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system through trenches for rejected bananas, located at Finca Surá, which is in the Bananito river basin; however, from the documents provided in the file, it is verified that the company Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), in addition to having obtained the location permit, began construction of the project and started depositing the banana waste in the different trenches that were built. In this regard, it is recorded in the file that the Environmental Sanitation Technician of the Human Environment Protection Unit conducted, on May twenty-first, two thousand three, an inspection at the site accompanied by the petitioner and was able to verify that there was a "large amount of leachates product of the large amount of banana deposited at the site, approximately two hundred and fifty containers" (sic). Furthermore, it was confirmed in that inspection that "the work carried out was neither technically nor legally performed, which is evidenced by the large amount of plastics and leachates at the time of the inspection", and the inspection report also indicated that "in relation to the constructed trenches, he did not show environmental impact studies or of any other nature". In view of the results obtained in that inspection, that Environmental Sanitation Technician records in the report rendered (UPAH-155-2003 of May twenty-first, two thousand three, visible on folio 107) that the petitioner in this amparo requested the Director of the Huetar Atlántica Region of the Ministry of Health to issue a sanitary order to the company COBAL so that it present an environmental management plan or, in its place, be ordered to transfer all the banana deposited in the trenches to the Limón sanitary landfill and to require the company and the owner of the farm to proceed immediately to prevent the large amount of leachates emanating from the trenches from flowing into the water sources of the area, with the consequent risk of contamination for surface and groundwater. After the issuance of this document UPAH-155-2003 of May twenty-first, two thousand three, the Department of Human Environment Protection of the Governing Area of Limón of the Ministry of Health issued a sanitary order in which the Compañía Bananera Atlántica COBAL was ordered to deposit the banana and plastic waste currently in the trenches at the sanitary landfill to thus reduce the damage caused to the environment and then cover them with earth to later reforest.

V.- Now, despite the fact that there are no further actions on the part of the Ministry of Health recorded in the file, nor has it been possible to determine the current state of the trenches or the current management being given to the banana waste of the Compañía Bananera Atlántica, the truth of the matter is that, according to the report rendered by the Secretary General of the SETENA, the intervention of that Secretariat has not been requested in its office to analyze the project referred to by the petitioner, this despite the fact that it involves waste management and that Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) is very clear in establishing that human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, will require an environmental impact assessment by the SETENA, and the approval of this assessment is an indispensable requirement to initiate activities, works, or projects. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that due to the type of project involved (involving waste management), the Ministry of Health could not authorize the installation of a process like the one described in the specific case without previously having the authorization of the SETENA, since its intervention was necessarily required so that, after a preliminary analysis, it could determine the type of assessment instrument that the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) had to submit in relation to the proposed project. In this sense, it cannot be forgotten that the health component is a fundamental integral part of an Environmental Impact Study, and therefore, both the intervention of the Ministry of Health and that of the SETENA should have gone hand in hand. In this sense, the permits granted by the Ministry of Health are necessarily components of the Environmental Impact Study, and therefore, the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) must be granted after the Environmental Impact Study is approved, because that study includes the location with respect to aquifers, forested areas, and the waste management procedure and impact on the environment, among other technical and legal aspects. In this way, once the performance guarantee is issued, the works can begin, which will already have all the required permits, to later verify that the works have been developed in accordance with what is established in the Environmental Impact Study.

The sanitary operating permit is a subcomponent of the Environmental Impact Study, which is a broader instrument. In this way, the competence of the Ministry of Health complements the tasks of SETENA when analyzing the Environmental Impact Study. It should be remembered that in this matter, the Organic Law of the Environment is of a special nature and subsequent to the General Health Law, for which reason it prevails over the latter. Thus, it cannot be understood that the actions of the Ministry of Health and SETENA are independent and autonomous, but rather that the sanitary operating permit must be interpreted as a consequence of the Environmental Impact Study and the general planning of the project. The same thesis applies to the location permit for works or industries provided for by Article 300 of the General Health Law.

Despite the foregoing, in the specific case, a large part of the project was built with the approval of the Ministry of Health, and this, without a doubt, is an irregularity that caused serious damage to the environment.

VI.- Even though it is not within the purview of this Chamber to question the technical criteria used by the Ministry of Health to grant the location permit for the project without first requiring the approval of the Environmental Impact Study by SETENA, and even though it is observed that as a consequence of the complaint filed by the petitioner, an inspection of the site was carried out, the Chamber considers that the ministerial action was insufficient to rule out that the construction project of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin could cause -or threaten to cause- any damage to the environment and public health. It is clear to the Chamber that the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), due to the type of activity it wished to develop, had the obligation to submit to the SETENA, at least, the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form so that said entity could rule on the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the activity. Likewise, from both the Organic Law of the Environment and the different regulations of the SETENA, it is inferred that as a requirement for the approval of the construction plans of any project that could damage the environment, the intervention of SETENA must be obtained beforehand. However, in the specific case, despite it being a waste management project, this did not occur, and the Ministry of Health, despite having to require compliance with that requirement prior to granting any permit, did not do so, and even though it is said under oath that no construction permit or operating permit was granted, the truth of the matter is that the works began and at least a part of this project began to operate. Proof of the above is the very report rendered under oath by the Secretary General of the SETENA, according to which the company Compañía Bananera Atlántica has opened an administrative file in relation to the project for the "construction of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin", which means that the SETENA has not exercised its legal competence regarding the environmental viability of the project.

VII.- Thus, it is evident that the Ministry of Health allowed the construction and implementation of the banana waste trenches without requiring prior compliance with the sanitary and environmental requirements legally established for an activity of the nature that concerns us here to operate. Subsequently, and despite the fact that the works were already almost finished, the Ministry of Health, on the occasion of the petitioner's complaint, issued a sanitary order on June seventeenth, two thousand three, precisely after the filing of this appeal, by which it ordered the transfer of the banana and plastic waste to the sanitary landfill, but unfortunately, by this time, damage to the environment may have already been caused. In this sense, the Chamber considers that this requirement was made belatedly, since an injury to the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, protected in Articles 46 and 50 of the Political Constitution, may have already been caused to the inhabitants of the area and the entire country. In addition to the above, it is also evident that the actions of the Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), in the terms stated, are not only contrary to the legal system but also constitute an injury to the right to health and a healthy environment, enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution.

Therefore:

The appeal is granted. Consequently, the closure of the trenches built at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin to deposit rejected bananas is ordered. The State and the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment of the contentious-administrative and civil courts, respectively. The respondents are warned that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of this Jurisdiction (Ley de esta jurisdicción), imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not have it complied with, provided that the crime is not more severely punished. Notify personally of this resolution the Regional Director of the Huetar Atlántica Region of the Ministry of Health and the legal representative of the Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL).

Luis Fernando Solano C. President Adrián Vargas B. Gilbert Armijo S.

Fernando Cruz C. Rosa María Abdelnour G.

Federico Sosto L. Fabián Volio E.

Fernando Alvarado, in his capacity as engineering supervisor of COBAL, stated that certain requirements had to be met, such as the single-window presentation of the plans, attaching a calculation report, and an operation and maintenance manual for the system, which have been fulfilled by the company's owners. He points out that in the exercise of his duties, the local-level authorities of the Limón health area ordered the Manager of Finca Surá on October twenty-first, two thousand two, "not to dump any type of waste in the indicated place since it does not meet the requirements for its operation," and because of this, consultations were made with the owners of the aforementioned company and the presentation of the plans was requested at the regional and local level in order to determine their compliance in the works that were being carried out on the site. He indicates that what existed at that time corresponded to the initiation of the works that were designed in the construction plans that had the endorsement of the Directorate for the Protection of the Human Environment of that Ministry. He adds that the continuation of the initiated works was subsequently authorized in accordance with the criterion issued through official letter UPAH-069-2003, which indicates that "the proposed treatment system, once the project is completed, guarantees that no contamination will occur on the site and, as there is no presence of inorganic matter or other higher-risk elements, such as chemicals, but only organic material (bananas and stalks), it minimizes the risk of contamination of water sources." He indicates that according to the treatment system approved by the Ministry of Health, it is a hermetic system known as an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (RAFA), and for this reason, the restart of the construction of the project reviewed and approved in two thousand one by the location and construction permit process of the Directorate for the Protection of the Human Environment of the Ministry of Health was authorized. He concludes by requesting that the appeal be dismissed.

3.- In response to the hearing granted, Francisco Clough Robinson appears, in his capacity as General Attorney-in-Fact of Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada (folio 35), and indicates that in the processing and approval of the request for a location, construction, and operation permit for a trench project for the treatment of organic banana waste promoted by his client, all required technical, legal, and regulatory requirements were met, and the Huetar Atlántica Directorate of the Ministry of Health was not the only participant, as all the regional and central offices of the Ministry, at the highest level, which must take part in the authorization of this type of work participated in the processing and approval of the request, among them, the Limón offices of the Ministry of Health and the central offices. He points out that it is false that the officials of the Ministry of Health and those of the Ministry of Environment and Energy had approved this project based solely on the fact that it was the installation of a technical trench for the treatment of rejected bananas. He indicates that the truth is that the approval of this project was due to the fact that his client provided, before the authorities in charge of the matter, all the technically and legally required documentation, with which it was reliably demonstrated that it is a closed organic waste treatment system, with scientific studies prepared by a professional firm contracted for this purpose and not an empirical notion, as he considers the claimant intends to suggest. He adds that the project is supported by serious environmental studies prepared by the specialized firm ATF, which has a recognized track record in this field. He states that it is absolutely false that the public officials who approved the project incurred in a violation of the provisions of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law. He adds that in this case, the respondent entities carried out the environmental assessment and, since the Environmental Impact Assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) was not necessary, they did not request it because they considered technically, scientifically, and legally that it was not appropriate, in accordance with the powers, attributions, and responsibilities established by law, since his client's proposal constitutes a good attempt to correct the handling that was being given to the organic waste from the banana activity (rejected bananas and stalks). He indicates that his client cannot attest to whether the appellant had requested, on the date indicated and from the authorities of the branch, that an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) be required when the project was analyzed, but it is very clear that such an environmental impact assessment was not necessary, not only because the officials who had the authority determined so but also because from reading what is provided in Articles 17, 51, and 52 of the Organic Environmental Law, it does not follow that such an assessment is a mandatory requirement in all waste handling cases as the appellant understands it, since they are not "environmental recipes" that must be applied indiscriminately in all agro-industrial activity. He indicates that an open-air sanitary landfill where all types of garbage are dumped is very different from a hermetic system like his client's project, which is known as an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, specially designed for the confined treatment of organic waste handling such as rejected bananas, which guarantees, as the health and environmental authorities have stated, that no contamination will occur at the site and that there will be no presence of inorganic matter or other higher-risk elements such as chemicals, but only organic matter that minimizes the risk of water source contamination. He points out that it is false that the works his client is carrying out under the legal authorizations that have been issued by the competent authorities can be technically and regulatorily classified as a sanitary landfill for banana waste, and he considers that this classification has been made in very bad faith by the appellant even though he knows it is a trench intended for the treatment of organic banana waste that will not cause any contamination to the environment or any hydrographic basin. He points out that official letter RHA-UPAH-069-3-2003 of March sixth of the current year dispels any doubt regarding the technical, legal, and regulatory appropriateness of the work in light of the legal criteria with which it has been examined and reviewed by the Health and Environment authorities. He concludes by requesting that the appeal be dismissed because the questioned works have the authorizations, licenses, and legal permits and do not threaten, nor can they threaten, people's health or the environmental elements indicated in the appeal, such as the hydrographic basins of the Bananito River or the El Burío Creek.

4.- Edwin Cyrus Cyrus reports under oath, in his capacity as Director of the La Amistad Caribe Conservation Area of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (folio 93), that in relation to this matter, this office has not performed any action or omission that is the subject of challenge in this proceeding and does not have any administrative file on the facts denounced by the appellant. He states that the company's lands and the site where the waste treatment plant is located are outside any protected wild area administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. He adds that within the competencies assigned to this regional representation, those pertaining to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), a centralized ministerial body that must answer for the facts described in the appeal as it is the body in charge of the supervision and control of environmental impact assessments, were excluded. He concludes by requesting that the appeal be dismissed.

5.- In a resolution of the Investigating Magistrate at twelve hours twenty minutes on June twentieth, two thousand three, a report was requested from the National Environmental Technical Secretary to indicate whether SETENA had any type of participation in the specific case and whether, given the particular characteristics of the project to be developed by the company, the prior presentation of the environmental impact assessment is considered indispensable (folio 95).

6.- In a document visible on folio 96, the appellant appears to reply to the report presented to the Chamber by Compañía Bananera Atlántica Ltda. He points out that this company omitted to inform the Chamber that the Ministry of Health of Limón, Department of Protection to the Human Environment, through official letter UPAH-155-2003 of May twenty-first, two thousand three, verified a serious contamination problem in some trenches built by the respondent. He states that the practice of building trenches without environmental impact assessments has already caused irreparable damage to the environment, mainly leachate that flows towards surface and underground water sources. He considers that the deposit of banana waste authorized by the Operating Permit Process constitutes an action that violates the precautionary principle that integrates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and he states that despite the fact that to date no conclusive technical criteria have been issued regarding the impact that the trenches will produce on the soil, fauna, and flora of the area, they were put into execution in two thousand one. In his opinion, it is not possible for the State to execute or authorize the execution of projects about which there is doubt regarding the negative impact they may generate on the environment, and therefore, the omission to conduct a prior environmental impact assessment translates into a violation of Article 50 of the Constitution. He points out that in the specific case, the vegetation of the protected area was eliminated by at least twenty percent, the existing creek in the basin was obstructed, and the purpose of the area was changed without SETENA issuing its approval based on the corresponding technical criteria, with which not only the right to the environment has been harmed but also the principle of legality. He concludes by requesting that the appeal be granted.

7.- In response to the hearing granted, Eduardo Madrigal Castro reports under oath, in his capacity as General Secretary of SETENA (folio 113), that on September twentieth, two thousand two, the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar) was submitted to this Secretariat accompanied by additional documentation, being assigned number 537-2002. He indicates that the submitted project is for the "construction of a 1220-meter-long protection berm along the affected area in order to match the height of the banks so that the river can convey the flow through its channel without overflowing until its exit to the sea"; information that was provided in the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form. He states that the necessary information was requested from the competent institutions as a prerequisite for conducting the on-site inspection, which was carried out on October tenth, two thousand two, by the officials of SETENA. He adds that on December second, two thousand two, Resolution No. 1171-2002 SETENA was issued, through which the preliminary environmental assessment was heard, and subsequently, in ordinary session No. 48-2002 of November twenty-fifth, two thousand two, Article No. 11, the presentation of an Environmental Management Plan, a sworn declaration of environmental commitments, the appointment of an environmental manager, and the deposit of the sum of three hundred thousand colones corresponding to the guarantee amount were requested. He adds that on December eighteenth, two thousand two, the complaint filed by Mr. Nombre03 was received, in which he stated that Bananera La Estrella was constructing a dike on the riverbank, which causes overflows, and requesting information on whether there was any project in the name of the denounced party and its approval. He indicates that on December nineteenth, two thousand two, a copy of official letter PC 233-02 from the appellant addressed to Eng. José Miguel Zeledón, Head of the Water Department of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, was received. He points out that later, a copy of the complaint filed by the appellant was received, indicating that they required a report on files, permits, and field inspection. He adds that through official letter SG 134-2003 of January twenty-fourth, two thousand three, a response was given by SETENA to several official letters, and it was recorded that in this Secretariat, file No. 523-02 is held for flood protection works on the right bank of the La Estrella River with an extension of approximately four hundred meters, and by resolution 1172-02 of December second, two thousand two, the presentation of an Environmental Management Plan within two months, the appointment of an environmental manager, and the deposit of one hundred thirty thousand colones as a guarantee deposit were requested, which to date have not been submitted, so that project does not have environmental viability. He states that on February twenty-sixth, two thousand three, the requirements requested through resolution No. 1171-02 for file No. 537-02 were submitted to SETENA; subsequently, on March twenty-fifth, two thousand three, official letter SG-523-2003 was issued through which it was requested to correct the Environmental Management Plan and comply with points 3 and 4 of resolution 1171-2002. He adds that through official letter SG-845-2003 of May thirtieth, two thousand three, in compliance with the requested requirements, environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) was granted to the project "Construction of Farm Berm," file No. 537-02, leaving the environmental management stage open. He requests that any action against SETENA be dismissed since it has acted in accordance with the law.

8.- By resolution of the Investigating Magistrate at fourteen hours and one minute on August fifth, two thousand three, the National Environmental Technical Secretary was again requested to indicate, in relation to the project called "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System through Trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito River basin," which is being carried out by the company Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada (COBAL), whether SETENA has had any type of participation and whether, given the particular characteristics of the project, the prior presentation of an environmental impact assessment is considered indispensable (folio 209).

9.- In response to the hearing granted, Eduardo Madrigal Castro reports under oath, in his capacity as General Secretary of SETENA (folio 223), that in the specific case of the project called "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System through Trenches for Rejected Bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito River basin," to date, according to the database maintained in this Secretariat, neither the company Compañía Bananera Atlántica COBAL, nor any other company, has submitted a request for any environmental assessment process for the indicated activity. He indicates that regarding whether said activity requires an environmental impact assessment or not, given that this activity cannot be classified within those listed in Articles 21 and 22 of the Regulation on Procedures of SETENA, it cannot be determined beforehand that the presentation of an EIA is necessary; however, this does not necessarily exempt the activity from the presentation of that assessment. He states that in this case, in order to determine whether said activity requires an EIA, whoever will carry it out must obligatorily, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 and following and concordant articles of the Organic Environmental Law, proceed with the presentation of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form (F.E.A.P.) before this Secretariat, and subsequently, the preliminary environmental assessment process will evaluate the activity and determine which assessment instrument should be requested, thus it will be this process that decides whether an EIA or another environmental assessment instrument is requested from the company in order to finalize the environmental assessment. He concludes by requesting that this report be deemed as rendered.

10.- In the document on folio 225, Nombre02 appears in his capacity as General Manager of Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada to indicate that, with the faithful and exact copy of resolution No. 1375-2003-SETENA provided, it is proven false that an EIA is required to operate a banana trench like the one his client intends to carry out and which has been questioned by the appellant with the argument that an environmental impact assessment is always needed for such purposes, as if it were a prescription that admits no exceptions, since according to the merit resolution, SETENA requires compliance with a series of requisites listed therein, but an environmental impact assessment is not required as the appellant claims. He indicates that the environmental damage and impacts that the claimant states are being produced are non-existent, because as the trench is barely in project, his client does not have it in operation because it still does not have the corresponding licenses, permits, and authorizations, as has always been done in compliance with the legal and regulatory norms with which they have always acted.

11.- In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Volio Echeverría; and,

Considering:

I.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated: a) that the Huetar Atlántica Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Health authorized the location permit for the project "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito River basin" (see statements rendered under oath on folio 32); b) that through official letter RHA-UPAH-069-2003 of March sixth, two thousand three, the Head of the Human Environment Protection Unit of the Ministry of Health authorized Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) to restart the construction of the trench project at Finca Surá (folio 13); c) that following a complaint filed by the appellant, the environmental sanitation technician of the Human Environment Protection Unit of the Ministry of Health conducted an inspection at the site where they were able to corroborate that the works carried out in the banana waste trenches were not technically or legally performed, which was evidenced by the large amount of plastics and leachate at the time of the inspection, without having technical studies approved by SETENA, which is why it was requested, through official letter UPAH-155-2003 of May twenty-first, two thousand three, to the Director of the Huetar Atlántica Region, that a sanitary order be issued so that they present an environmental management plan or be ordered to transfer all the banana deposited in the trenches to the Limón sanitary landfill and to order Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) to proceed to prevent the leachate emanating from the trenches from flowing into the water sources of the area with the consequent risk of contamination for surface and underground waters (folio 107); d) that through a sanitary order of June seventeenth, two thousand three, Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) was informed that, given that the pits made for banana waste do not have technical studies approved by SETENA and given the large amount of banana and plastic deposited at the site, they were ordered to deposit the banana and plastic waste that was at that moment in the trenches in the sanitary landfill in order to diminish the damage caused to the environment and subsequently cover them with earth and then reforest (folio 106); e) that as of August fourteenth, two thousand three, Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) nor any other company has submitted a request for any environmental assessment process in relation to the project called "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito River basin" (see report rendered under oath on folio 223); f) that in order to determine if the activity of "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito River basin" requires the preparation of an EIA, it shall be obligatorily necessary to proceed to present a Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form, based on which the activity will be evaluated and the assessment instrument to be requested will be determined (see statements rendered under oath on folio 224).

II.- Object of the appeal. The appellant claims that the Regional Directorate of the Huetar Atlántica Region of the Ministry of Health authorized Compañía Bananera Atlántica for the construction project of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system through trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito River basin, without previously having required the participation of SETENA and without having conducted Environmental Impact Assessments, and therefore, to date, the execution of this project is causing serious damage to the environment, for which reason he requests the intervention of this Court.

III.- On the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The protection of the essential content of the right of all citizens to a healthy environment is established jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber. An example of this thesis is judgment number 3705-93, in which it stated:

"...The environment, therefore, must be understood as a potential for development to be used appropriately, and one must act in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relations, since, otherwise, its productivity for the present and the future is degraded and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems arise when the modalities of exploiting natural resources lead to a degradation of ecosystems exceeding their regeneration capacity, which results in broad sectors of the population being harmed and generating a high environmental and social cost that leads to a deterioration in the quality of life; precisely because the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain development and evolution favorable to the human being. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is understanding that while man has the right to use the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this matter of the principle of 'injury', already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On the one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself." Regarding the relationship between the environment and the right to health and life, this court has indicated that:

"La inquietud de la Sala por la estabilidad y la armonía ecológica ha sido férrea, pues proteger la naturaleza, que es patrimonio mundial, es también salvaguardar no solo la vida del hombre y su salud, sino también la de la humanidad sobre la tierra, desarrollando de esta forma el contenido, no solo de los convenios internacionales en esa materia, sino también el artículo 21 de nuestra Constitución Política. Esto se pone de manifiesto, directamente, a través de las sentencias dictadas después de la reforma de 1994, del artículo 50 constitucional, y desde antes, por medio de las resoluciones en que, como lo ha dicho la Sala, “el derecho a vivir en un ambiente sano se ha visto como un corolario inevitable del derecho a la salud, que -a su vez- deviene del principio de inviolabilidad de la vida (sentencia N° 5691-98 de las a las diecisiete horas quince minutos del cinco de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y ocho).

Once the criterion of the Chamber regarding the subject matter of this amparo has been set forth, it is necessary to analyze the actions of the authorities participating in the granting of the permit to the company COBAL and the implication of that action on the right that the claimant considers violated.

IV.- On the specific case. The Ministry of Health is the body responsible for the essential function of ensuring the health of the inhabitants of the Republic, in accordance with Articles 21 of the Constitution, 2 of the General Health Law, and 2 of the Organic Law of the Ministry of Health; and for this reason, it must adopt all general and particular measures necessary to guarantee that constitutional right.

Now, it has been demonstrated in the case file that the Ministry of Health granted the company COBAL a location permit for the construction project of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system using trenches for rejected bananas, located at Finca Surá in the Bananito River basin; however, from the documents provided in the file, it is verified that the company Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), in addition to having obtained the location permit, began construction of the project and started depositing banana waste in the various trenches that were built. To this effect, the file shows that the Environmental Sanitation Technician of the Human Environment Protection Unit conducted an inspection at the site on May twenty-first, two thousand three, accompanied by the claimant, and was able to verify that there was a "large quantity of leachate (lixiviados) resulting from the large amount of banana deposited at the site, approximately two hundred and fifty containers" (sic). Furthermore, it was confirmed during that inspection that "the work carried out was not technically or legally performed, as evidenced by the large amount of plastics and leachate (lixiviados) at the time of inspection," and the inspection report also indicated that "in relation to the constructed trenches, no environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental) or others were shown." In view of the results obtained from that inspection, the Environmental Sanitation Technician stated in the report rendered (UPAH-155-2003 of May twenty-first, two thousand three, visible on folio 107) that the claimant in this amparo requested the Director of the Huetar Atlántica Region of the Ministry of Health to issue a sanitary order to the company COBAL to present an environmental management plan or, in the alternative, to be ordered to transfer all the banana deposited in the trenches to the Limón sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) and to require the company and the property owner to immediately prevent the large amount of leachate (lixiviados) emanating from the trenches from flowing into the water sources of the area, with the consequent risk of contamination for surface and groundwater. After the issuance of this document UPAH-155-2003 of May twenty-first, two thousand three, the Human Environment Protection Department of the Limón Governing Area of the Ministry of Health issued a sanitary order in which it ordered Compañía Bananera Atlántica COBAL to deposit the banana and plastic waste currently in the trenches into the sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) in order to reduce the damage caused to the environment and then cover them with soil for subsequent reforestation.

**V.-** Now, despite the fact that the file contains no further actions by the Ministry of Health, nor has it been possible to determine the current state of the trenches or the current management of banana waste by Compañía Bananera Atlántica, the truth of the matter is that, according to the report rendered by the Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), his office has not been requested to intervene in order to analyze the project referred to by the claimant, despite the fact that it involves waste management and despite Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) being very clear in establishing that human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, will require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), and the approval of this assessment is an indispensable requirement to begin activities, works, or projects. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that, due to the type of project in question (involving waste management), the Ministry of Health could not authorize the installation of a process as described in this specific case without previously having the authorization of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), since its intervention was necessarily required so that, after a preliminary analysis, it could determine the type of assessment instrument that Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) had to submit in relation to the proposed project. In that sense, it cannot be forgotten that the health component is a fundamental, integral part of an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), and therefore, both the intervention of the Ministry of Health and that of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) should have gone hand in hand. In this regard, the permits granted by the Ministry of Health are necessarily components of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), and for this reason, the sanitary operating permit must be granted after the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) is approved, because that study includes the location with respect to aquifers, forested areas, and the procedure for waste management and impact on the environment, among other technical and legal aspects. In this way, once the guarantee of compliance is issued, the works can begin, already having all the required permits, to later verify that the works were developed in accordance with the provisions established in the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental).

The sanitary operating permit is a subcomponent of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), which is a broader instrument. In this way, the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health complements the tasks of SETENA when analyzing the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental). Recall that in this matter, the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) is a law of a special nature and subsequent to the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), and therefore it prevails over the latter. Thus, it cannot be understood that the actions of the Ministry of Health and SETENA are independent and autonomous; rather, the sanitary operating permit must be interpreted as a consequence of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) and the general planning of the project. The same thesis is applicable to the location permit for works or industries provided for by Article 300 of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud).

Despite the foregoing, in this specific case, a large part of the project was built with the approval of the Ministry of Health, and this, without any doubt, is an irregularity that caused serious damages to the environment.

**VI.-** Even though it is not for this Chamber to question the technical criteria used by the Ministry of Health to grant the project location permit without first requiring approval by SETENA of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), and even though it is observed that as a result of the complaint filed by the claimant an inspection of the site was carried out, the Chamber finds that the ministerial action was insufficient to rule out that the construction project for a biodegradable solid waste treatment system using trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá, located in the Bananito River basin, could cause—or threaten to cause—any damage to the environment and public health. For the Chamber, it is clear that Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), due to the type of activity it wished to develop, had the obligation to submit to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), at least, the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar) so that said entity could rule on the environmental viability of the activity. Similarly, it is inferred both from the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and from the various regulations of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) that as a requirement for the approval of construction plans for any project that could damage the environment, the intervention of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) must be obtained beforehand. However, in this specific case, despite being a waste management project, this did not occur, and the Ministry of Health, despite having the duty to demand compliance with that requirement prior to granting any permit, did not do so, and even though it is stated under oath that no construction or operating permit was granted, the truth of the matter is that the works were started, and at least a part of this project began to operate. Proof of the foregoing is the very report rendered under oath by the Secretary General of the Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), according to which the company Compañía Bananera Atlántica has opened an administrative file in relation to the project for the "construction of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system using trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá, located in the Bananito River basin," which means that the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) has not exercised its legal authority regarding the environmental viability of the project.

**VII.-** Thus, it is evident that the Ministry of Health allowed the construction and implementation of the banana waste trenches without requiring prior compliance with the sanitary and environmental requirements legally established for an activity of the nature that concerns us here to operate. Subsequently, and despite the fact that the works were already almost completed, the Ministry of Health, on the occasion of the claimant's complaint, issued a sanitary order on June seventeenth, two thousand three, precisely after the filing of this appeal, by which it ordered the transfer of the banana and plastic waste to the sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario), but unfortunately by this time, damage may already have been caused to the environment. In that sense, the Chamber considers that this requirement was made belatedly, since a violation could already have been caused earlier to the inhabitants of the area and of the entire country of the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, protected in Articles 46 and 50 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). In addition to the foregoing, it is also evident that the actions of Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), in the terms described, are not only contrary to the legal system but also constitute a violation of the right to health and a healthy environment, enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política).

**Por tanto:** The appeal is granted. Consequently, the closure of the trenches built at Finca Surá, located in the Bananito River basin, for depositing rejected bananas is ordered. The State and Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which will be settled in the enforcement of judgment of the contentious-administrative and civil proceedings, respectively. The respondents are warned that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of this Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo proceeding, and does not comply with it or does not have it complied with, provided the crime is not more severely punishable. The Regional Director of the Huetar Atlántica Region of the Ministry of Health and the legal representative of Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) shall be personally notified of this decision.

Luis Fernando Solano C.

President Adrián Vargas B. Gilbert Armijo S.

Fernando Cruz C. Rosa María Abdelnour G.

Federico Sosto L. Fabián Volio E.

In addition to the foregoing, it is also evident that the actions of Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), in the terms stated, are not only contrary to the legal system but also constitute a violation of the right to health and a healthy environment, enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution.

He concludes by requesting that this report be deemed issued.

**10.-** In a document at folio 225, Nombre02 appears in his capacity as General Manager of Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada to indicate that the faithful and exact copy of resolution No.1375-2003-SETENA provided herein demonstrates that it is false that an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) is required to be able to operate a banana trench (trinchera de banano) such as the one his represented company intends to carry out and which has been questioned by the appellant with the argument that an environmental impact study is always needed for such purposes as if it were a recipe admitting no exceptions, because according to the meritorious resolution, SETENA requires compliance with a series of requirements listed therein but does not require an environmental impact study as claimed by the appellant. He indicates that the environmental damages and impacts that the claimant points out as being produced are inexistent because, as the trench is barely at the project stage, his represented company does not have it in operation because it still does not have the corresponding licenses, permits, and authorizations, as has always been the case in accordance with the adherence to the legal and regulatory norms with which they have always acted.

**11.-** In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate **Volio Echeverría**; and, **Considering:** **I.- Proven facts.** Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed as duly demonstrated: a) that the Dirección Regional Huetar Atlántica of the Ministry of Health authorized the location permit (permiso de ubicación) for the project "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System using trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin" (see statements rendered under oath at folio 32); b) that through official letter RHA-UPAH-069-2003 of March 6, 2003, the Head of the Human Environment Protection Unit of the Ministry of Health authorized Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) to resume construction of the trench project at Finca Surá (folio 13); c) that upon a complaint filed by the appellant, the environmental sanitation technician of the Human Environment Protection Unit of the Ministry of Health carried out an inspection at the site where he could corroborate that the works carried out in the banana waste trenches were not technically or legally performed, which was evidenced by the large quantity of plastics and leachates (lixiviados) at the time of the inspection, and without having technical studies approved by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), which is why, through official letter UPAH-155-2003 of May 21, 2003, he requested the Director of the Región Huetar Atlántica to issue a sanitary order (orden sanitaria) so that an environmental management plan be presented, or to order that all the banana deposited in the trenches be transferred to the Limón sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) and to direct Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) to proceed to prevent the leachates emanating from the trenches from flowing to the water sources of the area with the consequent risk of contamination for surface and underground waters (folio 107); d) that through a sanitary order dated June 17, 2003, Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) was told that, given that the pits made for banana waste did not have technical studies approved by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and given the large quantity of banana and plastic deposited at the site, it was ordered to deposit the banana and plastic waste present at that time in the trenches into the sanitary landfill in order to reduce the damage caused to the environment and subsequently cover them with earth and then reforest (folio 106); e) that as of August 14, 2003, neither Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) nor any other company has submitted an application for the processing of any environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental) in relation to the project called "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System using trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin" (see report rendered under oath at folio 223); f) that in order to determine whether the activity "Construction of a Biodegradable Solid Waste Treatment System using trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin" requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study, it will be mandatory to proceed to submit a Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar), on the basis of which the activity will be evaluated and the assessment instrument that must be requested will be determined (see statements rendered under oath at folio 224).

**II.- Object of the appeal.** The appellant alleges that the Regional Directorate of the Región Huetar Atlántica of the Ministry of Health authorized Compañía Bananera Atlántica for the project for the construction of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system using trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin, without having previously required the participation of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and without Environmental Impact Studies having been carried out, whereby, to date, the execution of that project is causing serious damage to the environment, for which reason he requests the intervention of this Court.

**III.- On the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.** It is established jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) to protect the essential content of the right of all citizens to a healthy environment. An example of this thesis is judgment number 3705-93, in which it stated:

*"...The environment, therefore, must be understood as a potential for development to be utilized adequately, requiring integrated action in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relations, because, otherwise, its productivity for the present and the future is degraded, and the heritage of future generations could be placed at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems occur when the modalities of exploitation of natural resources give rise to a degradation of ecosystems that exceeds their capacity for regeneration, which leads to broad sectors of the population being harmed and generates a high environmental and social cost that results in a deterioration of the quality of life; as precisely the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain development and evolution favorable to the human being. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other equally important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is understanding that while man has the right to use the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this matter of the principle of 'injury' (lesión), already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: on one hand, the equal rights of others, and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself."* Regarding the relationship between the environment and the right to health and life, this court has indicated that:

*"The concern of the Chamber for ecological stability and harmony has been steadfast, because protecting nature, which is a world heritage, is also safeguarding not only the life of man and his health, but also that of humanity on earth, thus developing the content, not only of international conventions on this matter, but also Article 21 of our Political Constitution. This is manifested, directly, through the rulings handed down after the 1994 reform of constitutional Article 50, and from before, through resolutions in which, as the Chamber has stated, 'the right to live in a healthy environment has been seen as an inevitable corollary of the right to health, which -in turn- derives from the principle of inviolability of life (judgment No. 5691-98 at seventeen hours fifteen minutes of August 5, 1998).'"* Having set forth the Chamber's criterion regarding the subject matter of this amparo, it is necessary to analyze the actions of the authorities participating in the granting of the permit to the company COBAL and the implication of that action on the right that the claimant considers violated.

**IV.- On the specific case.** The Ministry of Health is the body which has the essential function of ensuring the health of the inhabitants of the Republic, in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, Article 2 of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), and Article 2 of the Organic Law of the Ministry of Health (Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud); and therefore it must adopt all general and specific measures necessary to guarantee that constitutional right. Now, it has been demonstrated in the record that the Ministry of Health granted the company COBAL the location permit for the project for the construction of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system using trenches for rejected bananas, located at Finca Surá, which is in the Bananito river basin; however, from the documents contributed to the record it is verified that the company Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), in addition to having obtained the location permit, began the construction of the project and started to deposit the banana waste in the different trenches that were built. To this effect, the record shows that the Environmental Sanitation Technician of the Human Environment Protection Unit carried out, on May 21, 2003, an inspection at the site accompanied by the appellant and could verify that there was a "large quantity of leachates product of the large quantity of banana deposited at the site approximately two hundred and fifty containers" (sic). Furthermore, it was verified in that inspection that "the works carried out were neither technically nor legally performed, which is evidenced by the large quantity of plastics and leachates at the time of the inspection", the inspection report also indicating that "in relation to the trenches built, no environmental impact or other kind of studies were shown". In view of the results obtained in that inspection, this Environmental Sanitation Technician records in the report rendered (UPAH-155-2003 of May 21, 2003, visible at folio 107) that the appellant in this amparo requested the Director of the Región Huetar Atlántica of the Ministry of Health to issue a sanitary order to the company COBAL so that it presents an environmental management plan or, in its place, to order it to transfer all the banana deposited in the trenches to the Limón sanitary landfill and to require the company and the owner of the farm to proceed immediately to prevent the large quantity of leachates emanating from the trenches from flowing to the water sources of the area with the consequent risk of contamination for surface and underground waters. After the issuance of this document UPAH-155-2003 of May 21, 2003, the Department of Human Environment Protection of the Governing Area (Área Rectora) of Limón of the Ministry of Health issued a sanitary order in which it directed Compañía Bananera Atlántica COBAL to deposit the banana and plastic waste currently in the trenches into the sanitary landfill in order to reduce the damage caused to the environment and then to cover them with earth for subsequent reforestation.

**V.-** Now then, despite the fact that the record contains no further actions by the Ministry of Health, nor has it been possible to determine the current state of the trenches as well as the handling currently being given to the banana waste of Compañía Bananera Atlántica, the truth of the matter is that, according to the report rendered by the Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, the intervention of that Secretariat has not been requested from his office to analyze the project referred to by the claimant, this despite the fact that it involves waste management and that Article 17 of the Environmental Organic Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) is very clear in establishing that human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, will require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the approval of this assessment is an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works, or projects. Starting from the foregoing, it is evident that, because of the type of project involved (as it involves waste management), the Ministry of Health could not authorize the installation of a process such as the one described in the specific case without previously having the authorization of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, since its intervention was necessarily required so that, after a preliminary analysis, it could determine the type of evaluation instrument that Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) had to present in relation to the proposed project. In that sense, it cannot be forgotten that the health component is a fundamental integral part of an Environmental Impact Study and therefore, both the intervention of the Ministry of Health and that of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat should have gone hand in hand. In this sense, the permits granted by the Ministry of Health are necessarily components of the Environmental Impact Study and therefore, the sanitary operating permit should be granted after the Environmental Impact Study is approved, because that study includes the location regarding aquifers, forested zones, and the waste management procedure and impact on the environment, among other technical and legal aspects. Thus, once the environmental guarantee (garantía de cumplimiento) is issued, the works can be initiated, which will then already have all the required permits, to later verify that the works have been developed in accordance with what is established in the Environmental Impact Study.

The sanitary operating permit is a subcomponent of the Environmental Impact Study, which is a broader instrument. Thus, the competence of the Ministry of Health complements the tasks of SETENA when analyzing the Environmental Impact Study. It should be remembered that in this matter, the Environmental Organic Law is a law of a special nature and subsequent to the General Health Law, and therefore prevails over it. Thus, it cannot be understood that the actions of the Ministry of Health and of SETENA are independent and autonomous; rather, the sanitary operating permit must be interpreted as a consequence of the Environmental Impact Study and the general planning of the project. The same thesis is applicable to the location permit for works or industries provided for by Article 300 of the General Health Law.

Despite the foregoing, in the specific case, a large part of the project was built with the approval of the Ministry of Health, and this, without any doubt, is an irregularity that caused serious damage to the environment.

**VI.-** Even though it is not the purview of this Chamber to question the technical criteria used by the Ministry of Health to grant the location permit for the project without first requiring the approval by SETENA of the Environmental Impact Study, and even though it is observed that as a consequence of the complaint filed by the appellant, an inspection of the site was carried out, the Chamber considers that the ministerial action was insufficient to rule out that the project for the construction of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system using trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin could cause—or threaten to cause—some damage to the environment and public health. For the Chamber, it is clear that Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), by the type of activity it wished to develop, had the obligation to submit to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, at least, the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form so that said entity could rule on the environmental viability of the activity. Equally, from both the Environmental Organic Law and the different regulations of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, it is drawn that as a requirement for the approval of the construction plans of any project that could damage the environment, the prior intervention of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat must be obtained. However, in the specific case, despite being a waste management project, this did not occur, and the Ministry of Health, despite being obligated to require compliance with this requirement prior to granting any permit, did not do so. And even though it is said under oath that no construction or operating permit was granted, the truth of the matter is that the works were initiated and at least a part of this project began to operate. Proof of the foregoing is the very report rendered under oath by the Secretary General of the Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), according to which the company Compañía Bananera Atlántica has opened an open administrative file in relation to the project for the "construction of a biodegradable solid waste treatment system using trenches for rejected bananas at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin", which means that the National Environmental Technical Secretariat has not exercised its legal competence over the environmental viability of the project.

**VII.-** Thus, it is evident that the Ministry of Health permitted the construction and setting into operation of the banana waste trenches without requiring prior compliance with the sanitary and environmental requirements legally established for operating an activity of the nature that concerns us here. Subsequently, and despite the works already being almost finished, the Ministry of Health, on the occasion of the appellant's complaint, issued a sanitary order on June 17, 2003, precisely after the filing of this appeal, by which it ordered the transfer of banana and plastic waste to the sanitary landfill, but unfortunately, by this moment, it could be that damage had already been caused to the environment. In that sense, the Chamber considers that this requirement was made in a tardy manner, given that, from before, an injury could already have been caused to the inhabitants of the zone and of the entire country to the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, protected in Articles 46 and 50 of the Political Constitution. Added to the foregoing, it is also evident that the action of Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), in the terms that have been stated, is not only contrary to the legal order but constitutes an injury to the right to health and a healthy environment, enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution.

**Therefore:** The appeal is declared with merit. Consequently, the closure of the trenches built at Finca Surá located in the Bananito river basin for depositing rejected bananas is ordered. The State and Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) are condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of judgment in the contentious-administrative and civil jurisdictions, respectively. The respondents are warned that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of this Jurisdiction (Ley de esta jurisdicción), imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided the offense is not more severely punished. Personally notify this resolution to the Regional Director of the Región Huetar Atlántica of the Ministry of Health and to the legal representative of Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL).

Luis Fernando Solano C. President Adrián Vargas B. Gilbert Armijo S.

Fernando Cruz C. Rosa María Abdelnour G.

Federico Sosto L. Fabián Volio E.

*030053240007CO* *030053240007CO* Res: 2005-07288 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas con veintisiete minutos del diez de junio del dos mil cinco.- Recurso de amparo interpuesto por Nombre01, mayor, soltero, ambientalista, vecino de Limón, portador de la cédula de identidad número CED01, en su condición de miembro activo del Comité de Vigilancia de Recursos Naturales del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía-COVIRENAS de Limón y representante del Comité de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales ante la Comisión para el Manejo de las Cuencas de los Ríos Bananito, Banano y La Estrella; contra Nombre02 en su condición de Gerente General con facultades de Apoderado Generalísimo de la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) y contra la Unidad de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Ministerio de Salud, Región Huetar Atlántica.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las doce horas y veintisiete minutos del nueve de mayo del dos mil tres, el recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra Nombre02 en su condición de Gerente General con facultades de Apoderado Generalísimo de la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) y contra la Unidad de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Ministerio de Salud, Región Huetar Atlántica y manifiesta que la Región Huetar Atlántica del Ministerio de Salud tramitó y aprobó la solicitud de permiso de ubicación, construcción y funcionamiento de un proyecto para tratamiento de desechos bananeros, de parte de la empresa Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada (COBAL), en expediente número 02-5, en una finca ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito. Indica que los funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud concluyeron que en virtud de tratarse de trincheras para banano de rechazo, el requisito previsto por el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, que exige la presentación de un estudio de impacto ambiental de previo a otorgar un permiso para el tratamiento desechos sólidos, no era necesario. Añade que el diecisiete de enero del dos mil tres, en su condición de representante del Comité de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales (COVIRENAS), recibió copia del oficio RHA-DR-038-03/RHA-UPAH-026-2003, suscrito por el Director Regional de la Región Huetar Atlántica y el Jefe Regional del Departamento de Protección al Ambiente Humano, en que se le convocó a una reunión de análisis del proyecto de construcción del sistema de tratamiento de desechos sólidos biodegradables en Dirección01, en Bananito. Indica que en razón de la audiencia concedida aprovechó para requerir el respectivo estudio de impacto ambiental por ubicarse el inmueble en cuestión dentro de una cuenca hidrográfica, conforme lo previsto por los artículos 17, 51 y 52 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Señala que en razón de lo que ha sido la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional, que en voto número 2002-6782 estableció que "todos los proyectos de relleno sanitario deben estar sujetos a un estudio de impacto ambiental. Como bien lo indica el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos de ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, requerirán una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, requisito que será indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras y proyectos". En este sentido, procedió a presentar en el citado expediente, su oposición al otorgamiento del permiso señalado; sin embargo, en conversación sostenida con Msc. Gilberth Guzmán, Jefe de la Unidad de Protección al Ambiente Humano de la Región Huetar Atlántica, se le manifestó que la resolución ya había sido dictada y retirada por personeros de la empresa Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada, quienes procedieron a ejecutar inmediatamente el permiso. Indica que todo ello se decidió sin tomar en consideración su oposición y sin que a la fecha exista un estudio de impacto ambiental. Como consecuencia, a su juicio, se ha irrespetado la protección al ambiente y a la salud pública, al aprobarse la construcción y funcionamiento de un relleno sanitario para desechos bananeros, ubicado en la cuenca del río Bananito, sin que para ello se haya exigido y presentado estudio de impacto ambiental para poder conocer sus eventuales efectos en el ecosistema, pese al evidente perjuicio y riesgo para el medio ambiente. Agrega que mediante nota RHA-AJ-325-02 del cuatro de diciembre del dos mil dos, el Lic. Carlos Barquero Gutiérrez, Abogado Regional del Ministerio de Salud de la Región Huetar Atlántica, le informó a la Ministra de Salud respecto a la gravedad de las acciones de los recurridos en perjuicio del medio ambiente, pues las "trincheras construidas no cuentan con sistemas de tratamiento que permitan depurar aguas residuales, por lo que estas descargarían directamente a la Quebrada Burío.". Señala que en atención a la tutela del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, consagrado por el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, así como del principio preventivo y precautorio que rige la materia ambiental, se ha establecido en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico la obligación de contar con estudios de impacto ambiental respecto de aquellas actividades humanas que puedan destruir los elementos del ambiente, a efectos de contar con un instrumento científico-técnico que permita anticipar y minimizar a priori la existencia de daños ambientales; sin embargo, en el caso en estudio, se ha determinado obviar la presentación y utilización del citado estudio técnico, pese a los efectos en el ecosistema que pueden tener la construcción de tales obras y el eventual tratamiento que se le dé a los desechos bananeros, con lo que se amenaza su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, que a su vez se relaciona con su derecho a la vida y a la salud.

2.- Informa bajo juramento Róger Brown Stamp, en su calidad de Director Regional de la Región Huetar Atlántica del Ministerio de Salud en Limón (folio 32), que es cierto que ante la Jefatura de la Unidad de Protección de Ambiente Humano de la Región Huetar Atlántica, se ha tramitado permiso de ubicación de sistema de tratamiento de desechos sólidos de banano en la Empresa COBAL S.A. ubicada en Bananito Norte de Limón. Señala que lo único que se ha autorizado es el permiso de ubicación del proyecto y no el permiso de construcción y funcionamiento, siendo que se han ejercido cabalmente las disposiciones reglamentarias y legales previo al otorgamiento del permiso de ubicación. Agrega que del análisis realizado al proyecto de manejo y disposición de los desechos de banano de la finca Surá S.A., con anterioridad al otorgamiento del permiso de ubicación, se tomó en consideración la protección al ambiente pues se trata de un sistema de tratamiento biológico que permite la transformación de los desechos del banano de rechazo hasta lograr obtener como producto final, un abono orgánico mejorador de suelos, gas carbónico y agua, con lo cual, los productos finales se sustraen de la aplicación de lo dispuesto en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente ya que ésta establece que se debe contar con los estudios de impacto ambiental en las actividades humanas que generen residuos tóxicos o peligrosos y en el caso concreto, el considerar los productos finales que se pretenden extraer como tóxicos o peligrosos, no cuenta con sustento técnico o científico. Señala que la propuesta de proyecto busca desarrollar un sistema tendiente a mitigar los efectos negativos en su impacto ambiental y para ello los desechos del banano se extienden dentro de las trincheras con un espesor máximo de un metro con el fin de garantizar el proceso de degradación aeróbica, debiendo mantenerse el espesor relativamente delgado y evitar la compactación con el fin de asegurar la presencia de suficiente aire para que se produzca la fermentación microbiológica natural por la acción de multitud de especies microbianas tanto aeróbicas como termófilas hasta la obtención del compostage por medio de trincheras. Agrega que de los planos del proyecto se observa la existencia de la construcción de un sistema de lixiviados que se encargará de mezclarlos y dar una aplicación de hidróxido de calcio para neutralizarlos y mantener un PH cercano a 7, el cual funciona como sedimentador evitando que los sólidos ingresen al FAFA (filtro anaerobio de flujo ascendente) y los reportes operacionales de tales lixiviados, serán presentados oportunamente al Ministerio de Salud ya que actualmente no se encuentra funcionando. Considera que no lleva razón el recurrente pues no se puede alegar que exista contaminación además de que se han tomado las previsiones necesarias con el fin de evitar que se produzcan efectos negativos al ambiente, y así en el oficio UPC-PCU-702, se le indicó al Ing. Fernando Alvarado en su condición de supervisor de ingeniería de COBAL que debía cumplir con algunos requisitos como son presentación en ventanilla única de los planos, adjuntar una memoria de cálculo, manual de operación y mantenimiento del sistema, lo cual ha sido cumplido por los propietarios de la empresa. Señala que en el ejercicio de sus funciones, las autoridades del nivel local del área de salud de Limón, le ordenaron al Gerente de la Finca Surá, el veintiuno de octubre del dos mil dos, "no botar ningún tipo de desecho en el lugar indicado ya que el mismo no cuenta con los requisitos para su funcionamiento" y por ello se realizaron consultas con los propietarios de la mencionada empresa y se solicitó la presentación de los planos al nivel regional y local con el fin de determinar su cumplimiento en las obras que se estaban realizando en el sitio. Indica que lo que existía en ese momento correspondía a la iniciación de los trabajos que estaban diseñados en los planos constructivos que contaban con el aval de la Dirección de Protección de Ambiente Humano de ese Ministerio. Agrega que posteriormente se autorizó la continuación de los trabajos iniciados de acuerdo con el criterio emitido mediante oficio UPAH-069-2003 en donde se indica que "el sistema de tratamiento propuesto una vez finalizado el proyecto garantiza que no se producirá contaminación en el sitio y al no haber presencia de materia inorgánica u otros elementos de mayor riesgo, como químicos, sino que únicamente material orgánico (bananos y pinzote) minimiza el riesgo de contaminación de fuentes de agua". Indica que según el sistema de tratamiento aprobado por el Ministerio de Salud, se trata de un sistema hermético conocido como RAFA y por ello se autorizó el reinicio de la construcción del proyecto revisado y aprobado en el dos mil uno por parte del proceso de permisos de ubicación y construcción de la Dirección de Protección de Ambiente Humano del Ministerio de Salud. Finaliza solicitando que se declare sin lugar el recurso.

3.- En atención a la audiencia conferida, se apersona Francisco Clough Robinson, en su condición de Apoderado Generalísimo de la Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada (folio 35), e indica que en la tramitación y aprobación de la solicitud de un permiso de ubicación, construcción y funcionamiento de un proyecto de trinchera para el tratamiento de desechos orgánicos de banano promovido por su representada, se cumplieron todos los requisitos técnicos, legales y reglamentarios exigidos, sin que solamente haya participado la Dirección Huetar Atlántica del Ministerio de Salud, pues en la tramitación y aprobación de la solicitud, participaron todas las oficinas regionales y centrales del Ministerio, al más alto nivel, que deben tomar parte en la autorización de ese tipo de trabajos, entre ellas, las oficinas de Limón del Ministerio de Salud y las oficinas centrales. Señala que es falso que los funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud y los del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, hubiesen aprobado este proyecto con vista únicamente en que se trataba de la instalación de una trinchera técnica para el tratamiento del banano de rechazo. Indica que lo cierto es que la aprobación de ese proyecto obedeció a que su representada aportó, ante las autoridades encargadas de la materia, toda la documentación exigida técnica y legalmente, con la que se demostró de manera fehaciente que se trata de un sistema de tratamiento de desechos orgánicos cerrado, con estudios científicos elaborados por una firma profesional contratada al efecto y no una ocurrencia empírica como considera que lo pretende señalar el accionante. Agrega que el proyecto está sustentado en estudios ambientales serios elaborado por la firma especializada ATF que es de reconocida trayectoria en ese campo. Manifiesta que es absolutamente falso que los funcionarios públicos que aprobaron el proyecto hayan incurrido en violación de lo que dispone el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Añade que en este caso, las entidades recurridas realizaron la evaluación ambiental y como el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental no resultaba necesario, no lo solicitaron pues consideraron técnica, científica y legalmente que no era procedente, de acuerdo con las facultades, atribuciones y responsabilidades que la ley estatuye pues la propuesta de su representada constituye un buen intento para corregir el manejo que se le estaba dando a los desechos orgánicos provenientes de la actividad bananera (banano de rechazo y pinzote). Indica que no le consta a su representada que el recurrente hubiese solicitado en la fecha que señala y a las autoridades del ramo, la exigencia de un estudio de impacto ambiental cuando se analizó el proyecto pero sí está muy claro en que tal estudio de impacto ambiental no era necesario, no sólo porque así lo estimaron los funcionarios que tenían la facultad sino también porque de la lectura de lo previsto en los artículos 17, 51 y 52 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, no se desprende que tal estudio sea de exigencia obligatoria en todos los casos de manejo de desechos como lo entiende el recurrente, ya que no se trata de "recetas ambientales" que se deben aplicar de manera indiscriminada en toda actividad agroindustrial. Indica que es muy diferente un relleno sanitario en donde se tira basura de todo tipo a cielo abierto, que un sistema hermético como el proyecto de su representada que es conocido como reactor anaeróbico de flujo ascendente, especialmente diseñado para el tratamiento confinado de manejo de desechos orgánicos como el banano de rechazo, que garantiza como lo han afirmado las autoridades sanitarias y ambientales, que no se producirá contaminación en el sitio y que no habrá presencia de materia inorgánica o de otros elementos de mayor riesgo como químicos sino que únicamente materia orgánica que minimiza el riesgo de contaminación de fuentes de agua. Señala que es falso que las obras que su representada está llevando a cabo al amparo de las autorizaciones legales que han sido extendidas por las autoridades competentes, puedan conceptuarse técnica y reglamentariamente como un relleno sanitario para desechos bananeros y considera que esa calificación ha sido hecha de muy mala fe por el recurrente a pesar de que tiene conocimiento de que se trata de una trinchera destinada al tratamiento de desechos orgánicos de banano que no ocasionará ninguna contaminación ni en el ambiente ni en cuenta hidrográfica. Señala que el oficio RHA-UPAH-069-3-2003 del seis de marzo del año en curso, disipa cualquier duda respecto de la procedencia técnica, legal y reglamentaria de la obra a la luz de los criterios jurídicos con que la misma ha sido examinada y revisada por las autoridades de Salud y del Ambiente. Finaliza solicitando que se declare sin lugar el recurso porque las obras cuestionadas cuentan con las autorizaciones, licencias y permisos de ley y no amenazan ni pueden amenazar la salud de las personas ni los elementos del ambiente que se señalan en el recurso como son las cuencas hidrográficas del Río Bananito o de la Quebrada El Burío.

4.- Informa bajo juramento Edwin Cyrus Cyrus, en su condición de Director del Area de Conservación La Amistad Caribe del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (folio 93), que en relación con este asunto, esa dependencia no ha realizado ninguna actuación u omisión que sea objeto de impugnación en esta vía y no cuentan con ningún expediente administrativo sobre los hechos denunciados por el recurrente. Manifiesta que los terrenos de la compañía y el sitio donde se ubica la planta de tratamiento de desechos, se encuentra fuera de cualquier área silvestre protegida administrada por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía. Agrega que dentro de las competencias asignadas a esa representación regional, se excluyeron aquellas propias de la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental, órgano ministerial centralizado que debe responder sobre los hechos descritos en el recurso pues es el órgano encargado de la supervisión y control de los estudios de impacto ambiental. Finaliza solicitando que se declare sin lugar el recurso.

5.- En resolución de Magistrado Instructor de las doce horas veinte minutos del veinte de junio del dos mil tres, se solicitó informe al Secretario Técnico Nacional Ambiental para que indicara si en el caso concreto ha tenido algún tipo de participación la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y si dadas las características particulares del proyecto que desarrollará la empresa, se considera indispensable la presentación previa del estudio de impacto ambiental (folio 95).

6.- En documento visible en folio 96 se apersona el recurrente para replicar el informe presentado a la Sala por la Compañía Bananera Atlántica Ltda. Señala que esa empresa omitió indicar a la Sala que el propio Ministerio de Salud de Limón, Departamento de Protección al Ambiente Humano mediante oficio UPAH-155-2003 del veintiuno de mayo del dos mil tres, constató un grave problema de contaminación en unas trincheras construidas por la recurrida. Manifiesta que la práctica de construir trincheras sin estudios de impacto ambiental, ya ha ocasionado daños irreparables al ambiente, principalmente lixiviados que discurren hacia las fuentes de agua superficiales y subterráneas. Considera que el depósito de desechos de banano autorizado por el Proceso de Permisos de Funcionamiento, constituye una actuación que transgrede el principio precautorio que integra el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y manifiesta que a pesar de que a la fecha no se han emitido criterios técnicos contundentes en relación con el impacto que las trincheras producirán en el suelo, la fauna y la flora de la zona, éstas fueron puestas en ejecución desde el dos mil uno. En su criterio, no es posible que el Estado ejecute o autorice la ejecución de proyectos sobre los cuales existe duda en cuanto al impacto negativo que puedan generar al ambiente y por ello la omisión de efectuar un estudio de impacto ambiental previo, se traduce en una violación del artículo 50 constitucional. Señala que en el caso concreto, se eliminó la vegetación del área protegida al menos en un veinte por ciento, se obstruyó la quebrada existente en la cuenca y se varió la finalidad del área sin que la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental emitiera su aprobación con fundamento en los criterios técnicos que corresponden, con lo cual no solo se ha lesionado el derecho al ambiente sino también el principio de legalidad. Finaliza solicitando que se declare con lugar el recurso.

7.- En atención a la audiencia conferida, informa bajo juramento Eduardo Madrigal Castro, en su condición de Secretario General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (folio 113), que el veinte de setiembre del dos mil dos, se presentó a esa Secretaría el Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar acompañado de documentación adicional, asignándosele el número 537-2002. Indica que el proyecto que se presenta es para la "construcción de un borde de protección de 1220 metros de longitud a lo largo de la zona afectada con el fin de igualar la altura de los márgenes y que el río pueda conducir el caudal por su cauce sin desbordamiento hasta su salida al mar"; información que fue suministrada en el Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar. Manifiesta que se solicitó la información necesaria a las instituciones competentes como requisito previo para llevar a cabo la inspección en el sitio, la cual se realizó el diez de octubre del dos mil dos por parte de los funcionarios de Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental. Agrega que el dos de diciembre del dos mil dos, se emitió la resolución No.1171-2002 SETENA por medio de la cual se conoció de la evaluación ambiental preliminar, siendo que posteriormente, en la sesión ordinaria No.48-2002 del veinticinco de noviembre del dos mil dos, artículo No.11, se solicitó la presentación de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental, una declaración jurada de compromisos ambientales, nombrar un responsable ambiental y depositar la suma de trescientos mil colones correspondientes al monto de garantía. Añade que el dieciocho de diciembre del dos mil dos, se recibió la denuncia planteada por el señor Nombre03 en la que manifestó que Bananera La Estrella realizaba una construcción de dique al margen del río, lo que ocasiona desbordamientos y solicitando información sobre si existía algún proyecto a nombre de la denunciada y su aprobación. Indica que el diecinueve de diciembre del dos mil dos, se recibió copia del oficio PC 233-02 del recurrente dirigida al Ing. José Miguel Zeledón, Jefe del Departamento de Aguas del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía. Señala que luego se recibió copia de la denuncia presentada por el recurrente indicando que requerían un informe sobre expedientes, permisos e inspección de campo. Agrega que mediante oficio SG 134-2003 del veinticuatro de enero del dos mil tres, se dio respuesta por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental a varios oficios y se consignó que en esa Secretaría se encuentra el expediente No.523-02 para obras de protección contra las inundaciones de la rivera derecha del río La Estrella con una extensión de aproximadamente cuatrocientos metros y por resolución 1172-02 del dos de diciembre del dos mil dos, se solicitó la presentación de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental en un plazo de dos meses, el nombramiento de un responsable ambiental y el depósito de ciento treinta mil colones de depósito de garantía, sin que a la fecha hayan sido presentados, por lo que ese proyecto no cuenta con la viabilidad ambiental. Manifiesta que el veintiseis de febrero del dos mil tres, se presentó a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental los requisitos solicitados por medio de la resolución No.1171-02 para el expediente No.537-02; luego, el veinticinco de marzo del dos mil tres, se emitió el oficio SG-523-2003 por medio del cual se solicitó corregir el Plan de Gestión Ambiental y cumplir con los puntos 3 y 4 de la resolución 1171-2002. Agrega que mediante oficio SG-845-2003 del treinta de mayo del dos mil tres, en cumplimiento de los requisitos solicitados, se le otorgó la viabilidad ambiental al proyecto "Construcción de Borde de Finca", expediente No.537-02, quedando abierta la etapa de gestión ambiental. Solicita que se desestime toda actuación contra Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental por cuanto se ha actuado conforme a la ley.

8.- Mediante resolución de Magistrado Instructor de las catorce horas un minuto del cinco de agosto del dos mil tres, se le solicitó nuevamente al Secretario Técnico Nacional Ambiental que, en relación con el proyecto denominado "Construcción de Sistema de Tratamiento de Desechos Sólidos Biodegradables mediante Trincheras para banano de rechazo en la Finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito" que se realiza por la empresa Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada (COBAL), indicara si la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental ha tenido algún tipo de participación y si dadas las características particulares del proyecto, se considera indispensable la presentación previa de un estudio de impacto ambiental (folio 209).

9.- En atención a la audiencia conferida informa bajo juramento Eduardo Madrigal Castro, en su condición de Secretario General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (folio 223), que en el caso concreto del proyecto denominado "Construcción de un Sistema de Tratamiento de Desechos Sólidos Biodegradables mediante Trincheras para Banano de Rechazo en la finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito", al día de hoy, de conformidad con la base de datos que se lleva en esa Secretaría, ni la empresa Compañía Bananera Atlántica COBAL, ni ninguna otra empresa, ha presentado solicitud de tramitación de evaluación ambiental alguna para la actividad señalada. Indica que con respecto a si dicha actividad requiere un estudio de impacto ambiental o no, en vista de que esa actividad no se puede clasificar dentro de las enumeradas en los artículos 21 y 22 del Reglamento sobre Procedimientos de la SETENA, no se puede determinar de previo que sea necesario la presentación de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental; sin embargo, ello no necesariamente exime a la actividad de la presentación de ese estudio. Manifiesta que en este caso, a efecto de determinar si dicha actividad requiere o no de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, quien llevará a cabo la misma deberá obligatoriamente, de conformidad con lo señalado en el artículo 17 siguientes y concordantes de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, proceder a la presentación del Formulario de Evaluación Preliminar Ambiental (F.E.A.P.) en esa Secretaría y posteriormente, el proceso de evaluación ambiental preliminar evaluará la actividad y determinará cuál es el instrumento de evaluación que deberá solicitarse, con lo que será ese proceso quien decidirá si se le solicita a la empresa un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental u otro instrumento de evaluación ambiental a efecto de finalizar la evaluación ambiental. Finaliza solicitando que se tenga por emitido este informe.

10.- En documento de folio 225 se apersona Nombre02 en su condición de Gerente General de Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada para indicar que con la copia fiel y exacta que se acompaña de la resolución No.1375-2003-SETENA, se demuestra que es falso que se requiera de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental para que se pueda operar una trinchera de banano como la que pretende llevar a cabo su representada y que ha sido cuestionada por el recurrente con el argumento de que siempre se necesita un estudio de impacto ambiental para esos fines como si se tratara de una receta que no admite excepciones, pues conforme a la resolución de mérito, SETENA exige el cumplimiento de una serie de requisitos que ahí se enlistan pero no se requiere de un estudio de impacto ambiental como lo reclama el recurrente. Indica que los daños e impactos ambientales que el accionante señala que se están produciendo, son inexistentes pues como la trinchera está apenas en proyecto, su representada no la tiene en operación porque todavía no cuenta con las licencias, permisos y autorizaciones correspondientes como siempre se ha hecho conforme al apego a las normas legales y reglamentarias con que siempre han actuado.

11.- En los procedimientos seguidos se han observado las prescripciones legales.

Redacta el Magistrado Volio Echeverría; y,

Considerando:

I.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos: a) que la Dirección Regional Huetar Atlántica del Ministerio de Salud, autorizó el permiso de ubicación del proyecto de "Construcción de un Sistema de Tratamiento de Desechos Sólidos Biodegradables mediante trincheras para banano de rechazo en la Finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito" (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folio 32); b) que mediante oficio RHA-UPAH-069-2003 del seis de marzo del dos mil tres, el Jefe de la Unidad de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Ministerio de Salud autorizó a la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), el reinicio de la construcción del proyecto de trincheras en la finca Surá (folio 13); c) que ante denuncia presentada por el recurrente, el técnico en saneamiento ambiental de la Unidad de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Ministerio de Salud, realizó una inspección en el lugar en donde pudo corroborar que los trabajos realizados en las trincheras de desecho de banano, no fueron técnica ni legalmente realizados, lo que se evidenció por la gran cantidad de plásticos y lixiviados al momento de la inspección, sin que se cuente con estudios técnicos aprobados por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, razón por la cual se solicitó mediante oficio UPAH-155-2003 del veintiuno de mayo del dos mil tres al Director de la Región Huetar Atlántica, que se girara orden sanitaria a fin de que presente un plan de gestión ambiental o bien se le ordene trasladar todo el banano depositado en las trincheras en el relleno sanitario de Limón y disponer a la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), proceder a evitar que los lixiviados que emanan de las trincheras, discurran a las fuentes de agua de la zona con el consiguiente riesgo de contaminación para las aguas superficiales y subterráneas (folio 107); d) que mediante orden sanitaria del diecisiete de junio del dos mil tres, se le indicó a la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) que en vista de que las fosas realizadas para el desecho del banano no cuentan con estudios técnicos aprobados por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y dada la gran cantidad de banano y plástico depositado en el sitio, se le ordenaba depositar los desechos de banano y plástico que había en ese momento en las trincheras, en el relleno sanitario para asi disminuir el daño causado al ambiente y posteriormente cubrir las mismas con tierra y luego reforestar (folio 106); e) que al catorce de agosto del dos mil tres, la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) ni ninguna otra empresa ha presentado solicitud de tramitación de evaluación ambiental alguna en relación con el proyecto denominado "Construcción de un Sistema de Tratamiento de Desechos Sólidos Biodegradables mediante trincheras para banano de rechazo en la Finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito" (ver informe rendido bajo juramento de folio 223); f) que a fin de determinar si la actividad de "Construcción de un Sistema de Tratamiento de Desechos Sólidos Biodegradables mediante trincheras para banano de rechazo en la Finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito" requiere la elaboración de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, se deberá proceder obligatoriamente a presentar un Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar a partir del cual se evaluará la actividad y se determinará cuál es el instrumento de evaluación que deberá solicitarse (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folio 224).

II.- Objeto del recurso. Alega el recurrente que la Dirección Regional de la Región Huetar Atlántica del Ministerio de Salud, autorizó a la Compañía Bananera Atlántica el proyecto de construcción de un sistema de tratamiento de desechos sólidos biodegradables mediante trincheras para banano de rechazo en la Finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito, sin que previamente se hubiera exigido la participación de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y sin que se hayan realizado Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, por lo que, a la fecha, ejecución de ese proyecto está ocasionando serios daños al ambiente, por lo que solicita la intervención de este Tribunal.

III.- Sobre el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Es jurisprudencia estable de esta Sala Constitucional la protección del contenido esencial del derecho de todos los ciudadanos a un ambiente sano. Un ejemplo de esta tesis es la sentencia número 3705-93, en la cual expresó:

"...El ambiente, por lo tanto, debe ser entendido como un potencial de desarrollo para utilizarlo adecuadamente, debiendo actuarse de modo integrado en sus relaciones naturales, socioculturales, tecnológicas y de orden político, ya que, en caso contrario, se degrada su productividad para el presente y el futuro y podría ponerse en riesgo el patrimonio de las generaciones venideras. Los orígenes de los problemas ambientales son complejos y corresponden a una articulación de procesos naturales y sociales en el marco del estilo de desarrollo socioeconómico que adopte el país. Por ejemplo, se producen problemas ambientales cuando las modalidades de explotación de los recursos naturales dan lugar a una degradación de los ecosistemas superior a su capacidad de regeneración, lo que conduce a que amplios sectores de la población resulten perjudicados y se genere un alto costo ambiental y social que redunda en un deterioro de la calidad de vida; pues precisamente el objetivo primordial del uso y protección del ambiente es obtener un desarrollo y evolución favorable al ser humano. La calidad ambiental es un parámetro fundamental de esa calidad de vida; otros parámetros no menos importantes son salud, alimentación, trabajo, vivienda, educación, etc., pero más importante que ello es entender que si bien el hombre tiene el derecho de hacer uso del ambiente para su propio desarrollo, también tiene el deber de protegerlo y preservarlo para el uso de las generaciones presentes y futuras, lo cual no es tan novedoso, porque no es más que la traducción a esta materia, del principio de la "lesión", ya consolidado en el derecho común, en virtud del cual el legítimo ejercicio de un derecho tiene dos límites esenciales: Por un lado, los iguales derechos de los demás y, por el otro, el ejercicio racional y el disfrute útil del derecho mismo." En cuanto a la relación entre el ambiente y el derecho a la salud y la vida, este tribunal ha indica que:

“La inquietud de la Sala por la estabilidad y la armonía ecológica ha sido férrea, pues proteger la naturaleza, que es patrimonio mundial, es también salvaguardar no solo la vida del hombre y su salud, sino también la de la humanidad sobre la tierra, desarrollando de esta forma el contenido, no solo de los convenios internacionales en esa materia, sino también el artículo 21 de nuestra Constitución Política. Esto se pone de manifiesto, directamente, a través de las sentencias dictadas después de la reforma de 1994, del artículo 50 constitucional, y desde antes, por medio de las resoluciones en que, como lo ha dicho la Sala, “el derecho a vivir en un ambiente sano se ha visto como un corolario inevitable del derecho a la salud, que -a su vez- deviene del principio de inviolabilidad de la vida (sentencia N° 5691-98 de las a las diecisiete horas quince minutos del cinco de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y ocho).

Una vez expuesto el criterio de la Sala respecto del tema objeto de este amparo, es menester analizar la actuación de las autoridades participantes en el otorgamiento del permiso a la empresa COBAL y la implicación de esa actuación en el derecho que considera conculcado el accionante.

IV.- Sobre el caso concreto. El Ministerio de Salud, es el órgano al que le corresponde la función esencial de velar por la salud de los habitantes de la República, de conformidad con los artículos 21 de la Constitución, 2° de la Ley General de Salud, y 2° de la Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud; y por ello debe adoptar todas las medidas generales y particulares necesarias para garantizar ese derecho constitucional. Ahora bien, ha sido demostrado en el expediente que el Ministerio de Salud otorgó la empresa COBAL el permiso de ubicación del proyecto de construcción de un sistema de tratamiento de desechos sólidos biodegradables mediante trincheras para banano de rechazo, ubicado en la Finca Surá que está en la cuenca del río Bananito; sin embargo, de los documentos aportados al expediente se comprueba que la empresa Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), además haber obtenido el permiso de ubicación, inició la construcción del proyecto y empezó a depositar los desechos de banano en las diferentes trincheras que se construyeron. Al efecto, consta en el expediente que el Técnico de Saneamiento Ambiental de la Unidad de Protección al Ambiente Humano, realizó, el veintiuno de mayo del dos mil tres una inspección en el sitio en compañía del recurrente y pudo comprobar que había "gran cantidad de lixiviados producto de la gran cantidad de banano depositado en el lugar doscientos cincuenta contenedores aproximadamente" (sic). Además se constató en esa inspección que "los trabajos realizados no fueron técnicamente ni legalmente realizados lo que se evidencia por la gran cantidad de plásticos y lixiviados al momento de la inspección", indicándose también en el informe de inspección que "en relación con las trincheras construidas no mostró estudios de impacto ambiental o de otra índole". En vista de los resultados obtenidos en esa inspección, ese Técnico en Saneamiento Ambiental consigna en el informe rendido (UPAH-155-2003 del veintiuno de mayo del dos mil tres visible en folio 107), que el recurrente en este amparo solicitaba al Director de la Región Huetar Atlántica del Ministerio de Salud que se girara orden sanitaria a la empresa COBAL a fin de que presente un plan de gestión ambiental o en su lugar se le ordene trasladar todo el banano depositado en las trincheras al relleno sanitario de Limón y requerir a la empresa y al propietario de la finca, proceder inmediatamente a evitar que la gran cantidad de lixiviados que emanan de las trincheras, discurran a las fuentes de agua de la zona con el consiguiente riesgo de contaminación para las aguas superficiales y subterráneas. Posterior a la emisión de este documento UPAH-155-2003 del veintiuno de mayo del dos mil tres, el Departamento de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Area Rectora de Limón del Ministerio de Salud, dictó orden sanitaria en la que se dispuso a la Compañía Bananera Atlántica COBAL, depositar los desechos de banano y plástico que hay actualmente en las trincheras, en el relleno sanitario para así disminuir el daño causado al ambiente y luego cubrir las mismas con tierra para posteriormente reforestar.

V.- Ahora bien, a pesar de que en el expediente no constan más actuaciones de parte del Ministerio de Salud ni tampoco se ha podido determinar el estado actual de las trincheras así como el manejo que se le está dando en la actualidad a los desechos de banano de la Compañía Bananera Atlántica, lo cierto del caso es que, según el informe rendido por el Secretario General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, en su dependencia no se ha solicitado la intervención de esa Secretaría para analizar el proyecto al que se refiere el accionante, ello a pesar de que se trata del manejo de desechos y de que el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente es muy claro al establecer que las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, requerirán una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y la aprobación de esta evaluación es requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o proyectos. Partiendo de lo anterior, resulta evidente que por el tipo de proyecto de que se trata (al involucrar el manejo de desechos), el Ministerio de Salud no podía autorizar la instalación de un proceso como el descrito en el caso concreto sin que previamente se contara con la autorización de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental pues su intervención se requería necesariamente a fin de que, previo análisis preliminar, determinara el tipo de instrumento de evaluación que debía presentar la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) en relación con el proyecto propuesto. En ese sentido, no puede olvidarse que el componente de salud es parte integrante fundamental de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y por ello, tanto la intervención del Ministerio de Salud como la de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, debieron ir de la mano. En este sentido, los permisos que otorga el Ministerio de Salud necesariamente son componentes del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y por ello, el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento debe ser otorgado después de que ser aprobado el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, porque ese estudio comprende la ubicación respecto de mantos acuíferos, zonas boscosas, y el procedimiento de manejo de desechos e impacto en el ambiente, entre otros aspectos técnicos y legales. De este modo, una vez que se emite la garantía de cumplimiento, se podrán iniciar las obras que ya contarán con todos los permisos exigidos, para posteriormente verificar que las obras se hayan desarrollado de conformidad con lo establecido en el Estudio de Impacto Ambienta.

El permiso sanitario de funcionamiento que es un subcomponente del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental que es un instrumento más amplio. De este modo, la competencia del Ministerio de Salud complementa las tareas de la SETENA al analizar el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. Recuérdese que en esta materia, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente es de una nrma carácter especial y posterior a la Ley General de Salud, por lo que prevalece sobre ésta. Así las cosas, no puede entenderse que la actuación del Ministerio de Salud y de la SETENA sean independientes y autónomas, sino que el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento debe ser interpretado como una consecuencia del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y de la planificación general del proyecto. La misma tesis es aplicable al permiso de ubicación de obras o de industrias previsto por el artículo 300 de la Ley General de Salud.

A pesar de lo anterior, en el caso concreto una gran parte del proyecto fue construido con la aprobación del Ministerio de Salud y ello, sin duda alguna, es una irregularidad que ocasionó serios daños al ambiente.

VI.- Aún cuando no compete a esta Sala cuestionar los criterios técnicos utilizados por el Ministerio de Salud para otorgar el permiso de ubicación del proyecto sin exigir antes la aprobación por la SETENA del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, y aún cuando se observa que como consecuencia de la denuncia presentada por el recurrente se realizó una inspección al lugar por parte, estima la Sala que la actuación ministerial fue insuficiente para descartar que el proyecto de construcción de un sistema de tratamiento de desechos sólidos biodegradables mediante trincheras para banano de rechazo en la Finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito, pudiera causar -o amenazar con provocar- algún daño al ambiente y a la salud pública. Para la Sala es claro que la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL), por el tipo de actividad que deseaba desarrollar, tenía la obligación de presentar ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, al menos, el Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar para que dicha entidad se pronunciara sobre la viabilidad ambiental de la actividad. De igual manera, tanto de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente como de los diferentes reglamentos de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental se extrae que como requisito para la aprobación de los planos constructivos de cualquier proyecto que pudiera dañar al ambiente, se debe contar previamente con la intervención de Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental. Sin embargo, en el caso concreto, a pesar de tratarse de un proyecto de manejo de desechos, ello no ocurrió así y el Ministerio de Salud a pesar de que debió exigir el cumplimiento de ese requisito de previo a otorgar cualquier permiso, no lo hizo y aún cuando bajo juramento se dice que no se otorgó permiso de construcción ni de funcionamiento, lo cierto del caso es que las obras se iniciaron y al menos una parte de este proyecto empezó a funcionar. Prueba de lo anterior es el mismo informe rendido bajo juramento por el Secretario General de la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (SETENA), según el cual la empresa Compañía Bananera Atlántica ha abierto un con expediente administrativo en relación con el proyecto de "construcción de un sistema de tratamiento de desechos sólidos biodegradables mediante trincheras para banano de rechazo en la Finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito", lo cual significa que la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental no ha ejercido su competencia legal, sobre la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto.

VII.- Así las cosas, es evidente que el Ministerio de Salud permitió la construcción y puesta en práctica de las trincheras de desecho del banano sin que se exigiera el cumplimiento previo de los requisitos sanitarios y ambientales legalmente establecidos para que opere una actividad de la naturaleza que aquí nos ocupa. Posteriormente y a pesar de que las obras ya estaban casi finalizadas, el Ministerio de Salud, con ocasión de la denuncia del recurrente, dictó una orden sanitaria el diecisiete de junio del dos mil tres, precisamente después de la interposición de este recurso, mediante la cual ordenó el traslado de los desechos de banano y plástico al relleno sanitario pero desgraciadamente para este momento, pudiera ser que ya se hubiera ocasionado un daño al ambiente. En ese sentido, considera la Sala que esta exigencia se hizo de manera tardía pues ya, desde antes, se podría haber ocasionado una lesión a los habitantes de la zona y de todo el país al derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, tutelado en los artículos 46 y 50 de la Constitución Política. Aunado a lo anterior, resulta evidente también que la actuación de la Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), en los términos en que se ha dicho, no solo es contraria al ordenamiento jurídico, sino que constituye una lesión al derecho a la salud y al ambiente sano, consagrados en los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política.

Por tanto:

Se declara con lugar el recurso. En consecuencia se ordena la clausura de las trincheras construidas en la Finca Surá ubicada en la cuenca del río Bananito para depositar banano de rechazo. Se condena al Estado y a la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL) al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo y civil, respectivamente. Se advierte a los recurridos que de conformidad con el artículo 71 de la Ley de esta jurisdicción, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Notifíquese personalmente a la presente resolución al Director Regional de la Región Huetar Atlántica del Ministerio de Salud y al representante legal de la Compañía Bananera Atlántica (COBAL).

Luis Fernando Solano C.

Adrián Vargas B. Gilbert Armijo S.

Fernando Cruz C. Rosa María Abdelnour G.

Federico Sosto L. Fabián Volio E.