Amparo Against Pacuare Hydroelectric Project Denied as Premature and GenericAmparo contra el Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare denegado por prematuro y genérico

Res. No. 2006-001917 **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at ten hours and twelve minutes on the seventeenth of February of two thousand six.

Amparo action filed by Nombre01, of legal age, unmarried, student, identification card number CED01, against the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity, the Minister of Environment and Energy, and SETENA.- **Whereas:** **1.-** By document received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 13:05 hrs. on January 17, 2005, the appellant claims that despite the resounding opposition of the inhabitants of the areas of Los Mollejones, Tres Equis, Turrialba, Siquirres, Matina, Orosi, and Paraíso, the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity intends to carry out a Hydroelectric Project on the Pacuare River; given the negative impact of the project's execution in the area, the inhabitants should have the possibility of participating in a plebiscite; however, no means of participatory democracy has been applied; should the project be carried out, in addition to the irremediable environmental loss, it would mean the sacrifice of a river considered one of the five best for the practice of rafting, which has brought significant income to the country due to the number of tourists; the river's fauna would also be affected, because every time the floodgates were opened the fish would die from the impact; there are studies that show that the death of fish and the creation of sediment from the management of the dam will also endanger the leatherback turtle (tortuga baula) and the coral reefs where the Pacuare River empties; the indigenous populations living on the riverbanks are also harmed, but they too are not given a say in the decision-making process; with the foregoing, in addition to being accused of violating the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, Convention 169 signed by the country with the International Labour Organization is violated. The appellant requests that ICE be ordered to withdraw from the project and that SETENA be ordered not to authorize the construction of large hydroelectric projects and to promote electricity generation alternatives that do not damage the environment (pp. 1 to 3).- **2.-** The Minister of Environment and Energy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, reports that the administrative file for the so-called Pacuare Hydroelectric Project began its processing in 1997, and it was not until September 10 and 13, 2004, that complaints and oppositions in this regard were received; there is no record with MINAE or SETENA of the existence of the signs and banners to which the appellant refers; the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution are true, in the sense that every citizen has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and in development of that precept, the Organic Environmental Law was enacted, which clearly demarcates the competencies in environmental matters; he cites Articles 6, 22, 23, and 24 of that Law and points out that, more specifically, the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures outlines the guidelines to be followed to effectively protect citizen participation; Chapter VI of that Regulation, called "Mechanisms to be heard by SETENA," is included, and he transcribes its most important articles on the matter (55, 56, 57, and 58). The Minister states that for SETENA, projects such as the Pacuare one require a public hearing. At the time the report was rendered, the final act has not been issued, and the hearing may still be held. The action anticipates events and assumes that SETENA will not hold it. What is stated in the third point is irrelevant, as it has no relation to the Pacuare Hydroelectric Project. The methodological and theoretical instruments in the current state are more complex than those used at the time the Angostura Hydroelectric Project was approved, so it is inappropriate to try to require that the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) of a project currently be done in the same way as a decade ago. The possible environmental damage or loss that the Project would cause is under evaluation by SETENA, and only upon completion of the evaluation procedure can it be determined whether the activity is environmentally viable. The project's effect on rafting activity is one of the elements to be taken into account and will be determined by a duly reasoned resolution, which will be communicated to all parties. Regarding the impact on fauna, but not limited to fish and the leatherback turtle (tortuga baula), these will also be analyzed. If the appellant provides the corresponding studies, they will be included in the environmental assessment. Regarding the impact on indigenous reserves, it is reiterated that the environmental assessment has not yet been completed, and this point is fundamental; SETENA will not issue the final act without considering that aspect, which must comply with the existing regulations related to the rights of our indigenous brothers, which will all be respected. Regarding the eighth point, he indicates that it is irrelevant for resolving the action, and, regarding the ninth, he invites the appellant and any interested party to submit observations and oppositions to the Project. Both MINAE and SETENA have acted within what their legal competencies indicate, and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) has not been finalized (pp. 29 to 34).- **3.-** Because the Executive President of ICE, Eng. Pablo Cob Saborío, was out of the country, the institution's General Judicial Attorney, Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, renders the report, stating that at all times ICE has arranged, as institutional policy and in the development of its projects, to bring greater and better information to the involved communities, to make them participants in the actions that must be carried out. In relation to the Pacuare Project, such actions have been verified, and there are population groups that support the project and others that do not, which has forced, internally, the deployment of a coordination strategy to clarify and inform in the best possible way the aspects and details of the project, to clarify doubts and comments, always hand in hand with the communities and the public bodies involved with the project, including SETENA. He clarifies that there is no resounding opposition to the Project, but rather, as is usual in these cases, there are population groups that have expressed their point of view both for and against the project, which aims to provide a public service to the entire community. The plant would be located in the canton of Turrialba, not in other localities. He indicates that ICE has maintained and will continue to maintain close relationship and coordination with the control and oversight bodies to satisfy the requirements and elements of judgment necessary for compliance with the procedures required by our legal system. It is true that some people have installed the signs and banners indicated, and it is also true that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as recognized by Article 50 of the Constitution, which ICE will guarantee not only to the inhabitants of the areas surrounding the work but to the entire community. In this regard, the Board of Directors of ICE approved the Environmental Management Guidelines, under which the various works to be executed will be developed, establishing as a principle the execution of electrical development works within a framework of sustainable development, with an attitude of protection and rational management of natural resources, for which it will be a priority at all stages to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the environmental impacts caused. The Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant is no exception to these guidelines. ICE prepared, through the company MeRida, the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), presented to SETENA in October 1997, where it was assigned administrative file number 118-97. To date, that authority has not ruled on the merits of the matter, despite the various efforts that have been made in this regard. As of today, it is feasible that the content of that environmental study is outdated, given the time elapsed and the different stages that have had to be carried out. ICE is willing to update it, if deemed appropriate. Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law indicates that approval of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) by SETENA is an indispensable requirement to begin the activities, works, or projects that require such evaluation. ICE has not started any work, has not caused any damage to the environment, nor does that possibility exist; he affirms that the action lacks any logical, legal, and factual support and that there is a lack of current interest, nor is there a threat to the environment so that the preventive or precautionary principle can be applied, as indicated in Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law. It will be SETENA, the body that will decide if the works that ICE intends to carry out alter or destroy elements of the environment and whether or not the construction of the Project can proceed. He states that it is not true that institutional engineers decide, from their desks, the type of development the country needs; the studies are carried out in the field, according to the prevailing reality, by multidisciplinary teams and with the collaboration of private organizations with extensive knowledge of the subject. The construction and development process of a hydroelectric plant takes a long time, from ten to fifteen years; first, pre-feasibility studies are carried out; then, feasibility studies, which include technical, environmental, legal, economic, and financial aspects. Finally, its financing and construction is carried out, which can take about five years. It is not just any person, without any knowledge, who can decide whether a work has grounds to be carried out. Regarding the possibility that neighbors of the affected areas have the opportunity to participate in a plebiscite, he states that Article 22 of the Organic Environmental Law, when referring to the evaluation of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), provides that natural or legal persons, public or private, shall have the right to be heard by SETENA, at any stage of the evaluation process and in the operational phase of the work, in the manner provided in Article 55 of the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures. In the present case, it is the competence of SETENA to convene the project's neighbors to a public hearing, in which arguments for and against the project are presented, for which ICE reiterates that all necessary information for those hearings will be made available. It is not true that environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) were presented for the construction of the Angostura Plant, whose construction began in 1993, before the approval of the Organic Environmental Law; however, ICE carried out the corresponding study and environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental). It is not true that there will be an irremediable environmental loss due to the construction of the Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant; the environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) are at the evaluation stage by SETENA, this, without prejudice to the necessary updating. SETENA has not determined that the environmental loss referred to by the appellant exists; there is no doubt that the Pacuare River has an important status worldwide for the practice of rafting, a topic that has been one of the most important aspects addressed in the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) submitted to SETENA, in which the mitigation and compensation of the effects that the construction of the work may produce are studied. The Pacuare River is divided into four sectors for the practice of rafting; the section most used by tourism agencies is sector four, which will not be affected by the construction of the plant. In addition, a permanent flow is guaranteed throughout the year for the practice of rafting or canoeing (piragüismo), which does not currently occur, as floods can be very large or there may be little water for these sports. Due to the civil design and the magnitude of the reservoir, the opening of dam floodgates during the operation phase for sediment cleaning is not contemplated; the volume of the reservoir allows them to be absorbed, as occurs in Arenal, so there will be no impact on fish that concerns the appellant. He states that ICE has never acted, nor will it act, against Convention 169 of the ILO; ICE has not had any participation in the dispossession of lands that indigenous people have suffered, and ICE has not implemented any hydroelectric project in indigenous territories. While it is true that there are alternative sources for electricity generation, hydroelectricity is the most abundant and has the greatest economically exploitable potential; wind energy is intermittent because it operates only when there is enough wind, at certain times of the year, and is still limited to smaller contributions, requiring additional backup plants; solar energy still has many technological and economic limitations, which is why it is considered a complement on a small scale. ICE has been installing solar panels in places where it is impossible to bring utility poles and electrical wiring, mostly in territories inhabited by indigenous communities (pp. 35 to 43).- of January 17, 2005, the petitioner claims that despite the resounding opposition of the residents of the areas of los Mollejones, Tres Equis, Turrialba, Siquirres, Matina, Orosi, and Paraíso, the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad intends to carry out a Hydroelectric Project on the Río Pacuare; given the negative impact of the execution of such a project in the area, the residents should have the possibility of participating in a plebiscite, however, no means of participatory democracy has been applied; if the project were to be carried out, in addition to the irremediable environmental loss, it would mean the sacrifice of a river considered one of the five best for rafting, which has brought significant income to the country due to the number of tourists; the river's fauna would also be affected, because every time the floodgates were opened the fish would die battered; there are studies that show that the death of fish and the creation of sediments from the management of the dam will also endanger the leatherback turtle (tortuga baula) and the coral reefs where the Río Pacuare flows into the sea; the indigenous populations living on the riverbanks are harmed, but they are also not included in decision-making; with the foregoing, in addition to being accused of violating the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitución Política, Convention 169 signed by the country with the International Labour Organization is violated. The petitioner seeks that ICE be ordered to desist from the project and that SETENA be ordered not to authorize the construction of large hydroelectric projects and to promote electricity generation alternatives that do not harm the environment (pages 1 to 3).- **2.-** The Minister of Environment and Energy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, reports that the administrative file on the so-called Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare began its processing in 1997 and it was not until September 10 and 13, 2004, that complaints and oppositions regarding it were received; the existence of the signs and banners to which the petitioner refers is not recorded at MINAE or SETENA; the provision of Article 50 of the Constitution is true, in the sense that every citizen has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and in development of that precept, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente was enacted, in which environmental competencies are clearly demarcated; he cites articles 6, 22, 23, and 24 of that Law and points out that more specifically, the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) outlines the guidelines to follow to effectively protect citizen participation; Chapter VI of that Regulation is included, called "Mecanismos para ser escuchados por la SETENA" and he transcribes its most important articles on this matter (55, 56, 57, and 58). The Minister states that for SETENA, projects like the Pacuare one require a public hearing (audiencia pública) to be held. At the time of rendering the report, the final act has not been issued and the hearing can still be held. The appeal jumps ahead of events and takes for granted that SETENA will not hold it. What is stated in the third point, which is unrelated to the Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare, lacks relevance. The methodological and theoretical instruments in the current state are of greater complexity than those used at the time the Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Angostura was approved, so it is inappropriate to attempt to have the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) of a project currently be done in the same way as a decade ago. The possible environmental damage or loss that the Project would cause is under evaluation by SETENA and only upon the conclusion of the evaluation procedure can it be determined if the activity has environmental viability. The effect of the project on rafting activity is one of the elements to be taken into account and will be determined by means of a duly reasoned resolution, which will be communicated to all parties. Regarding the impact on fauna, but not limited to fish and the leatherback turtle (tortuga baula), these will also be analyzed. If the petitioner provides the corresponding studies, they will be included in the environmental impact assessment (evaluación ambiental). Regarding the impact on indigenous reserves, it is reiterated that the environmental impact assessment (evaluación ambiental) has not yet been concluded and this point is fundamental; SETENA will not issue the final act without considering this extreme, which must conform to the existing regulations related to the rights of our indigenous brothers, all of which will be respected. Regarding the eighth point, he indicates it is irrelevant to resolving the appeal and, with respect to the ninth, he invites the petitioner and any interested party to submit observations and oppositions to the Project. Both MINAE and SETENA have acted within what their legal competencies indicate and the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) has not concluded (pages 29 to 34).- **3.-** Due to the Executive President of ICE, Engineer Pablo Cob Saborío, being out of the country, the institution's general judicial attorney, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, renders the report, who states that at all times ICE has had, as an institutional policy and in the development of its projects, the goal of bringing more and better information to the communities involved, to make them participants in the actions that must be carried out. In relation to the Pacuare Project, this type of action has been verified and there are population groups that support the project and others that do not, which has required, internally, the deployment of a coordination strategy to clarify and inform in the best possible way the aspects and details of the project, to clear up doubts and comments, always hand in hand with the communities and the public bodies involved with the project, including SETENA. He clarifies that there is no resounding opposition to the Project, but rather, as is usual in these cases, there are population groups that have expressed their point of view both for and against the project, which aims to provide a public service to the entire community. The plant would be located in the canton of Turrialba, not in other localities. He indicates that ICE has maintained and will continue to maintain a close relationship and coordination with the control and oversight bodies to satisfy the requirements and elements of judgment necessary for the fulfillment of the procedures required by our legal system. It is true that some people have installed the signs and banners indicated and it is also true that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as recognized by Article 50 of the Constitution, which ICE will guarantee not only to the residents of the areas surrounding the work but to the entire community. In this regard, the Board of Directors (Consejo Directivo) of ICE approved the Environmental Management Guidelines (Lineamientos de Gestión Ambiental), under which the various works that are executed will be developed, establishing as a principle the execution of electrical development works within a framework of sustainable development, with an attitude of protection and rational management of natural resources, for which it will be a priority at all stages to avoid, minimize, or compensate the environmental impacts caused. The Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant is no exception to these guidelines. ICE prepared, through the company MeRida, the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), submitted to SETENA in October 1997, to which the administrative file number 118-97 was assigned. To date, that authority has not ruled on the merits of the matter, despite the various efforts that have been formulated in this regard. As of today, it is feasible that the content of that environmental study is outdated, given the time elapsed and the different stages that have had to be carried out. ICE is willing to update it, if deemed convenient. Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente indicates that the approval of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) by SETENA is an indispensable requirement to begin the activities, works, or projects that require such evaluation. ICE has not started any works, it has not caused any damage to the environment, nor does that possibility exist; he affirms that the appeal lacks all logical, legal, and factual support and that there is a lack of current interest, nor is there a threat to the environment so that the preventive or precautionary principle (principio preventivo o precautorio) could be applied, as indicated in Article 11 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad. SETENA will be the body that will decide if the works that ICE intends to carry out alter or destroy elements of the environment and if the construction of the Project can be carried out or not. He states that it is not true that institutional engineers decide, from their desks, the type of development the country needs; the studies are carried out in the field, according to the prevailing reality, by multidisciplinary teams and with the collaboration of private organizations, with extensive knowledge of the matter. The construction and development process of a hydroelectric plant takes a long time, from ten to fifteen years; first, pre-feasibility studies are carried out; then, feasibility studies, which include technical, environmental, legal, economic, and financial aspects. Finally, its financing and construction are carried out, which can take about five years. It is not just any person, without any knowledge, who can decide if a work has a basis to be carried out. Regarding the possibility that the neighbors of the affected areas have the opportunity to participate in a plebiscite, he states that Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, when referring to the evaluation of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), provides that individuals or legal entities, public or private, shall have the right to be heard by SETENA, at any stage of the evaluation process and in the operational phase of the work, in the manner provided in Article 55 of the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. In the present case, it is the competence of SETENA to convene the neighbors of the project to a public hearing (audiencia pública), in which the arguments for and against the project are presented, for which ICE reiterates that all the necessary information for those hearings be made available. It is not true that environmental impact studies were presented for the construction of the Angostura Plant, whose construction began in 1993, before the approval of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; however, ICE carried out the corresponding environmental impact study and evaluation (estudio y evaluación de impacto ambiental). It is not true that there is an irremediable environmental loss due to the construction of the Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant being carried out; the environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) are in the evaluation stage by SETENA, without prejudice to the necessary update. SETENA has not determined that the environmental loss referred to by the petitioner exists; there is no doubt that the Río Pacuare has an important status, at a global level, for the practice of rafting, a topic that has been one of the most important aspects addressed in the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) presented to SETENA, in which the mitigation and compensation of the effects that the construction of the work may produce are studied. The Río Pacuare is divided into four sectors for the practice of rafting; the section most used by tourism agencies is sector four, which will not be affected by the construction of the plant. In addition, a permanent flow (caudal permanente) is guaranteed throughout the entire year for the practice of rafting or kayaking, which does not currently occur, since the floods can be very large or there may be little water for these sports. Due to the civil design and the magnitude of the reservoir (embalse), the opening of dam floodgates in the operation phase is not contemplated for sediment cleaning; the volume of the reservoir (embalse) allows them to be absorbed, as occurs in Arenal, so there will be no impact on fish that concerns the petitioner. He states that ICE has never acted nor will it act against Convention 169 of the ILO; ICE has had no participation in the dispossession of lands that indigenous people have suffered and ICE has not implemented any hydroelectric project in indigenous territories. While it is true that there are alternative sources for electricity generation, hydroelectricity is the most abundant and has the greatest economically exploitable potential; wind energy (energía eólica) is intermittent in nature, because it only operates when there is enough wind, at certain times of the year, and is still limited to smaller contributions and requires additional backup plants; solar energy (energía solar) still has many technological and economic limitations, which is why it is considered a small-scale complement. ICE has been installing solar panels in sites where it is impossible to bring utility poles and electrical wiring, mostly in territories inhabited by indigenous communities (pages 35 to 43).- **4.-** In a brief received on March 5, 2005, Flora Fernández Amón requests to be considered a coadjuvant and makes general statements about negative impacts on the environment, as well as the displacement of indigenous and other populations (pages 60 to 62).- **5.-** In a brief received on March 8, 2005, the Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad ratifies the report rendered in his place by the general judicial attorney of ICE, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, as he was then out of the country, and states that by resolution number 490-2005 of SETENA at 14:20 hrs. on March 7, 2005, the administrative file corresponding to the Pacuare hydroelectric project was archived, therefore the amparo lacks current interest (pages 64 to 66).- **6.-** In a brief received on March 9, 2005, Nombre02 requests to be considered a coadjuvant (page 79).- **7.-** In a brief received on March 29, 2005 (page 82), the Secretary of the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) of Paraíso de Cartago, Ana Rosa Ramírez Bonilla, reports that the Council has given a vote of support to the petitioner's efforts.- **8.-** In the procedures followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.- Magistrate **Armijo Sancho** writes; and, **Considering:** **I.-** The petitioner seeks that ICE be ordered to desist from the Pacuare hydroelectric project and that SETENA be ordered not to authorize the construction of large hydroelectric projects, in addition to promoting electricity generation alternatives that do not harm the environment. He generically indicates the presumed negative impact on the environment, the harm to indigenous populations, and also complains that participation has not been given to the interested parties in the process and that before carrying out a project of this nature, a plebiscite should be convened.

**II.-** Each hydroelectric project must meet the requirements derived from the Constitution and from international instruments for environmental protection, and only to the extent that it fails to meet them, can it be determined through the amparo proceeding that it violates or threatens to violate the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, the petitioner's claims—to order ICE to desist from the Pacuare hydroelectric project and SETENA not to authorize the construction of large hydroelectric projects—are manifestly improper, insofar as it is not proven that this specific project fails to meet the constitutional requirements, just as it is not proven that hydroelectric projects, in general, violate the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, to seek a generic interdiction of these infrastructures, as the petitioner intends. Nor is it for this Chamber to order the promotion of alternative sources such as wind energy (energía eólica) or solar energy (energía solar), whose efficiency and operability are the responsibility of the technical bodies.

**III.-** According to the report rendered under oath by the Minister of Environment and Energy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, the administrative file on the so-called Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare began its processing in 1997 and it was not until September 10 and 13, 2004, that complaints and oppositions regarding it were received; the existence of the signs and banners to which the petitioner refers is not recorded at MINAE or SETENA; the provision of Article 50 of the Constitution is true, in the sense that every citizen has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and in development of that precept, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente was enacted, in which environmental competencies are clearly demarcated; he cites articles 6, 22, 23, and 24 of that Law and points out that more specifically, the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) outlines the guidelines to follow to effectively protect citizen participation in its articles 55, 56, 57, and 58; for SETENA, projects like the Pacuare one require a public hearing (audiencia pública) to be held, but at the time of rendering the report, the file is in progress and the hearing has not yet been convened; only upon the conclusion of the evaluation procedure can it be determined if the activity has environmental viability. The effect of the project on rafting activity is one of the elements to be taken into account and will be determined by means of a duly reasoned resolution, which will be communicated to all parties; the same occurs regarding the impact on fauna, not limited to fish and the leatherback turtle (tortuga baula). Regarding the impact on indigenous reserves, he reiterates that the environmental impact assessment (evaluación ambiental) has not yet been concluded and that aspect is fundamental; SETENA will not issue the final act without considering this extreme, which must conform to the existing regulations related to the rights of indigenous peoples (pages 29 to 34).

**IV.-** According to the report rendered under oath by the institution's general judicial attorney, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, ICE has had, as an institutional policy and in the development of its projects, the goal of bringing more and better information to the communities involved, to make them participants in the actions that must be carried out; in relation to the Pacuare Project, this type of action has been verified and there are population groups that support the project and others that do not, which has required the deployment of a coordination strategy to clarify and inform in the best possible way the aspects and details of the project, to clear up doubts and comments, always hand in hand with the communities and the public bodies involved with the project, including SETENA. He indicates that ICE has maintained and will continue to maintain a close relationship and coordination with the control and oversight bodies to satisfy the requirements and elements of judgment necessary for the fulfillment of the procedures required by our legal system. Some people have installed the signs and banners indicated and it is also true that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as recognized by Article 50 of the Constitution, which ICE will guarantee not only to the residents of the areas surrounding the work but to the entire community. In this regard, the Board of Directors (Consejo Directivo) of ICE approved the Environmental Management Guidelines (Lineamientos de Gestión Ambiental), under which the various works that are executed will be developed, establishing as a principle the execution of electrical development works within a framework of sustainable development, with an attitude of protection and rational management of natural resources, for which it will be a priority at all stages to avoid, minimize, or compensate the environmental impacts caused. The Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant is no exception to these guidelines. ICE prepared, through the company MeRida, the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), submitted to SETENA in October 1997, to which the administrative file number 118-97 was assigned; it is feasible that the content of that environmental study is outdated, given the time elapsed and the different stages that have had to be carried out. ICE is willing to update it, if deemed convenient. Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente indicates that the approval of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) by SETENA is an indispensable requirement to begin the activities, works, or projects that require such evaluation. ICE has not started any works, it has not caused any damage to the environment, nor does that possibility exist (pages 35 to 43).- **V.-** At the time the amparo was filed, the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) of the Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare was in the study phase by the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental, the competent body to evaluate the aspects indicated by the petitioner, according to technical and scientific criteria; there is the possibility of convening hearings, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, which, when referring to the evaluation of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), provides that individuals or legal entities, public or private, have the right to be heard by SETENA, at any stage of the evaluation process and in the operational phase of the work, in the manner provided in Article 55 of the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental; although the project was presented back in 1997, it was not until September and October 2004 that oppositions were filed, and the petitioner jumps ahead to assume that SETENA will not convene the neighbors and interested parties to formulate their claims in this regard (pages 29 to 34). But, in addition, by resolution number 490-2005 of SETENA at 14:20 hrs. on March 7, 2005, the administrative file corresponding to the Pacuare hydroelectric project was archived.- **VI.-** Neither by SETENA nor by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad does this Chamber find any violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner nor, specifically, of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The mere fact that ICE intends to carry out a hydroelectric project does not constitute a threat or any violation of fundamental rights; it is an initiative that must follow its course of approvals, whose environmental viability was just in the hands of SETENA, which has archived the file for considering that procedural nullities have been incurred.

**VII.-** Regarding citizen participation, there is no act by the respondents denying that participation, and given that when the appeal was filed, the study and evaluation of the project was in progress, that right cannot be considered threatened by the fact that SETENA had not yet convened hearings with the interested parties.

**VIII.-** Regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, the appeal also does not substantiate which rights nor in what way they are threatened by the existence of the Pacuare hydroelectric project. The approval of this project must incorporate the examination of its impact on indigenous populations, to which it must provide specific participation, in accordance with Convention number 169 of the ILO.- **IX.-** As stated in judgment Nº 2004-01923 at 14:55 hours on February 25, 2004:

*“One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle or principle of prudent avoidance (principio precautorio o de evitación prudente). This principle is contained in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally states "Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation". In the domestic legal system, the Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, includes as hermeneutical parameters the following principles: "1.- Preventive criterion (Criterio preventivo): It is recognized that it is of vital importance to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2.- Precautionary criterion or in dubio pro natura (Criterios precautorio o in dubio pro natura): When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures". In Vote No. 1250-99 of this Chamber at 11:24 hours on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Votes Nos. 9773-00 at 9:44 hours on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 at 16:32 hours on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 at 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003), this Court considered the following: “(...) Prevention aims to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid containing the possible impact on the environment or people's health. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage—or a doubt about it—a precautionary measure must be adopted and even postpone the activity in question. This is because in environmental matters, subsequent coercion is ineffective, since if the socially harmful biological consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment”. Subsequently, in Vote No. 3480-03 at 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, this Court indicated that “Properly understood, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of facts generating risk, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will effectively produce harmful effects on the environment”,* but there is nothing in the file, apart from the generic statements of the petitioner and coadjuvants, no reason or factual basis to consider that, by virtue of the precautionary principles (principios precautorios) or "in dubio pro natura", measures should be adopted, for the moment, by this Chamber, in any direction, in relation to the Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare, insofar as it is a project whose environmental viability file has been archived by SETENA.- **Therefore:** The appeal is declared without merit.- Luis Fernando Solano C.

President Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Teresita Rodríguez A.

Rosa María Abdelnour G. Jorge Araya G.

The appellant seeks an order for ICE to desist from the Pacuare hydroelectric project and for SETENA not to authorize the construction of large hydroelectric projects, and furthermore, that alternatives for electricity generation that do not harm the environment be promoted. He generally points to the presumed negative impact on the environment, the harm to indigenous populations, and also claims that interested parties have not been given participation in the process and that, before carrying out a project of this nature, a plebiscite should be called.

Each hydroelectric project must meet the requirements derived from the Constitution and from international instruments for environmental protection, and only to the extent that it fails to meet them can it be determined, through an amparo action, that it violates or threatens to violate the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, the appellant's claims—that ICE be ordered to desist from the Pacuare hydroelectric project and SETENA be ordered not to authorize the construction of large hydroelectric projects—are manifestly improper, insofar as it is not proven that this specific project fails to comply with constitutional requirements, nor is it proven that hydroelectric projects in general violate the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which would warrant a generic prohibition of such infrastructure, as the appellant seeks. Nor is it for this Chamber to order that alternative sources such as wind or solar energy be promoted, as their efficiency and operability are matters for technical bodies.

According to the report rendered under oath by the Minister of Environment and Energy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, the administrative file on the so-called Pacuare Hydroelectric Project began processing in 1997, and it was not until September 10 and 13, 2004, that complaints and oppositions were received in this regard; neither MINAE nor SETENA have any record of the signs and banners to which the appellant refers; what is set forth in Article 50 of the Constitution is true, in the sense that every citizen has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and in development of that precept, the Environmental Organic Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) was enacted, which clearly demarcates environmental competencies; he cites Articles 6, 22, 23, and 24 of that Law and notes that, more specifically, the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures (Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) sets forth the guidelines to effectively protect citizen participation in its Articles 55, 56, 57, and 58; for SETENA, projects such as Pacuare require a public hearing, but at the time the report was rendered, the file was ongoing and the hearing had not yet been called; only upon concluding the evaluation procedure can it be determined whether the activity is environmentally viable. The effect of the project on rafting activity is one of the elements to be considered and will be determined through a duly reasoned resolution, which will be communicated to all parties; the same applies regarding the impact on fauna, not limited to fish and the leatherback turtle (tortuga baula). Regarding the impact on indigenous reserves, he reiterates that the environmental evaluation has not yet been concluded, and this aspect is fundamental; SETENA will not issue the final act without considering this point, which must conform to existing regulations related to the rights of indigenous peoples (fols. 29 to 34).

According to the report rendered under oath by the institution’s general judicial representative, Attorney Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, ICE has established, as an institutional policy and in the development of its projects, to provide more and better information to the communities involved, to make them participants in the actions to be carried out; regarding the Pacuare Project, such actions have been verified, and there are population groups that support the project and others that do not, which has necessitated deploying a coordination strategy to clarify and inform, in the best possible way, the aspects and details of the project, to clear up doubts and comments, always in coordination with the communities and the public bodies involved in the project, including SETENA. He indicates that ICE has maintained and will continue to maintain a close relationship and coordination with control and oversight bodies to satisfy the requirements and elements of judgment necessary to comply with the procedures required by our legal system. Some people have installed the signs and banners mentioned, and it is also true that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as recognized by Article 50 of the Constitution, which ICE will guarantee not only to the inhabitants of the areas surrounding the works but to the entire community. In this regard, the ICE Board of Directors approved the Environmental Management Guidelines (Lineamientos de Gestión Ambiental), under which the various works executed will be developed, establishing as a principle that electricity development works be carried out within a framework of sustainable development, in an attitude of protection and rational management of natural resources, for which it will be a priority at all stages to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the environmental impacts caused. The Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant is no exception to these guidelines. ICE prepared, through the company MeRida, the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental, EIA), submitted to SETENA in October 1997, to which administrative file number 118-97 was assigned; it is feasible that the content of this environmental study is outdated, given the time elapsed and the different stages that have had to be completed. ICE is willing to update it, if deemed appropriate. Article 17 of the Environmental Organic Law states that the approval of the environmental impact assessment by SETENA is an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works, or projects requiring such evaluation. ICE has not initiated any work, has not caused any damage to the environment, nor does such a possibility exist. (fols. 35 to 43).- At the time the amparo action was filed, the environmental impact assessment for the Pacuare Hydroelectric Project was under study by the Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Ambiental), the competent body to evaluate the aspects indicated by the appellant, according to technical and scientific criteria; there is the possibility of calling hearings, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article 22 of the Environmental Organic Law, which, when referring to the evaluation of the environmental impact assessment, provides that individuals or legal entities, public or private, have the right to be heard by SETENA, at any stage of the evaluation process and during the operational phase of the work, in the manner set forth in Article 55 of the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures; although the project was submitted in 1997, it was not until September and October 2004 that oppositions were filed, and the appellant anticipates that SETENA will not call upon residents and interested parties to formulate their claims in this regard (fols. 29 to 34). However, by resolution number 490-2005 of SETENA, issued at 14:20 on March 7, 2005, the administrative file corresponding to the Pacuare hydroelectric project was archived.- This Chamber finds no violation by either SETENA or the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad) of the appellant's fundamental rights, nor specifically of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The mere fact that ICE intends to carry out a hydroelectric project does not constitute a threat or any violation of fundamental rights; it is an initiative that must follow its course of approvals, the environmental viability of which was still in the hands of SETENA, which has archived the file, considering that procedural nullities have occurred.

As regards citizen participation, there is no act on the part of the respondents denying such participation, and given that, when the appeal was filed, the study and evaluation of the project were underway, that right cannot be considered threatened by the fact that SETENA had not yet called hearings with interested parties.

Concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, the appeal also fails to substantiate either which rights or in what way they are threatened by the existence of the Pacuare hydroelectric project. The approval of this project must incorporate an examination of its impact on the indigenous populations, to whom specific participation must be granted, in accordance with ILO Convention No. 169.- As stated in ruling No. 2004-01923 of 14:55 on February 25, 2004:

*“One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) or principle of prudent avoidance. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally states “Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” In domestic law, the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad) (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, incorporates the following hermeneutic parameters: “1.- Preventive criterion: It is recognized that it is of vital importance to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2.- Precautionary criterion or in dubio pro natura: When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures.” In Ruling No. 1250-99 of 11:24 on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Rulings Nos. 9773-00 of 9:44 on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 of 16:32 on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 of 14:14 on July 3, 2003), this Court held the following: “(...) Prevention seeks to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid or contain the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. Thus, in the event of a risk of serious or irreversible damage—or any doubt in this regard—a precautionary measure must be adopted, and even the activity in question postponed. The foregoing is because, in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, since if biologically and socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance but will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment.” Subsequently, in Ruling No. 3480-03 of 14:02 on May 2, 2003, this Court indicated that “Properly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of the facts generating risk, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will indeed produce harmful effects on the environment.”* However, apart from the generic statements of the appellant and coadjuvants, there is nothing in the file—no reason or factual basis—to consider that, by virtue of the precautionary or “in dubio pro natura” principles, measures must be adopted at this time by this Chamber in any direction regarding the Pacuare Hydroelectric Project, insofar as it is a project whose environmental viability file has been archived by SETENA.- 1 a 3).- **2.-** The Minister of Environment and Energy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, reports that the administrative file on the so-called Pacuare Hydroelectric Project began its processing in 1997, but it was not until September 10 and 13, 2004, that complaints and oppositions regarding it were received; there is no record at MINAE or SETENA of the existence of the signs and banners referred to by the petitioner; what is provided in Article 50 of the Constitution is true, in the sense that every citizen has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and in development of that precept, the Organic Environmental Law was enacted, in which environmental competences are clearly demarcated; he cites Articles 6, 22, 23, and 24 of that Law and points out that, more specifically, the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) Procedures sets forth the guidelines to follow to effectively protect citizen participation; that Regulation includes Chapter VI, called “Mechanisms to be Heard by SETENA,” and he transcribes its most important articles on the matter (55, 56, 57, and 58). The Minister states that for SETENA, projects such as Pacuare require holding a public hearing. At the time the report was rendered, the final act had not been issued, and holding the hearing was still possible. The appeal jumps ahead of events and assumes that SETENA will not hold it. What is indicated in the third point, which has no relation to the Pacuare Hydroelectric Project, lacks relevance. The methodological and theoretical instruments in the current state are of greater complexity than those used at the time the Angostura Hydroelectric Project was approved; therefore, it is improper to claim that the environmental assessment of a project currently should be done in the same way as a decade ago. The possible environmental damage or loss that the Project would cause is under evaluation by SETENA, and only upon finalizing the evaluation procedure can it be determined if the activity has environmental viability. The effect of the project on rafting activity is one of the elements to take into account and will be determined by means of a duly reasoned resolution, which will be communicated to all parties. As for the impact on fauna, but not limited to fish and the leatherback turtle (tortuga baula), these will also be analyzed. If the petitioner provides the corresponding studies, they will be included in the EIA. Regarding the impact on indigenous reserves, it is reiterated that the EIA has not yet been concluded, and that point is fundamental; SETENA will not issue the final act without considering that extreme, which must conform to existing regulations related to the rights of our indigenous brothers, all of which will be respected. Regarding the eighth point, he indicates that it is irrelevant for resolving the appeal, and, with respect to the ninth, he invites the petitioner and any interested party to submit observations and oppositions to the Project. Both MINAE and SETENA have acted within their legal competences, and the EIA has not been finalized (pages 29 to 34).- **3.-** Because the Executive President of ICE, Eng. Pablo Cob Saborío, was out of the country, the institution's general judicial attorney-in-fact, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, renders the report, stating that at all times ICE has arranged, as an institutional policy and in the development of its projects, to bring more and better information to the involved communities, to make them participants in the actions that must be carried out. In relation to the Pacuare Project, such actions have been verified, and there are population groups that support the project and others that do not, which has required, internally, deploying a coordination strategy to clarify and inform, in the best possible way, the aspects and details of the project, to clear up doubts and comments, always hand in hand with the communities and the public bodies involved with the project, including SETENA. He clarifies that there is no categorical opposition to the Project, but rather that, as is usual in these cases, there are population groups that have expressed their point of view both for and against the project, which aims to provide a public service to the entire community. The plant would be located in the canton of Turrialba, not in other localities. He indicates that ICE has maintained and will continue to maintain a close relationship and coordination with the control and oversight bodies to satisfy the requirements and elements of judgment necessary for the fulfillment of the procedures demanded by our legal system. It is true that some people have installed the signs and banners indicated, and it is also true that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as recognized by Article 50 of the Constitution, which ICE will guarantee not only to the residents of the areas surrounding the work but to the entire community. In this regard, the Board of Directors of ICE approved the Environmental Management Guidelines, under which the various works to be executed will be developed, and it is established as a principle the execution of electric development works within a framework of sustainable development, with an attitude of protection and rational management of natural resources, for which it will be a priority in all stages to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the environmental impacts caused. The Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant is no exception to these guidelines. ICE prepared, through the company MeRida, the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), submitted to SETENA in October 1997, to which administrative file number 118-97 was assigned. To date, that authority has not ruled on the merits of the matter, despite the various efforts that have been made in this regard. As of today, it is feasible that the content of that environmental study is outdated, given the time elapsed and the different stages that have had to take place. ICE is willing to update it, if it is deemed appropriate. Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law indicates that the approval of the environmental impact study by SETENA is an indispensable requirement to initiate activities, works, or projects that require such evaluation. ICE has not initiated any work, has caused no damage whatsoever to the environment, nor does that possibility exist; he states that the appeal lacks all logical, legal, and factual support, and that there is a lack of current interest, nor is there a threat to the environment such that the preventive or precautionary principle could be applied, as indicated by Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law. It will be SETENA, the body that will decide if the works ICE intends to carry out alter or destroy elements of the environment and whether or not the construction of the Project can proceed. He states that it is not true that institutional engineers decide, from their desks, the type of development the country needs; studies are carried out in the field, in accordance with the prevailing reality, by multidisciplinary teams and with the collaboration of private organizations with broad knowledge of the matter. The construction and development process of a hydroelectric plant takes a long time, from ten to fifteen years; first, pre-feasibility studies are carried out; then, feasibility studies, which include technical, environmental, legal, economic, and financial aspects. Finally, its financing and construction are carried out, which can take about five years. It is not just any person, without any knowledge, who can decide whether a project has a basis to be carried out or not. Regarding the possibility for the neighbors of the affected areas to have the opportunity to participate in a plebiscite, he states that Article 22 of the Organic Environmental Law, when referring to the evaluation of the environmental impact study, provides that individuals or legal entities, public or private, have the right to be heard by SETENA, at any stage of the evaluation process and in the operational phase of the work, in the manner provided in Article 55 of the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures. In the present case, it is SETENA's competence to convene the project's neighbors to a public hearing, in which arguments for and against the project would be presented, for which ICE reiterates that it will provide all the necessary information for those hearings. It is not true that environmental impact studies were presented for the construction of the Angostura Plant, whose construction began in 1993, before the approval of the Organic Environmental Law; however, ICE carried out the corresponding environmental impact study and evaluation. It is not true that there is an irremediable environmental loss due to the construction of the Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant; the environmental impact studies are in the evaluation stage by SETENA, without prejudice to the necessary update. SETENA has not determined that the environmental loss referred to by the petitioner exists; there is no doubt that the Pacuare River has an important worldwide status for the practice of rafting, a topic that has been one of the most important aspects addressed in the environmental impact study submitted to SETENA, in which the mitigation and compensation of the effects that the construction of the work may produce are studied. The Pacuare River is divided into four sectors for the practice of rafting; the section most used by tourism agencies is sector four, which will not be affected by the construction of the plant. In addition, a permanent flow throughout the year is guaranteed for the practice of rafting or kayaking, which does not currently occur, since floods can be very large or there may be little water for these sports. Due to the civil design and the magnitude of the reservoir, the opening of dam floodgates during the operation phase for the cleaning of sediments is not contemplated; the volume of the reservoir allows absorbing them, as occurs in Arenal, so there will be no impact on fish that worries the petitioner. He states that ICE has never acted nor will it act against ILO Convention 169; ICE has had no participation whatsoever in the dispossession of lands suffered by indigenous peoples, and ICE has not implemented any hydroelectric project in indigenous territories. While it is true that there are alternative sources for electricity generation, hydropower is the most abundant and has the greatest economically exploitable potential; wind energy is intermittent in nature, because it operates only when there is sufficient wind, at certain times of the year, and is still limited to smaller shares and requires additional backup plants; solar energy still has many technological and economic limitations, which is why it is considered a small-scale complement. ICE has been installing solar panels in sites where it is impossible to bring utility poles and electrical wiring, mostly in territories inhabited by indigenous communities (pages 35 to 43).- **4.-** In a brief received on March 5, 2005, Flora Fernández Amón requests to be considered a coadjuvant and makes general statements regarding negative impacts on the environment, as well as the displacement of indigenous populations and others (pages 60 to 62).- **5.-** In a brief received on March 8, 2005, the Executive President of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute ratifies the report rendered in his place by ICE’s general judicial attorney-in-fact, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, because he was out of the country at that time, and states that by SETENA resolution number 490-2005, of 14:20 on March 7, 2005, the administrative file corresponding to the Pacuare hydroelectric project was archived, so the amparo lacks current interest (pages 64 to 66).- **6.-** In a brief received on March 9, 2005, Nombre02 requests to be considered a coadjuvant (page 79).- **7.-** In a brief received on March 29, 2005 (page 82), the Secretary of the Municipal Council of Paraíso de Cartago, Ana Rosa Ramírez Bonilla, reports that the Council has issued a vote of support for the petitioner’s efforts.- **8.-** The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings followed.- Drafted by Judge **Armijo Sancho**; and, **Considering:** **I.-** The petitioner seeks to order ICE to desist from the Pacuare hydroelectric project, and SETENA not to authorize the construction of large hydroelectric projects, in addition to promoting alternatives for electricity generation that do not harm the environment. He generically points out the presumed negative impact on the environment, the harm to indigenous populations, and, furthermore, claims that interested parties have not been given participation in the process and that, before undertaking a project of this nature, a plebiscite should be convened.

**II.-** Each hydroelectric project must meet the requirements derived from the Constitution and international instruments for environmental protection, and only to the extent that it fails to meet them, through the amparo proceeding, can it be determined that it violates or threatens to violate the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For this reason, the petitioner's claims —that ICE be ordered to desist from the Pacuare hydroelectric project and that SETENA not authorize the construction of large hydroelectric projects— are manifestly improper, insofar as it is not proven that this specific project fails to meet constitutional requirements, nor is it proven that hydroelectric projects, in general, violate the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, in order to seek a generic prohibition of those infrastructures, as the petitioner intends. It is also not for this Chamber to order the promotion of alternative sources such as wind or solar energy, whose efficiency and operability correspond to the technical bodies.

**III.-** According to the report rendered under oath by the Minister of Environment and Energy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, the administrative file on the so-called Pacuare Hydroelectric Project began its processing in 1997, and it was not until September 10 and 13, 2004, that complaints and oppositions regarding it were received; there is no record at MINAE or SETENA of the existence of the signs and banners referred to by the petitioner; what is provided in Article 50 of the Constitution is true, in the sense that every citizen has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and in development of that precept, the Organic Environmental Law was enacted, in which environmental competences are clearly demarcated; he cites Articles 6, 22, 23, and 24 of that Law and points out that, more specifically, the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures sets forth, in its Articles 55, 56, 57, and 58, the guidelines to follow to effectively protect citizen participation; for SETENA, projects such as Pacuare require holding a public hearing, but at the time the report was rendered, the file is in progress and the hearing has not yet been convened; only upon finalizing the evaluation procedure can it be determined if the activity has environmental viability. The effect of the project on rafting activity is one of the elements to take into account and will be determined by means of a duly reasoned resolution, which will be communicated to all parties; the same applies to the impact on fauna, not limited to fish and the leatherback turtle. As for the impact on indigenous reserves, he reiterates that the environmental evaluation has not yet been concluded, and that aspect is fundamental; SETENA will not issue the final act without considering that extreme, which must conform to existing regulations related to the rights of indigenous peoples (pages 29 to 34).

**IV.-** According to the report rendered under oath by the institution's general judicial attorney-in-fact, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, ICE has arranged, as an institutional policy and in the development of its projects, to bring more and better information to the involved communities, to make them participants in the actions that must be carried out; in relation to the Pacuare Project, such actions have been verified, and there are population groups that support the project and others that do not, which has required deploying a coordination strategy to clarify and inform, in the best possible way, the aspects and details of the project, to clear up doubts and comments, always hand in hand with the communities and the public bodies involved with the project, including SETENA. He indicates that ICE has maintained and will continue to maintain a close relationship and coordination with the control and oversight bodies to satisfy the requirements and elements of judgment necessary for the fulfillment of the procedures demanded by our legal system. Some people have installed the signs and banners indicated, and it is also true that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as recognized by Article 50 of the Constitution, which ICE will guarantee not only to the residents of the areas surrounding the work but to the entire community. In this regard, the Board of Directors of ICE approved the Environmental Management Guidelines, under which the various works to be executed will be developed, and it is established as a principle the execution of electric development works within a framework of sustainable development, with an attitude of protection and rational management of natural resources, for which it will be a priority in all stages to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the environmental impacts caused. The Pacuare Hydroelectric Plant is no exception to these guidelines. ICE prepared, through the company MeRida, the environmental impact study, submitted to SETENA in October 1997, to which administrative file number 118-97 was assigned; it is feasible that the content of that environmental study is outdated, given the time elapsed and the different stages that have had to take place. ICE is willing to update it, if it is deemed appropriate. Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law indicates that the approval of the environmental impact study by SETENA is an indispensable requirement to initiate activities, works, or projects that require such evaluation. ICE has not initiated any work, has caused no damage whatsoever to the environment, nor does that possibility exist. (pages 35 to 43).- **V.-** At the time the amparo was filed, the environmental impact study of the Pacuare Hydroelectric Project was in the review phase by the Technical Environmental Secretariat, the competent body to evaluate the aspects indicated by the petitioner, according to technical and scientific criteria; there is the possibility of convening hearings, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Article 22 of the Organic Environmental Law, which, when referring to the evaluation of the environmental impact study, provides that individuals or legal entities, public or private, have the right to be heard by SETENA, in any stage of the evaluation process and in the operational phase of the work, in the manner provided in Article 55 of the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures; although the project was presented in 1997, oppositions were not filed until September and October 2004, and the petitioner jumps ahead to claim that SETENA will not convene neighbors and interested parties to formulate their claims in this regard (pages 29 to 34). But, in addition, by SETENA resolution number 490-2005, of 14:20 on March 7, 2005, the administrative file corresponding to the Pacuare hydroelectric project was archived.- **VI.-** Neither on the part of SETENA nor the Costa Rican Electricity Institute does this Chamber find any violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights, nor specifically of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The mere fact that ICE intends to carry out a hydroelectric project does not constitute a threat or any violation of fundamental rights; it is an initiative that must follow its approval path, whose environmental viability was only in the hands of SETENA, which has archived the file because it considers that procedural nullities have been incurred.

**VII.-** Regarding citizen participation, there is no act by the respondents denying such participation, and, given that at the time the appeal was filed, the study and evaluation of the project were in progress, that right can also not be considered threatened by the fact that SETENA had not yet convened hearings with the interested parties.

**VIII.-** Regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, the appeal also fails to substantiate which rights or in what way they are threatened by the existence of the Pacuare hydroelectric project. The approval of this project must incorporate the examination of its impact on indigenous populations, to which it must provide specific participation, in accordance with ILO Convention Number 169.- **IX.-** As stated in Judgment No. 2004-01923 of 14:55 hours on February 25, 2004:

*“One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle or prudential avoidance. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally states: “Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” In domestic legal order, the Biodiversity Law (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, adopts the following principles as hermeneutical parameters: “1. Preventive criterion: It is recognized that it is of vital importance to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2. Precautionary criterion or in dubio pro natura: When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures.” In Ruling 1250-99 of 11:24 hours on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Rulings 9773-00 of 9:44 hours on November 3, 2000; 1711-01 of 16:32 hours on February 27, 2001; and 6322-03 of 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003), this Court considered the following: “(...) Prevention seeks to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid or contain the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. In this way, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage—or any doubt in this regard—a precautionary measure must be adopted and even the activity in question must be postponed. The foregoing is because in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, since if the socially harmful biological consequences have already occurred, repression may have a moral transcendence but will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment.” Subsequently, in Ruling 3480-03 of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, this Court indicated that “Properly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will effectively produce harmful effects on the environment.”*, but there is nothing in the file, apart from the generic statements of the petitioner and coadjuvants, no reason nor factual basis to consider that, by virtue of the precautionary principles or “in dubio pro natura,” measures must be adopted, for the moment, by this Chamber, in any sense, in relation to the Pacuare Hydroelectric Project, insofar as it is a project whose environmental viability file has been archived by SETENA.- **Therefore:** The appeal is dismissed.- Luis Fernando Solano C. President Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Teresita Rodríguez A.

Rosa María Abdelnour G. Jorge Araya G.

*050003420007CO* *050003420007CO* Res. Nº 2006-001917 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas y doce minutos del diecisiete de febrero del dos mil seis.

Recurso de amparo interpuesto por Nombre01, mayor, soltero, estudiante, cédula número CED01, contra el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, el Ministro de Ambiente y Energía y la SETENA.-

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 13:05 hrs. de 17 de enero de 2005, el recurrente reclama que pese a la rotunda oposición de los pobladores de las zonas de los Mollejones, Tres Equis, Turrialba, Siquirres, Matina, Orosi y Paraíso, el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad pretende llevar a cabo un Proyecto Hidroeléctrico en el Río Pacuare; dada la incidencia negativa de la ejecución de tal proyecto en la zona, los pobladores deberían tener la posibilidad de participar en un plebiscito, sin embargo, no se ha aplicado ningún medio de democracia participativa; en caso de realizarse el proyecto, además de la irremediable pérdida ambiental, significaría el sacrificio de un río considerado uno de los cinco mejores para la práctica del rafting, que ha traído ingresos importantes al país por la cantidad de turistas; se vería afectada, además la fauna del río, porque cada vez que se abrirían las compuertas los peces morirían golpeados; existen estudios que ponen en evidencia que la muerte de peces y la creación de sedimentos por el manejo de la represa también pondrán en peligro a la tortuga baula y los arrecifes de coral donde desemboca el Río Pacuare; se perjudica a las poblaciones indígenas que viven en las riberas del río, pero tampoco a ellos se les participa en la toma de decisiones; con lo anterior, acusado además de violarse lo preceptuado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, se vulnera el Convenio 169 suscrito por el país con la Organización Internacional del Trabajo. El recurrente pretende que se ordene al ICE desistir del proyecto y a la SETENA que no autorice la construcción de grandes proyectos hidroeléctricos y se propicien alternativas de generación eléctrica que no dañen el ambiente (fs. 1 a 3).- 2.- El Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, informa que el expediente administrativo sobre el denominado Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare inició su tramitación en 1997 no es sino hasta el 10 y 13 de setiembre de 2004 que se reciben quejas y oposiciones al respecto; no consta a MINAE ni a la SETENA la existencia de los rótulos y mantas a que hace referencia el recurrente; es cierto lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución, en el sentido de que todo ciudadano tiene el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y en desarrollo de ese precepto, se promulgó la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, en la cual se demarcan claramente las competencias en materia ambiental; cita los artículos 6, 22, 23, y 24 de esa Ley y señala que de manera más específica, el Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) señala las pautas a seguir para proteger de manera efectiva la participación ciudadana; se incluye en ese Reglamento el Capítulo VI, denominado “Mecanismos para ser escuchados por la SETENA” y transcribe sus artículos más importantes sobre el particular (55, 56, 57 y 58). El Ministro manifiesta que para la SETENA, proyectos como el de Pacuare, requieren la realización de una audiencia pública. Al momento de rendirse el informe, no se ha dictado el acto final y aún es posible la realización de la audiencia. El recurso se adelanta a los sucesos y da por hecho que la SETENA no va a realizarla. Carece de relevancia lo señalado en el punto tercero, que no tiene relación con el Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare. Los instrumentos metodológicos y teóricos en el estado actual son de mayor complejidad que los utilizados en la época en que se aprobó el Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Angostura, por lo que es improcedente pretender que la evaluación ambiental de un proyecto, actualmente, se haga en igual forma que hace una década. El posible daño o pérdida ambiental que ocasionaría el Proyecto se encuentra bajo la evaluación de la SETENA y solamente al finalizar el procedimiento de evaluación podrá determinarse si la actividad tiene viabilidad ambiental. El efecto del proyecto sobre la actividad del rafting es uno de los elementos a tomar en cuenta y se determinará mediante resolución debidamente fundamentada, que se comunicará a todas las partes. En cuanto a la afectación de la fauna, pero no limitado a los peces y la tortuga baula, también serán analizados. De ser aportados por el recurrente los estudios correspondientes, serán incluidos en la evaluación ambiental. En cuanto a la afectación de reservas indígenas, se reitera que aún no se ha concluido la evaluación ambiental y ese punto es fundamental; la SETENA no emitirá el acto final sin considerar ese extremo, que deberá ajustarse a la normativa existente relacionada con los derechos de nuestros hermanos indígenas los cuales serán todos respetados. En cuanto al punto octavo señala que resulta irrelevante para resolver el recurso y, con respecto al noveno, invita al recurrente y a cualquier interesado a presentar observaciones y oposiciones al Proyecto. Tanto el MINAE como la SETENA han actuado dentro de lo que sus competencias legales señalan y la evaluación de impacto ambiental no ha finalizado (fs. 29 a 34).- 3.- Por encontrarse fuera del país el Presidente Ejecutivo del ICE, Ing. Pablo Cob Saborío, rinde el informe el apoderado general judicial de la institución, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, quien manifiesta que en todo momento el ICE ha dispuesto, como política institucional y en el desarrollo de sus proyectos, llevar mayor y mejor información a las comunidades involucradas, para hacerlas partícipes de las acciones que deban realizarse. Con relación al Proyecto Pacuare se han verificado esa clase de acciones y hay grupos de población que apoyan el proyecto y otros que no lo hacen, lo cual ha obligado, a lo interno, a desplegar una estrategia de coordinación para clarificar e informar de la mejor forma posible los aspectos y detalles del proyecto, aclarar dudas y comentarios, siempre de la mano con las comunidades y los órganos públicos involucrados con el proyecto, entre ellos, con la SETENA. Aclara que no existe una oposición rotunda al Proyecto, sino que, como es usual en estos casos, hay grupos de población que han manifestado su punto de vista tanto a favor como en contra del proyecto, que tiende a brindar un servicio público a toda la colectividad. La planta se ubicaría en el cantón de Turrialba, no en otras localidades. Indica que el ICE ha mantenido y seguirá manteniendo estrecha relación y coordinación con los órganos de control y fiscalización para satisfacer los requisitos y elementos de juicio necesarios para el cumplimiento de los trámites que exige nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Es cierto que algunas personas han instalado los rótulos y mantas que se indican y también es cierto que toda persona tiene derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, como lo reconoce el artículo 50 constitucional, lo cual garantizará el ICE no solo a los pobladores de las áreas circundantes a la obra sino a toda la colectividad. Al respecto, el Consejo Directivo del ICE aprobó los Lineamientos de Gestión Ambiental, bajo los cuales se desarrollarán las diversas obras que se ejecuten y se establece como principio la ejecución de las obras de desarrollo eléctrico dentro de un marco de desarrollo sostenible, en actitud de protección y manejo racional de los recursos naturales, para lo cual será prioritario en todas las etapas evitar, minimizar o compensar los impactos ambientales ocasionados. La Planta Hidroeléctrica de Pacuare no es la excepción a esos lineamientos. El ICE elaboró, a través de la empresa MeRida el estudio de impacto ambiental, presentado a la SETENA en octubre de 1997, en la que se le asignó el expediente administrativo número 118-97. Hasta el momento, esa autoridad no se ha pronunciado en cuanto al fondo del asunto, a pesar de las diversas gestiones que han formulado al respecto. A la fecha, es factible que el contenido de ese estudio ambiental se encuentre desactualizado, dado el tiempo transcurrido y las diferentes etapas que se han tenido que realizar. El ICE está dispuesto a actualizarlo, si se considera conveniente. El artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente indica que la aprobación del estudio de impacto ambiental por parte de la SETENA es un requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o proyectos que requieran esa evaluación. El ICE no ha iniciado ninguna obra, no han producido daño alguno al ambiente ni existe esa posibilidad; afirma que el recurso carece de todo sustento lógico jurídico y factico y que existe falta de interés actual, tampoco hay una amenaza al ambiente para que se pueda aplicar el principio preventivo o precautorio, tal como lo señala el artículo 11 de la Ley de la Biodiversidad. Será la SETENA el órgano que decidirá si las obras que pretende realizar el ICE alteran o destruyen elementos del ambiente y si se puede o no llevar a cabo la construcción del Proyecto. Manifiesta que no es cierto que los ingenieros institucionales deciden, desde su escritorio, el tipo de desarrollo que necesita el país; los estudios se realizan en el campo, de acuerdo con la realidad imperante, por equipos multidisciplinarios y con la colaboración de organismos privados, con amplio conocimiento de la materia. La construcción y el proceso de desarrollo de una planta hidroeléctrica toma mucho tiempo, de diez a quince años; primero se llevan a cabo estudios de prefactibilidad; luego, de factibilidad, dentro de la cual se incluye la técnica, ambiental, jurídica, económica y financiera. Finalmente, se lleva a cabo su financiamiento y construcción, que puede abarcar unos cinco años. No es cualquier persona, sin ningún conocimiento, la que puede decidir si una obra tiene o no asidero para llevarse a cabo. En cuanto a la posibilidad de que los vecinos de las zonas afectas tengan la oportunidad de participar en un plebiscito, manifiesta que el artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, al referirse a la evaluación del estudio de impacto ambiental dispone que las personas físicas o jurídicas, públicas o privadas, tendrán derecho a ser escuchadas por la SETENA, en cualquier etapa del proceso de evaluación y en la fase operativa de la obra, en la forma dispuesta en el artículo 55 del Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. En el presente caso, es competencia de la SETENA la convocatoria de los vecinos del proyecto a una audiencia pública, en la cual se expongan los argumentos a favor y en contra del proyecto, para lo que el ICE reitera que se disponga de toda la información necesaria para esas audiencias. No es cierto que para la construcción de la Planta de Angostura se hayan presentado estudios de impacto ambiental, cuya construcción se inició en 1993, antes de la aprobación de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, sin embargo, el ICE realizó el correspondiente estudio y evaluación de impacto ambiental. No es cierto que exista una irremediable pérdida ambiental por el hecho de que se lleve a cabo la construcción de la Planta Hidroeléctrica de Pacuare; los estudios de impacto ambiental se encuentran en etapa de evaluación por parte de SETENA, esto, sin perjuicio, de la necesaria actualización. La SETENA no ha determinado que exista la pérdida ambiental a que se refiere el recurrente; no cabe duda de que río Pacuare tiene un importante status, a nivel mundial, para la práctica del rafting, tema que ha sido uno de los aspectos más importantes abordados en el estudio de impacto ambiental presentado a la SETENA, en el cual se estudia la mitigación y compensación de los efectos que pueda producir la construcción de la obra. El río Pacuare se divide en cuatro sectores para la práctica del rafting; el tramo más utilizado por las agencias de turismo es el sector cuatro, que no será afectado por la construcción de la planta. Además, se le garantiza un caudal permanente a lo largo de todo el año, para la práctica del rafting o piragüismo, lo que no ocurre actualmente, ya que las crecidas pueden ser muy grandes o puede existir poco agua para esos deportes. Por el diseño civil y la magnitud del embalse, no se contempla la apertura de compuertas de la represa en la fase de operación, para la limpieza de sedimentos; el volumen del embalse permite absorberlos, como ocurre en Arenal, por lo que no habrá la afectación de peces que preocupa al recurrente. Manifiesta que el ICE nunca ha actuado ni lo hará en contra del Convenio 169 de la OIT; en el despojo de las tierras que han sufrido los indígenas el ICE no ha tenido participación alguna y el ICE no ha implementado ningún proyecto hidroeléctrico en territorios indígenas. Si bien es cierto que existen fuentes alternativas para la generación eléctrica, la hidroelectricidad es la más abundante y con mayor potencial económicamente explotable; la energía eólica tiene carácter intermitente, porque opera solo cuando hay suficiente viento, en ciertas épocas del año y todavía está limitada a participaciones menores y requiere plantas de respaldo adicionales; la energía solar tiene aún muchas limitaciones tecnológicas y económicas, motivo por el cual es considerada como complemento a pequeña escala. El ICE ha venido instalando paneles solares en sitios en los cuales se imposibilita llevar postería y cableado eléctrico, en su mayoría, se trata de territorios habitados por comunidades indígenas (fs. 35 a 43).- 4.- En escrito recibido el 5 de marzo de 2005, Flora Fernández Amón solicita que se le tenga como coadyuvante y formula manifestaciones en forma general sobre impactos negativos para el ambiente, así como el desplazamiento de poblaciones indígenas y otras (f. 60 a 62).- 5.- En escrito recibido el 8 de marzo de 2005, el Presidente Ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad ratifica el informe rendido en su lugar por el apoderado general judicial del ICE, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, por encontrarse entonces fuera del país y manifiesta que por resolución número 490-2005 de la SETENA de 14:20 hrs. de 7 de marzo de 2005, se archivó el expediente administrativo correspondiente a proyecto hidroeléctrico Pacuare, por lo que el amparo carece de interés actual (fs. 64 a 66).- 6.- En escrito recibido el 9 de marzo de 2005, Nombre02 solicita que se tenga como coadyuvante (f. 79).- 7.- En escrito recibido el 29 de marzo de 2005 (f. 82) la Secretaria del Concejo Municipal de Paraíso de Cartago, Ana Rosa Ramírez Bonilla, informa que el Concejo ha dado un voto de apoyo a las gestiones del recurrente.- 8.- En los procedimientos seguidos se han observado las prescripciones legales.- Redacta el Magistrado Armijo Sancho; y,

Considerando:

I.- El recurrente pretende que se ordene al ICE desistir del proyecto hidroeléctrico Pacuare y a la SETENA que no autorice la construcción de grandes proyectos hidroeléctricos, además de que se propicien alternativas de generación eléctrica que no dañen el ambiente. Señala en forma genérica el presunto impacto negativo en el ambiente, el perjuicio para las poblaciones indígenas y, además, reclama que no se ha dado participación a los interesados en el proceso y antes de llevarse a cabo un proyecto de esa naturaleza debería convocarse a un plebiscito.

II.- Cada proyecto hidroeléctrico debe cumplir las exigencias derivadas de la Constitución y de los instrumentos internacionales para la protección del ambiente y sólo en la medida en que no las cumpla, en la vía del amparo puede determinarse que viola o amenaza violar el derecho fundamental al medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Por eso, las pretensiones del recurrente -de que se ordene al ICE desistir del proyecto hidroeléctrico Pacuare y a la SETENA de no autorizar la construcción de grandes proyectos hidroeléctricos-, son manifiestamente improcedentes, en la medida en que no se acredita que ese proyecto, en concreto, incumpla las exigencias constitucionales, como tampoco se acredita que los proyectos hidroeléctricos, en general, violan el derecho fundamental al medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, para pretender una interdicción genérica de esas infraestructuras, como lo pretende el recurrente. Tampoco corresponde a esta Sala disponer que se propicien fuentes alternativas como la energía eólica o la solar, cuya eficiencia y operatividad corresponde a los órganos técnicos.

III.- Según el informe rendido bajo la fe del juramento por el Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, el expediente administrativo sobre el denominado Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare inició su tramitación en 1997 y no fue sino hasta el 10 y 13 de setiembre de 2004 que se recibieron quejas y oposiciones al respecto; no consta a MINAE ni a la SETENA la existencia de los rótulos y mantas a que hace referencia el recurrente; es cierto lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución, en el sentido de que todo ciudadano tiene el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y en desarrollo de ese precepto, se promulgó la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, en la cual se demarcan claramente las competencias en materia ambiental; cita los artículos 6, 22, 23, y 24 de esa Ley y señala que de manera más específica, el Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) señala las pautas a seguir para proteger de manera efectiva la participación ciudadana en sus artículos 55, 56, 57 y 58; para la SETENA, proyectos como el de Pacuare, requieren la realización de una audiencia pública, pero al momento de rendirse el informe, el expediente está en curso y aún no se ha convocado a la audiencia; solamente al finalizar el procedimiento de evaluación podrá determinarse si la actividad tiene viabilidad ambiental. El efecto del proyecto sobre la actividad del rafting es uno de los elementos a tomar en cuenta y se determinará mediante resolución debidamente fundamentada, que se comunicará a todas las partes; lo mismo ocurre En cuanto a la afectación de la fauna, no limitada a los peces y la tortuga baula. En cuanto a la afectación de reservas indígenas, reitera que aún no se ha concluido la evaluación ambiental y ese aspecto es fundamental; la SETENA no emitirá el acto final sin considerar ese extremo, que deberá ajustarse a la normativa existente relacionada con los derechos de los pueblos indígenas (fs. 29 a 34).

IV.- Según el informe rendido bajo la fe del juramento por el apoderado general judicial de la institución, Lic. Geovanni Bonilla Goldoni, el ICE ha dispuesto, como política institucional y en el desarrollo de sus proyectos, llevar mayor y mejor información a las comunidades involucradas, para hacerlas partícipes de las acciones que deban realizarse; con relación al Proyecto Pacuare se han verificado esa clase de acciones y hay grupos de población que apoyan el proyecto y otros que no lo hacen, lo cual ha obligado a desplegar una estrategia de coordinación para clarificar e informar de la mejor forma posible los aspectos y detalles del proyecto, aclarar dudas y comentarios, siempre de la mano con las comunidades y los órganos públicos involucrados con el proyecto, entre ellos, con la SETENA. Indica que el ICE ha mantenido y seguirá manteniendo estrecha relación y coordinación con los órganos de control y fiscalización para satisfacer los requisitos y elementos de juicio necesarios para el cumplimiento de los trámites que exige nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Algunas personas han instalado los rótulos y mantas que se indican y también es cierto que toda persona tiene derecho a un ambiente sano ye ecológicamente equilibrado, como lo reconoce el artículo 50 constitucional, lo cual garantizará el ICE no solo a los pobladores de las áreas circundantes a la obra sino a toda la colectividad. Al respecto, el Consejo Directivo del ICE aprobó los Lineamientos de Gestión Ambiental, bajo los cuales se desarrollarán las diversas obras que se ejecuten y se establece como principio la ejecución de las obras de desarrollo eléctrico dentro de un marco de desarrollo sostenible, en actitud de protección y manejo racional de los recursos naturales, para lo cual será prioritario en todas las etapas evitar, minimizar o compensar los impactos ambientales ocasionados. La Planta Hidroeléctrica de Pacuare no es la excepción a esos lineamientos. El ICE elaboró, a través de la empresa MeRida el estudio de impacto ambiental, presentado a la SETENA en octubre de 1997, en la que se le asignó el expediente administrativo número 118-97; es factible que el contenido de ese estudio ambiental se encuentre desactualizado, dado el tiempo transcurrido y las diferentes etapas que se han tenido que realizar. El ICE está dispuesto a actualizarlo, si se considera conveniente. El artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente indica que la aprobación del estudio de impacto ambiental por parte de la SETENA es un requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o proyectos que requieran esa evaluación. El ICE no ha iniciado ninguna obra, no han producido daño alguno al ambiente ni existe esa posibilidad. (fs. 35 a 43).- V.- Al momento de interponerse el amparo, el estudio de impacto ambiental del Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare se encontraba en fase de estudio por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental, órgano competente para evaluar los aspectos señalados por el recurrente, de acuerdo con criterios técnicos y científicos; existe la posibilidad de convocar a audiencias, de conformidad con los procedimientos previstos el artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, el cual, al referirse a la evaluación del estudio de impacto ambiental dispone que las personas físicas o jurídicas, públicas o privadas, tienen derecho a ser escuchadas por la SETENA, en cualquier etapa del proceso de evaluación y en la fase operativa de la obra, en la forma dispuesta en el artículo 55 del Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental; aunque el proyecto se presentó desde 1997, no ha sido sino hasta setiembre y octubre de 2004 que se presentaron oposiciones y el recurrente adelanta que la SETENA no hará convocatoria a los vecinos e interesados para formular sus pretensiones al respecto (fs. 29 a 34). Pero, además, por resolución número 490-2005 de la SETENA de 14:20 hrs. de 7 de marzo de 2005, se archivó el expediente administrativo correspondiente a proyecto hidroeléctrico Pacuare.- VI.- Ni por parte de la SETENA ni del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, encuentra esta Sala vulneración alguna de los derechos fundamentales del recurrente ni, específicamente, del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. El mero hecho de que el ICE pretenda llevar a cabo un proyecto hidroeléctrico no constituye amenaza ni violación alguna de los derechos fundamentales; se trata de una iniciativa que debe seguir su curso de aprobaciones, cuya viabilidad ambiental apenas estaba en manos de la SETENA, que ha archivado el expediente por considerar que se ha incurrido en nulidades procesales.

VII.- En lo que toca a la participación ciudadana, no hay por parte de los recurridos ningún acto denegatorio de esa participación y, dado que al interponerse el recurso el estudio y evaluación del proyecto estaba en curso, tampoco puede considerarse amenazado ese derecho por el hecho de que la SETENA todavía no hubiera convocado a las audiencias con los interesados.

VIII.- En cuanto a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, el recurso tampoco fundamenta ni cuáles derechos ni en qué forma son amenazados por la existencia del proyecto hidroeléctrico de Pacuare. La aprobación de este proyecto deberá incorporar el examen de su incidencia en las poblaciones indígenas a las cuales deberá brindarles participación específica, de conformidad con el Convenio número 169 de la OIT.- IX.- Como se dijo en la sentencia Nº 2004-01923 de las 14:55 horas del 25 de febrero del 2004:

“Uno de los principios rectores del Derecho Ambiental lo constituye el precautorio o de evitación prudente. Este principio se encuentra recogido en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo o Declaración de Río, la cual literalmente indica “Principio 15.- Con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente, los Estados deberán aplicar ampliamente el criterio de precaución conforme a sus capacidades. Cuando haya peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente”. En el ordenamiento jurídico interno la Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 del 30 de abril de 1998), en su artículo 11 recoge como parámetros hermenéuticos los siguientes principios: “1.- Criterio preventivo: Se reconoce que es de vital importancia anticipar, prevenir y atacar las causas de la pérdida de biodiversidad o sus amenazas. 2.- Criterios precautorio o in dubio pro natura: Cuando exista peligro o amenaza de daños graves o inminentes a los elementos de la biodiversidad y al conocimiento asociado con estos, la ausencia de certeza científica no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces de protección”. En el Voto de esta Sala No. 1250-99 de las 11:24 horas del 19 de febrero de 1999 (reiterado en los Votos Nos. 9773-00 de las 9:44 horas del 3 de noviembre del 2000, 1711-01 de las 16:32 horas del 27 de febrero del 2001 y 6322-03 de las 14:14 horas del 3 de julio del 2003) este Tribunal estimó lo siguiente: “(...) La prevención pretende anticiparse a los efectos negativos, y asegurar la protección, conservación y adecuada gestión de los recursos. Consecuentemente, el principio rector de prevención se fundamenta en la necesidad de tomar y asumir todas las medidas precautorias para evitar contener la posible afectación del ambiente o la salud de las personas. De esta forma, en caso de que exista un riesgo de daño grave o irreversible –o una duda al respecto-, se debe adoptar una medida de precaución e inclusive posponer la actividad de que se trate. Lo anterior debido a que en materia ambiental la coacción a posteriori resulta ineficaz, por cuanto de haberse producido ya las consecuencias biológicas socialmente nocivas, la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados en el ambiente”. Posteriormente, en el Voto No. 3480-03 de las 14:02 horas del 2 de mayo del 2003, este Tribunal indicó que “Bien entendido el principio precautorio, el mismo se refiere a la adopción de medidas no ante el desconocimiento de hechos generadores de riesgo, sino ante la carencia de certeza respecto de que tales hechos efectivamente producirán efectos nocivos en el ambiente”, pero no hay en el expediente, aparte de las manifestaciones genéricas del recurrente y coadyuvantes, ninguna razón ni fundamento de hecho para considerar que, en virtud de los principios precautorios o de “in dubio pro natura”, deban adoptarse, por el momento, por parte de esta Sala, medidas en algún sentido, con relación al Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Pacuare, en la medida en que se trata de un proyecto cuyo expediente de viabilidad ambiental ha sido archivado por la SETENA.-

Por tanto:

Se declara sin lugar el recurso.- Luis Fernando Solano C.

Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Teresita Rodríguez A.

Rosa María Abdelnour G. Jorge Araya G.