Amparo against fern plantation in Turrialba for setback encroachment and administrative omissionAmparo contra plantación de helechos en Turrialba por invasión de retiro y omisión administrativa

Res. No. 2010015678 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at seventeen hours and eight minutes of the twenty-first of September of two thousand ten.

Amparo Action filed by Carlos Martín Chacón Martínez, of legal age, married, mechanic, resident of Turrialba, bearer of identity card 3-259-773; against the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Health, the Municipality of Turrialba, the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental).

Whereas:

1.- By document received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at eight hours thirty-four minutes of the twenty-fourth of June of two thousand ten, the petitioner files an amparo action against the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Health, the Municipality of Turrialba, the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental) and states that, in the Money sector from the junction to La Esmeralda de Turrialba, fifty meters away there is a fern plantation that did not leave the fifteen-meter setback from the two streams, one of which has continuous water and the other intermittent water, which are contaminated with the chemicals sprayed daily on the ferns. He alleges that the plantation has no environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), and has no operating permit from the Ministry of Health. He points out that for this reason, on the thirty-first of May of two thousand ten, he requested the respondent Ministry of Health for a certified and paginated copy of the file for the fern plantation, located in Money at the Colorado junction towards La Victoria. He adds that on the twenty-first of June of two thousand ten, he received official letter CE-ARG-T-AC-843-2010 indicating that, according to the administrative files handled by the Health Area, no fern plantation is registered in the Money sector in the name of Enrique Sterloff Rojas, so the owner is also unknown. He considers the right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment violated and therefore requests that the action be granted with its consequences.

2.- Sonia Espinoza Valverde, in her capacity as General Secretary of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), reports under oath (folio 14) that in response to this action, the Archive's database was reviewed regarding the project files submitted to that Secretariat, determining that there is no record whatsoever of the mentioned plantation where an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) had been performed regarding the fern plantation activity in Money La Esmeralda, and for this reason she considers that her represented entity cannot pronounce on the effects on the environment given that the new project has no file in this dependency. She points out that this Secretariat only has the legal competence to grant or deny an environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) when the new project is subjected to an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) before this dependency. She concludes by requesting that, in view of this circumstance, no condemning judgment be pronounced against her represented entity.

3.- Teófilo de la Torre Argüello, in his capacity as Minister of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, reports under oath (folio 17) that the facts alleged by the petitioner are not within his knowledge because, upon reviewing the database kept for that purpose by this Ministerial Office, it has been verified that the petitioner has not filed any environmental complaint resulting from the planting of ferns (contamination and invasion of protection areas by a fern plantation), on the property of Mr. Enrique Sterloff Rojas located fifty meters north of the junction on the road to La Esmeralda, in La Victoria of the canton of Juan Viñas, province of Cartago. He states that the petitioner is not right in alleging in the amparo that the Ministry has taken no action to avoid negative and significant environmental damages, precisely because no complaint has been formally filed. He adds that a report was requested from the Head of the Turrialba Sub-Region of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), which is the competent entity for the territory and will conduct a field visit to verify the events that occurred. He indicates that the Cordillera Volcánica Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central), through the Turrialba Subregional Office, is the competent entity to hear the environmental complaints in the area where the events denounced in this amparo originate. He adds that, if the technical report submitted by the Head of the Turrialba Sub-Region of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) infers the existence of environmental damages in the sector where the appealed events originate, he will proceed to refer the case directly to the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo), which is the deconcentrated body of the Ministry, with exclusive competence and functional independence in the performance of its duties, responsible for hearing and processing complaints for violations of legislation protecting the environment and natural resources, as well as also having the competence to dictate precautionary measures for the stoppage of works, in order to avoid producing environmental damages that are difficult or impossible to repair. He indicates that the Head of the Turrialba Subregional Office of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central), in strict compliance with what was ordered by this Ministerial Office, through official letter OT-370-10, reported that on the past eighth of June, during a control and protection patrol conducted by officials of that office, he visited the plantation and clarifies that no complaint has been received for the appealed events. He affirms that this official letter indicated that on the thirtieth of June of two thousand ten, a field visit was conducted on the farm of Mr. Enrique Sterloff located in the Money sector, fifty meters north on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas, verifying that it is the same installation visited on the past eighth of June, where it was verified that a fern plantation exists and that in the northern sector, it borders a dry stream (quebrada seca), where no water was observed on the day of the visit. He states that this visit generated official letter OT-330-10, which indicated to Mr. Enrique Sterloff that, despite the stream being observed as dry, he must respect the protection area and eliminate the part of the plantation located in that sector; an official letter that was collected by Mr. Sterloff on the seventeenth of June. He adds that on the following eighteenth of June, that gentleman responded to the office that he is willing to comply with what was ordered in that official letter. He adds that, according to the official letter, on the twenty-ninth of June of two thousand ten, during that visit, it was verified that the stream (quebrada) observed without water on the past eighth of June presented water, pointing out that what the petitioner mentioned as an intermittent stream corresponds to a depression that serves as drainage for rainwater. He indicates that this official letter also reported that from the dry stream it can be concluded that it is permanent and that, surely due to geological conditions in periods of less rain, it deepens, so the protection area must be respected. He adds that this official letter also communicated that during the visit of the twenty-ninth of June, the elimination of the plantation within the protection area was not observed, and therefore, Mr. Sterloff must be informed that it has now been verified that the stream is permanent and that he must eliminate the cultivation immediately; otherwise, a complaint would be filed with the Public Prosecutor's Office (Fiscalía del Ministerio Público). He indicates that the Ministry referred the matter, by competence, to the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) through official letter DAJ-V-1613-2010 of the thirtieth of June of two thousand ten. He concludes by requesting that the action be dismissed.

4.- Bernal Soto Zúñiga, in his condition as General Manager of the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento), reports under oath (folio 37) that in response to the hearing granted in this amparo, he submits technical report DIGH-426-10 from the Directorate of Water Research and Management (Dirección de Investigación y Gestión Hídrica) of that Service, to respond to what was required by the Chamber. In that report, visible on folios 38 and 39, it is stated that the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) has no records of procedures for the installation of fern plantations at the indicated site, nor does it have hydrogeological studies in the area that would allow determining the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination, so if necessary, the developer must prepare detailed hydrogeological studies for evaluation by the Service, and regarding the setback of the plantation from the streams, the legal setbacks (retiros de ley) must be applied.

5.- Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, in his condition as Municipal Mayor of the canton of Turrialba, reports under oath (folio 40) that Mr. Luis Diego Sterloff Rojas, ID card 3-235-835, submitted at the Patent Services Platform a request for municipal resolution procedures, for municipal location, and for a license and/or patent. He indicates that according to voucher number 3666 of the seventeenth of June of two thousand ten, the file is in the Department of Urban Development (Departamento de Desarrollo Urbano) of that Municipality for whatever may proceed, so it is pending resolution. He states that strictly agricultural and livestock activities and crafts are excluded from the payment of the commercial patent (patente comercial), and in the specific case, the competent offices are evaluating and determining whether the request made by Finca Los Helechos, as an agricultural activity, conforms to the provisions of Law 7803 and, therefore, is not subject to the payment of the commercial patent. He concludes by requesting that the action be dismissed.

6.- Giselle Solano Fernández, in her condition as Director of the Turrialba Governing Health Area (Área Rectora de Salud), reports under oath (folio 57) that she attaches a certified and paginated copy, in strict chronological order, of the documentation handled by this Governing Health Area (Área Rectora de Salud) regarding the fern plantation in the Money sector of Turrialba. She indicates that they are scheduling a visit to the place, within the possibilities of the institution, since the area has two officials to perform this type of inspection in the cantons of Turrialba and Jiménez.

7.- In a resolution of the Instructing Magistrate at fifteen hours thirty minutes of the eighth of July of two thousand ten, a hearing was granted to the owner of the fern plantation, located fifty meters north of the Money junction on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas of Cartago (folio 69).

8.- Ana Cecilia Morice Trejos, in her condition as Vice-Minister of Health, reports under oath (folio 88) that according to the technical report provided to this Office by the Central East Health Rectorship Regional Director, during an ocular inspection conducted at the site by officials of the Turrialba Governing Health Area (Área Rectora de Salud), the petitioner's complaint that the fern plantation did not leave the fifteen-meter setback from the two streams was verified. She adds that, according to the report of the inspection conducted, the alleged contamination of the stream waters with chemicals sprayed on the ferns could not be verified, because on the day of the visit they were not performing spraying work. She states that, according to the official of the Turrialba Governing Health Area (Área Rectora de Salud), the fern plantation has no environmental impact assessment (estudios de impacto ambiental) nor a sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) from the Ministry of Health. She indicates that it is true that through official letter number CE-ARS-T-AC-843-2010 of the eighth of June of two thousand ten, the petitioner, in his capacity as complainant, was informed that no fern plantation in the name of Mr. Enrique Sterloft Rojas is registered in the Turrialba Governing Health Area (Área Rectora de Salud). She states that on the sixteenth of July of two thousand ten, a copy was received of a closure order (acta de clausura) executed on the fern plantation called Helechos del Río Internacional Sociedad Anónima, Money farm, whose legal representative is Mr. Enrique Sterloft Rojas, for not having the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento), noting that, consequently, the business is not currently in operation. She considers that her represented entity has carried out the pertinent procedures under the protection of the regulations established by the legal system, issuing the administrative acts it has deemed appropriate and timely, in pursuit of public health well-being, therefore requesting that this amparo be dismissed.

9.- According to the certificate on folio 104, Mr. Luis Diego Sterloff Rojas, in his condition as owner of the fern plantation located fifty meters north of the Money junction on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas of Cartago, did not attend the hearing granted to him, despite the fact that the resolution granting it was duly notified to him (verso of folio 103).

10.- In the certificate on folio 105, it is indicated that the Head of the Turrialba Aqueducts and Sewers Branch (Sucursal de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), despite being duly notified of the procedural resolution granting him a hearing (folios 6 and 102), did not render the requested report.

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

Drafted by Magistrate Arias Madrigal; and,

Considering:

I.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated: a) that fifty meters north of the Money junction on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas of Cartago, a fern plantation is operating, which has crops within the protection area, which could affect the stream (quebrada) it borders (see statements rendered under oath on folios 23 and 89 and document on folio 25); b) that through official letter OT-330-10 of the eighth of June of two thousand ten, the Head of the Turrialba-Jiménez Office of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación de la Cordillera Volcánica Central), communicated to Enrique Sterloff, in his condition as owner of the fern plantation referred to in this amparo, that because the plantation is very close to a stream (quebrada), he must respect the protection area, leaving fifteen meters and eradicating the fern cultivation on the site (see statements rendered under oath on folio 21 and document on folio 28); c) that the administrator of the fern farm, in response to the preceding note, communicated that he would proceed to comply with the recommendation being made and that he required two months to perform the work of removing greenhouses from the protection zone (folio 29); d) that through official letter DAJ-1613-2010 of the thirtieth of June of two thousand ten, the Director of the Legal Advisory Directorate (Dirección de Asesoría Legal) of the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, referred a complaint about the fern plantation referred to in this amparo to the President of the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo), since it is not respecting the protection area of the stream (quebrada) it borders (see statements rendered under oath on folio 23 and document on folio 31); e) that the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) does not have hydrogeological studies for the area that would allow determining the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination (folio 39); f) that the fern plantation referred to in this amparo has been operating without a municipal permit, and it was not until the seventeenth of June of two thousand ten that one of the representatives submitted documents to bring the plantation into compliance with the law, and this procedure is pending resolution (see statements rendered under oath on folio 41); g) that no fern plantation in the Money sector is registered in the Turrialba Governing Health Area (Área Rectora de Salud) (see statements rendered under oath on folio 89 and document on folio 62); h) that before the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), no file has been processed in which an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) was requested for the fern plantation referred to by the petitioner (see statements rendered under oath on folio 15); i) that on the sixteenth of July of two thousand ten, officials of the Turrialba Governing Health Area (Área Rectora de Salud) executed the closure of the Money farm fern plantation for not having an operating permit (see statements rendered under oath on folio 89 and document on folio 97).

II.- On the right to the environment. As of the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, in which the right to the environment was expressly enshrined as a fundamental right, the State's obligation to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also established in categorical terms, thereby making the State the guarantor of the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is by virtue of this provision, in relation to Articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, that the State's responsibility to exercise a protective and directing role in this matter was derived, as provided by the constitutional norm under discussion itself; a function developed by environmental legislation. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Regarding this obligation of the State to ensure and protect the environment, this Chamber has indicated that:

"Prima facie, to guarantee is to ensure and protect the right against some risk or necessity, to defend is to prohibit, forbid, and prevent any activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action directed at proactively shielding the right from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a dual behavior of doing and not doing; on one hand, it must refrain from threatening the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment itself, and on the other hand, it must undertake the task of dictating the measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements" (Judgment number 9193-2000, at sixteen hours twenty-eight minutes of the seventeenth of October of two thousand).

In this sense, as indicated supra, the control and oversight of environmental matters and activities constitutes an essential function of the State according to the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution, insofar as it provides, in the pertinent part of the third paragraph: "The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right"; which is concordant with the constitutional principle established in the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Branches of Government from delegating the exercise of functions that are their own, especially when they are essential. Thus, regarding environmental protection, the functions of governance, control, and oversight of environmental matters correspond to the State, through the various administrative agencies created for this purpose. In addition to the above, one cannot forget what is established by the Precautionary Principle in environmental law, which is contained in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration, which provides:

"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 same sense, see Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law).

The term prevention derives from the Latin "praeventio", which alludes to the action and effect of preventing, to those preparations and arrangements made in advance to avoid a risk or execute a thing. 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 or contain the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. Thus, in case there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage - or a doubt in that regard - a precautionary measure must be adopted, and even the activity in question must be postponed. The foregoing is because in environmental matters, ex post facto coercion is ineffective, since if the damage has already occurred, the biologically and socially harmful consequences may be irreparable; repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment.

III.- On the specific case. As can be deduced from the reports rendered under oath and the evidence provided in the case file, the Chamber has deemed it proven that, despite there being no approved permits from the Ministry of Health or the Municipality of Turrialba, no environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) processed before the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), and no hydrogeological study of the area submitted to the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) that would allow determining the vulnerability to groundwater contamination, the truth of the matter is that the fern plantation referred to by the petitioner in this amparo, located in the Money sector, fifty meters north on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas, has been operating for a long time. Furthermore, it is established that this plantation has even invaded part of the protection area (área de protección) of a stream (quebrada) that, even though it has been dry during inspections conducted by officials of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central), must be protected and therefore the crops that are barely two meters from this stream must be removed, despite the fact that the permanent protection area for such cases must be fifteen meters. The case file shows that the administrator of this property was cautioned in an official letter of the eighth of June of two thousand ten to eradicate the cultivation he has in this protection zone (zona protectora), under the warning that if he fails to do so, the corresponding complaint will be filed with the Public Prosecutor's Office (Fiscalía del Ministerio Público) of Turrialba. It is also observed that this suggestion was accepted by the plantation Administrator, who requested, on the following eighteenth of June, a reasonable period of two months to perform the work, as he needed to remove greenhouses and adopt other measures; however, the file does not show that his request for an additional period to carry out the work was accepted or rejected, but there is a report rendered under oath informing this Tribunal that, during a visit conducted at the site on the preceding thirtieth of June, the cultivation was still found in the protection zone, and for this reason, the corresponding complaint was filed before the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) for its consideration. In addition to the above, it has been affirmed under oath to this Tribunal that, since the fern plantation also lacked an operating permit, its closure was executed on the past sixteenth of July, so it is not currently in operation.

IV.- In these circumstances, the Chamber considers that, even though there is no conclusive data that could prove an eventual environmental damage at the site as a result of the activities carried out at the aforementioned fern plantation, the truth of the matter is that, given the doubt this generates due to the lack of studies confirming or dismissing it, and due to the inaction of the respondent authorities in the face of the situation, the appropriate course of action, and above all the prudent one in this case, is to grant the action so that the necessary measures are adopted to bring the operation of this fern plantation into compliance with the law. Indeed, the Chamber considers that, despite the fact that, as inferred from the file, there is no absolute certainty that the fern plantation activity that has been developing will not have a negative impact on the environment, the truth of the matter is that the respondent authorities have allowed its establishment and operation without verifying compliance with requirements, much less questioning whether the activity could be causing some damage to the environment or to the neighbors of the place. In this sense, the Chamber cannot understand how this plantation, where it is known that chemical substances are handled, has been allowed to operate without even having questioned the need to perform an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) or a hydrogeological study to verify potential harm to the environment. To the contrary, the Chamber observes in the reports rendered that the plantation operated normally until recently, and probably as a result of the existence of this amparo, the Ministry of Health proceeded to close it. For its part, it is observed in the file that, in the case of the Municipality of Turrialba, its officials accept as a normal situation that it was not until the seventeenth of June of two thousand ten that the representative of the plantation submitted the necessary documents to obtain the respective municipal licenses, but all the while, the plantation continued operating. For these reasons, it is considered necessary that the authorities petitioned herein immediately adopt the measures that are necessary so that, if this fern plantation intends to continue operating, it does so in compliance with the law, or else, in the event it is proven that the activities carried out at this plantation could cause damage to the environment and the population, it not be authorized to function.

V.- On the other hand, it cannot be overlooked that this matter is extremely sensitive, of public interest, and precisely because of the aspects at stake, coordination among public agencies is also unquestionably necessary, for the sake of guaranteeing the protection of the environment, which is a task that corresponds to everyone equally, that is, there is an obligation for the State - as a whole - to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, excessive or inadequate use of natural resources, which endanger the health of those administered, it being understood that within this notion of the State, for the specific case, both the Central Administration (Ministries of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications and of Health) and also other institutions such as the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental) are included; a task in which, of course, municipalities have great responsibility with respect to their territorial jurisdiction, specifically in this case the Municipality of Turrialba.

It is for this reason that one might think that this multiple responsibility would cause chaos in administrative management, which is not true, because in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and essence, the duplication of national and local efforts, as well as the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it is necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships between the various dependencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between these and the municipalities, in order to carry out the functions that have been entrusted to them. This Chamber has referred to that principle of coordination of public dependencies, specifically in judgment number 5445-99, of fourteen hours thirty minutes on the fourteenth of July of nineteen ninety-nine in which, for what is relevant, it stated:

"In such a way that coordination is the ordering of the relations between these various independent activities, which takes charge of that concurrence in a same object or entity, to make it useful to a global public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the agent subjects. As there is no hierarchical relationship of the decentralized institutions, nor of the State itself in relation to the municipalities, it is not possible to impose certain conduct on them, with which the essential inter-institutional 'concert' arises, in the strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and global scheme, in which each one plays a role in view of a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relations of the municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed-upon forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form to the detriment of their autonomy, which would allow subjecting the corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the interest of the State (through the 'administrative tutelage' of the State, and specifically, in the function of legality control that falls to it, with powers of general surveillance over the entire sector)." Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that any omission of the duty of collaboration between public institutions could endanger the protection of the environment, despite the fact that compliance with environmental regulations is of constitutional relevance, because, as a consequence of the inertia of the Administration in this matter, damage can be caused to the environment and to natural resources, sometimes with similar or greater consequences than those derived from the actions of the Administration (see in that sense judgment number 2005-01173 of fifteen hours and eleven minutes on the eighth of February of two thousand five).-

Por tanto:

The appeal is declared with merit. Sonia Espinoza Valverde, in her capacity as Secretaria General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, Teófilo de la Torre Argüello, in his capacity as Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, Bernal Soto Acuña, as Gerente General of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal of Turrialba, and Guisselle Solano Fernández, in her capacity as Directora of the Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba of the Ministerio de Salud, or whoever holds those positions in their stead, are each ordered, within the scope of their competencies, to immediately and in a coordinated manner among all the institutions they represent, execute the measures and actions necessary to verify or rule out that the operation of the fern plantation referred to in this amparo produces damage to the environment and the population; and if that situation is verified, to order that it be brought into compliance with the law, or on the contrary, not be allowed to continue operating. They are also warned that failure to comply with said order will result in the crime of disobedience and that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of this jurisdiction, a prison sentence of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that they must comply with or enforce, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished. The State, the Municipalidad de Turrialba, and the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be settled in the execution of judgment of the contentious-administrative proceeding. Notify this resolution personally to Sonia Espinoza Valverde, in her capacity as Secretaria General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, to Teófilo de la Torre Argüello, in his capacity as Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, to Bernal Soto Acuña, as Gerente General of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, to Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal of Turrialba, and to Guisselle Solano Fernández, in her capacity as Directora of the Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba of the Ministerio de Salud, or whoever holds those positions in their stead.- Gilbert Armijo S.

Presidente a.i.

Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Víctor Ardón A.

Doris Arias M.

José Paulino Hernández G.

It considers that its client has carried out the relevant efforts under the protection of the regulations established by the legal system, issuing the administrative acts it has deemed appropriate and timely, in pursuit of public health welfare, and therefore requests that this amparo be dismissed.

**9.-** According to the record on folio 104, Mr. Luis Diego Sterloff Rojas, in his capacity as owner of the fern plantation located fifty meters north of the Money crossing, on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas de Cartago, did not attend the hearing that was granted to him, despite the resolution granting it having been duly notified to him (folio 103 verso).

**10.-** The record on folio 105 indicates that the Head of the Turrialba Water Supply and Sewerage Branch, despite having been duly notified of the procedural resolution granting him a hearing (folios 6 and 102), did not submit the requested report.

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

Drafted by Magistrate **Arias Madrigal**; and, **Considerando:** **I.- Proven facts.** Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven: **a)** that fifty meters north of the Money crossing, on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas de Cartago, a fern plantation is operating, which has crops within the protection area, which may affect the stream it borders (see sworn statements on folios 23 and 89 and the document on folio 25); **b)** that by official communication OT-330-10 of June eighth, two thousand ten, the Head of the Turrialba-Jiménez Office of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación of the Área de Conservación de la Cordillera Volcánica Central, notified Enrique Sterloff, in his capacity as owner of the fern plantation referred to in this amparo, that because the plantation was very close to a stream, he had to respect the protection area, leaving fifteen meters and uprooting the fern crop on the site (see sworn statements on folio 21 and document on folio 28); **c)** that the administrator of the fern farm, in response to the preceding note, communicated that he would proceed to comply with the recommendation being made and that he needed two months to carry out the work of removing greenhouses from the protection zone (folio 29); **d)** that by official communication DAJ-1613-2010 of June thirtieth, two thousand ten, the Director of the Legal Advisory Directorate of the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, forwarded to the President of the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo a complaint regarding the fern plantation referred to in this amparo, since it is not respecting the protection area of the stream it borders (see sworn statements on folio 23 and document on folio 31); **e)** that in the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, there are no hydrogeological studies of the area available to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination (folio 39); **f)** that the fern plantation referred to in this amparo has been operating without a municipal permit, it being the case that until June seventeenth, two thousand ten, one of its representatives submitted documents to bring the plantation into legal compliance, and this process is pending resolution (see sworn statements on folio 41); **g)** that no fern plantation is registered in the Money sector with the Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba (see sworn statements on folio 89 and document on folio 62); **h)** that before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, no file has been processed in which an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) had been requested for the fern plantation referred to by the appellant (see sworn statements on folio 15); **i)** that on July sixteenth, two thousand ten, officials from the Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba executed the closure of the fern plantation at the Money farm, for lacking an operating permit (see sworn statements on folio 89 and document on folio 97).

**II.- Regarding the right to the environment.** From the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, which expressly enshrined the right to the environment as a fundamental right, the obligation of the State to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also conclusively established, thereby making it the guarantor in the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is under this provision, in relation to Articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, that the State's responsibility to exercise a protective and governing function in this matter was derived, as provided by the constitutional norm under discussion itself; a function developed by environmental legislation. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty of the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Regarding this obligation of the State to ensure and protect the environment, this Chamber has stated that:

"Prima facie, to guarantee is to ensure and protect the right against some risk or need, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and impede any activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action aimed at shielding the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a dual behavior of acting and refraining from acting; on the one hand, it must refrain from itself threatening the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other, it must undertake the task of issuing the measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements" (Judgment number 9193-2000, of sixteen hours twenty-eight minutes of October seventeenth, two thousand).

In this sense, as indicated supra, the control and oversight of environmental matters and activities constitute an essential function of the State according to the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution, insofar as it provides, in what is relevant here, in the third paragraph: "The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right"; which is consistent with the constitutional principle established in the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Branches of Government from delegating the exercise of functions that are their own, especially when they constitute essential ones. Thus, regarding environmental protection, the functions of governing, controlling, and overseeing environmental matters correspond to the State, through the various administrative agencies created for that purpose. In addition to the above, one cannot forget what is established by the Precautionary Principle in environmental law, which is contained in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration, which provides:

"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 same sense, see Article 11 of the Ley de Biodiversidad).

The term prevention derives from the Latin "praeventio," which refers to the action and effect of preventing, to those preparations and dispositions made in advance to avoid a risk or execute something. 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 that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage—or a doubt about it—a precautionary measure must be adopted, including postponing the activity in question. The foregoing is because in environmental matters, ex post facto coercion is ineffective, since if the damage has already occurred, the biological and socially harmful consequences can be irreparable; repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment.

**III.- Regarding the specific case.** As is apparent from the reports rendered under oath and the evidence provided to the record, this Chamber has deemed it proven that despite the fact that there are no approved permits from the Ministry of Health or the Municipality of Turrialba, no environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) processed before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, and no hydrogeological study of the area presented to the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento that would allow determining the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination, the truth of the matter is that the fern plantation referred to by the appellant in this amparo, located in the Money sector, fifty meters north on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas, has been operating for a long time. In addition to this, it is found that this plantation has even invaded part of the protection area of a stream which, even though it has been dry during inspections carried out by officials of the Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, must be protected, and therefore the crops that are barely two meters from said stream must be removed, even though the permanent protection area for such cases must be fifteen meters. It is recorded in the case file that the administrator of that property was warned in an official communication of June eighth, two thousand ten, to uproot the crop located in that protected zone, under warning that failure to do so will result in the corresponding complaint being filed before the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministerio Público of Turrialba. It is also observed that such suggestion was accepted by the plantation Administrator, who requested, on the following June eighteenth, a prudential period of two months to carry out the work, since he needed to remove greenhouses and adopt other measures; however, it is not recorded in the file that his request for an additional deadline to carry out the works was accepted, or that it was rejected, but there is a report rendered under oath indicating to this Tribunal that, in a visit made to the site on the previous June thirtieth, the crop was still found in the protection zone and that for this reason the corresponding complaint was filed before the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo for such matters within its purview. Added to the foregoing, it has been affirmed under oath before this Tribunal that, given that the fern plantation also lacked an operating permit, on the past sixteenth of July, the business closure was executed, and therefore, as of this date, it is not in operation.

**IV.-** Given the situation, this Chamber considers that, although there is no conclusive data to prove an eventual environmental damage at the site as a result of the activities carried out at the cited fern plantation, the truth of the matter is that, given the doubt this generates—due to the lack of studies to confirm or rule it out—and given the inertia of the respondent authorities in the face of the situation, the appropriate, but above all, the prudent course in this case is to grant the amparo appeal so that the necessary measures are adopted to bring the operation of that fern plantation into legal compliance. Indeed, this Chamber considers that, despite the fact—as inferred from the file—that there is no absolute certainty that the fern plantation activity that has been taking place will not negatively impact the environment, the truth of the matter is that the respondent authorities have allowed its establishment and operation without verifying compliance with requirements, much less questioning whether the activity might be causing some harm to the environment or the neighbors of the place. In this sense, this Chamber cannot understand how this plantation, where it is known that chemical substances are handled, has been allowed to operate without even questioning the need to conduct an environmental impact assessment or a hydrogeological study to verify potential injury to the environment. On the contrary, this Chamber observes in the reports rendered that the plantation operated normally until recently, probably as a result of the existence of this amparo, the Ministry of Health proceeded to its closure. For its part, it is observed in the file that, in the case of the Municipality of Turrialba, its officials accept as a normal situation that it was not until June seventeenth, two thousand ten, when the representative of the plantation submitted the necessary documents to obtain the respective municipal licenses, but meanwhile, the plantation continued operating. For these reasons, it is considered necessary that the authorities sued here immediately adopt the measures that are necessary so that, if this fern plantation intends to continue operating, it does so in compliance with the law, or, in the event that it is proven that the activities to be carried out in this plantation may cause damage to the environment and the population, it not be authorized to operate.

**V.-** Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that this matter is extremely sensitive and of public interest and that precisely because of the aspects at stake, coordination among public entities is indisputably necessary as well, for the purpose of guaranteeing environmental protection, which is a task that corresponds to everyone equally; that is, there is an obligation for the State—as a whole—to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid levels of pollution, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, and excessive or inadequate use of natural resources that endanger the health of the citizenry, it being understood as included within that notion of State, for this specific case, both the Central Administration (the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones and the Ministry of Health) and other institutions such as the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento and the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental; a task in which, of course, municipalities bear great responsibility with respect to their territorial jurisdiction, specifically in this case the Municipality of Turrialba. For this reason, it might be thought that this multiple responsibility would cause chaos in administrative management, which is not true, because in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and essence, the duplication of national and local efforts, as well as the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it is necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships among the various agencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between these and the municipalities, in order to carry out the functions entrusted to them. This Chamber has referred to that principle of coordination among public entities, specifically in Judgment number 5445-99, of fourteen hours thirty minutes of July fourteenth, nineteen ninety-nine, in which, for what is relevant, it stated:

"So that coordination is the ordering of the relationships among these various independent activities, which takes charge of that concurrence upon a same object or entity, to make it useful for a global public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the agent subjects. Since there is no hierarchical relationship of the decentralized institutions, nor of the State itself in relation to the municipalities, the imposition of certain conducts upon the latter is not possible, from which arises the indispensable inter-institutional 'concert,' in a strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and global scheme, in which each one fulfills a role with a view to a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relationships of municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed-upon forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form to the detriment of their autonomy, that would allow subjecting the corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the interest of the latter (through the 'administrative supervision' of the State, and specifically, in the function of legality control that corresponds to it, with general supervisory powers over the entire sector).” Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that any omission in the duty of collaboration among public institutions could endanger environmental protection, despite the fact that compliance with environmental regulations is of constitutional relevance, because, as a consequence of the Administration's inertia in this matter, damage can be caused to the environment and natural resources, sometimes with similar or greater consequences than those derived from the actions of the Administration (see in that regard Judgment number 2005-01173 of fifteen hours and eleven minutes of February eighth, two thousand five).- **Por tanto:** The appeal is granted. Sonia Espinoza Valverde, in her capacity as General Secretary of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, Teófilo de la Torre Argüello, in his capacity as Minister of Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, Bernal Soto Acuña, as General Manager of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Turrialba, and Guisselle Solano Fernández, in her capacity as Director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba of the Ministry of Health, or whoever may be acting in those positions, are each ordered, within the scope of their respective competencies, to immediately and in a coordinated manner among all the institutions they represent, execute the measures and actions that are necessary to verify or rule out whether the operation of the fern plantation referred to in this amparo is causing damage to the environment and the population; and if that situation is verified, it be ordered to comply with the law, or conversely, it not be permitted to continue operating. Likewise, they are warned that failure to comply with said order will result in the crime of disobedience and that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of this jurisdiction, a sentence of imprisonment from three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished.

The State, the Municipality of Turrialba, and the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the sentence of the contentious-administrative proceeding.

This resolution shall be notified personally to Sonia Espinoza Valverde in her capacity as General Secretary of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), to Teófilo de la Torre Argüello in his capacity as Minister of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, to Bernal Soto Acuña, as General Manager of the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento), to Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Turrialba, and to Guisselle Solano Fernández in her capacity as Director of the Governing Health Area of Turrialba of the Ministry of Health, or to whoever holds those positions in their stead, in person.- <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=624 style='width:468.0pt;border-collapse:collapse;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184; mso-padding-alt:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes'> <td width=616 valign=top style='width:462.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:1'> <td width=616 valign=top style='width:462.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>Gilbert Armijo S.</p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:2;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes'> <td width=616 valign=top style='width:462.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>Acting Presiding Judge (Presidente a.i.)</p> </td> </tr> </table> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=624 style='width:468.0pt;border-collapse:collapse;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184; mso-padding-alt:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <colgroup><col width="208"></col><col width="208"></col><col width="208"></col></colgroup> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes'> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-left:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-left:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:1'> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>Ernesto Jinesta L.</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>Fernando Cruz C.</p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:2'> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:3'> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>Fernando Castillo V.</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>Víctor Ardón A.</p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:4'> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:5;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes'> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>Doris Arias M.</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td width=200 valign=top style='width:150.0pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>José Paulino Hernández G.</p> </td> </tr> </table> This is because, in environmental matters, subsequent coercion is ineffective, since if the damage has occurred, the harmful biological and social consequences may be irreparable; the repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment.

**III.- On the specific case.** As can be deduced from the reports rendered under oath and the evidence provided in the case file, this Chamber has deemed it proven that, despite there being no permits approved by the Ministry of Health or the Municipality of Turrialba, no environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) processed before the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), nor a hydrogeological study of the area submitted to the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) that would allow determining the vulnerability to contamination of groundwater, the fact is that the fern plantation referred to by the petitioner in this amparo, located in the sector of Money, fifty meters north on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas, has been operating for a long time. Furthermore, it is determined that this plantation has even invaded part of the protection area of a stream which, although it has been dry during the inspections carried out by officials of the Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, must be protected and, therefore, the crops that are located barely two meters from said stream must be removed, despite the fact that the permanent protection area for such cases must be fifteen meters. It is recorded in the case file that the administrator of that property was warned in official letter of June eighth, two thousand ten, to uproot the crop located in that protection zone, with the warning that if he fails to do so, the corresponding complaint will be filed before the Prosecutor's Office of the Public Ministry of Turrialba. It is also observed that this suggestion was accepted by the Plantation Administrator who requested, on the following June eighteenth, a reasonable period of two months to carry out the work, since he needed to remove greenhouses and adopt other measures; however, it is not recorded in the case file that his request for additional time to carry out the work had been accepted, or that it had been rejected, but there is a report rendered under oath in which this Court is informed that, during a site visit on June thirtieth of this year, the crop was still located in the protection zone and that for this reason the corresponding complaint was filed before the Administrative Environmental Tribunal for matters within its purview. In addition to the foregoing, it has been affirmed under oath to this Court that, given that the fern plantation also lacked an operating permit, on July sixteenth last, the closure of the business was executed, so that, as of this date, it is not in operation.

**IV.-** Given this situation, this Chamber considers that, even though there is no conclusive data that could establish a potential environmental harm at the site as a result of the activities carried out at the aforementioned fern plantation, the fact is that, given the doubt this creates, due to the lack of studies to confirm or rule it out, and due to the inaction of the respondent authorities in the face of the situation, the appropriate, but above all the prudent course of action in this case, is to grant the appeal so that the necessary measures may be adopted to bring the operation of that fern plantation into compliance with the law. Indeed, this Chamber considers that, despite the fact that, as inferred from the case file, there is no absolute certainty that the fern plantation activity that has been underway will not have a negative impact on the environment, the fact is that the respondent authorities have allowed its establishment and operation, without verifying compliance with requirements, much less questioning whether the activity could be causing any harm to the environment or to the neighbors of the place. In this regard, this Chamber cannot understand how this plantation, where it is known that chemical substances are handled, has been allowed to operate, without even having questioned the need to conduct an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) or a hydrogeological study, to verify the potential injury to the environment. On the contrary, this Chamber observes in the reports rendered that the plantation operated normally, until recently, and probably as a result of the existence of this amparo, the Ministry of Health proceeded with its closure. For its part, it is observed in the case file that, in the case of the Municipality of Turrialba, its officials accept as a normal situation that it was not until June seventeenth, two thousand ten, when the plantation representative submitted the necessary documents to obtain the respective municipal licenses, but, in the meantime, the plantation continued operating. For these reasons, it is deemed necessary that the respondent authorities here immediately adopt whatever measures are necessary so that, if this fern plantation intends to continue operating, it does so in compliance with the law, or, in the event that it is proven that the activities to be carried out at that plantation may cause harm to the environment and the population, it is not authorized to operate.

**V.-** On the other hand, one cannot ignore that this subject matter is extremely sensitive, of public interest, and precisely because of the aspects at stake, coordination among public agencies is also indisputably necessary, in the interest of guaranteeing the protection of the environment, which is a task that corresponds to everyone equally, meaning that there is an obligation for the State—as a whole—to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of pollution, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, and excessive or inappropriate use of natural resources that endanger the health of the administered public, it being understood that within this notion of the State, for the specific case, both the Central Administration (Ministries of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications and of Health) as well as other institutions such as the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento and the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental are included; a task in which, of course, the municipalities bear great responsibility with respect to their territorial jurisdiction, specifically in this case the Municipality of Turrialba. It is for this reason that one might think that this multiple responsibility would cause chaos in administrative management, which is not true, since, in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and essence, the duplication of national and local efforts, as well as the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it becomes necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships among the various agencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between these and the municipalities, in order to carry out the functions that have been entrusted to them. This Chamber has referred to this principle of coordination of public agencies, specifically in judgment number 5445-99, of fourteen hours thirty minutes of July fourteenth, nineteen ninety-nine, in which, for relevant purposes, it stated:

*"Thus, coordination is the ordering of the relationships among these various independent activities, which addresses this concurrence on the same object or entity, to make it useful for a global public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the acting subjects. Since there is no hierarchical relationship among the decentralized institutions, nor between the State itself and the municipalities, it is not possible to impose certain behaviors on the latter, whereby the indispensable inter-institutional «concerted action» arises, in the strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on this preventive and global scheme, in which each fulfills a role with a view to a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relationships of the municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form to the detriment of their autonomy, which would allow subjecting the corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the interest of the State (through the «administrative oversight» of the State, and specifically, in the function of controlling the legality that corresponds to it, with powers of general supervision over the entire sector)."* Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that any omission of the duty of collaboration among public institutions could endanger the protection of the environment, even though compliance with environmental regulations is of constitutional relevance, since, as a consequence of the Administration's inaction in this matter, harm to the environment and natural resources can be caused, sometimes with similar or greater consequences than those derived from the actions of the Administration (see in this regard judgment number 2005-01173 of fifteen hours and eleven minutes of February eighth, two thousand five).-” It indicates that this official communication also reported that, regarding the dry stream, it can be concluded that it is permanent and that, surely due to the geological conditions during periods of less rain, it deepens, and therefore the protection area must be respected. It adds that the communication also informed him that, during the visit of June twenty-ninth, the removal of the plantation within the protection area was not observed, and therefore, Mr. Sterloff must be informed that it has now been confirmed that the stream is permanent and that he must immediately remove the crop; otherwise, a complaint would be filed with the Prosecutor's Office of the Public Ministry. It indicates that the Ministry referred the matter, by reason of jurisdiction, to the Administrative Environmental Tribunal via official communication DAJ-V-1613-2010 of June thirtieth, two thousand ten. It concludes by requesting that the appeal be declared without merit.

**4.-** Bernal Soto Zúñiga, in his capacity as General Manager of the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento), reports under oath (folio 37) that, in response to the hearing granted in this amparo, he is submitting technical report DIGH-426-10 from the Directorate of Water Research and Management of that Service, to respond to what was required by the Chamber. In that report, visible on folios 38 and 39, it is stated that the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage does not have records of procedures for the installation of fern plantations at the indicated site, nor does it have hydrogeological studies in the area that would allow for determining the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination. Therefore, if necessary, the developer must prepare detailed hydrogeological studies for evaluation by the Service, and regarding the setback of the plantation from the streams, the legal setbacks must be applied.

**5.-** Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of the canton of Turrialba, reports under oath (folio 40) that Mr. Luis Diego Sterloff Rojas, identification number 3-235-835, submitted to the Patent Services Platform a request for municipal resolution procedures, for a municipal location, and for a license and/or patent. It indicates that according to receipt number 3666 of June seventeenth, two thousand ten, the file is in the Department of Urban Development of that Municipality for whatever is appropriate, and therefore it is pending resolution. It states that strictly agricultural, livestock, and artisanal activities are excluded from commercial patent tax payment, and that in this specific case, the competent offices are evaluating and determining whether the request made by Finca Los Helechos, as an agricultural activity, complies with the provisions of Law 7803 and, consequently, is not subject to the commercial patent tax payment. It concludes by requesting that the appeal be declared without merit.

**6.-** Giselle Solano Fernández, in her capacity as Director of the Health Governing Area (Área Rectora de Salud) of Turrialba, reports under oath (folio 57) that she is attaching a certified and paginated copy, in strict chronological order, of the documentation managed by that Health Governing Area regarding the fern plantation in the Money sector of Turrialba. It indicates that they are scheduling a visit to the site, within the institution's possibilities, since the area has two officials to carry out this type of inspection in the cantons of Turrialba and Jiménez.

**7.-** In a resolution of the Investigating Magistrate at fifteen hours and thirty minutes on July eighth, two thousand ten, a hearing was granted to the owner of the fern plantation, located fifty meters north of the Money crossroads, on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas de Cartago (folio 69).

**8.-** Ana Cecilia Morice Trejos, in her capacity as Vice Minister of Health, reports under oath (folio 88) that, according to the technical report supplied to that Office by the Regional Director of Health Governance Central East, an ocular inspection conducted at the site by officials of the Health Governing Area of Turrialba confirmed the complainant's claim that the fern plantation did not leave the fifteen-meter setback from the two streams. It adds that, according to the inspection report, the alleged contamination of the stream waters by the chemicals used to fumigate the ferns could not be verified, because no fumigation work was being carried out on the day of the visit. It states that, according to the official from the Health Governing Area of Turrialba, the fern plantation has no environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) or a sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) from the Ministry of Health. It indicates that it is true that, through official communication number CE-ARS-T-AC-843-2010 of June eighth, two thousand ten, the complainant was informed in his capacity as a complainant that no fern plantation is registered in the name of Mr. Enrique Sterloft Rojas in the Health Governing Area of Turrialba. It states that on July sixteenth, two thousand ten, a copy was received of a closure order executed against the fern plantation called Helechos del Río Internacional Sociedad Anónima, Money estate, whose legal representative is Mr. Enrique Sterloft Rojas, due to its lack of a sanitary operating permit, noting that, consequently, the business is not currently in operation. It considers that its represented party has carried out the pertinent actions under the regulations established by the legal system, issuing the administrative acts it has deemed appropriate and timely, in pursuit of public health well-being, and therefore requests that this amparo be declared without merit.

**9.-** According to the record on folio 104, Mr. Luis Diego Sterloff Rojas, in his capacity as owner of the fern plantation located fifty meters north of the Money crossroads, on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas de Cartago, did not attend the hearing that had been granted to him, despite the fact that the resolution granting it was duly notified to him (folio 103 verso).

**10.-** The record on folio 105 indicates that the Head of the Turrialba Aqueducts and Sewers Branch, despite having been duly notified of the procedural resolution granting him a hearing (folios 6 and 102), did not submit the requested report.

**11.-** The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings conducted.

Drafted by Magistrate **Arias Madrigal**; and, **Considering:** **I.- Proven facts.** Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven: **a)** that fifty meters north of the Money crossroads, on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas de Cartago, a fern plantation is operating, which has crops within the protection area, and which may affect the stream it borders (see statements rendered under oath on folios 23 and 89 and document on folio 25); **b)** that through official communication OT-330-10 of June eighth, two thousand ten, the Head of the Turrialba-Jiménez Office of the National System of Conservation Areas of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Conservation Area, informed Enrique Sterloff, in his capacity as owner of the fern plantation referred to in this amparo, that because the plantation was very close to a stream, he had to respect the protection area, leaving fifteen meters and uprooting the fern crop on the site (see statements rendered under oath on folio 21 and document on folio 28); **c)** that the administrator of the fern estate, in response to the previous note, communicated that he would proceed to comply with the recommendation being made and that he required two months to carry out the work of removing greenhouses from the protection zone (folio 29); **d)** that through official communication DAJ-1613-2010 of June thirtieth, two thousand ten, the Director of the Legal Advisory Directorate of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, referred a complaint to the President of the Administrative Environmental Tribunal regarding the fern plantation referred to in this amparo, since it is not respecting the protection area of the stream it borders (see statements rendered under oath on folio 23 and document on folio 31); **e)** that the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage does not have hydrogeological studies of the area that would allow for determining the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination (folio 39); **f)** that the fern plantation referred to in this amparo has been operating without a municipal permit, and it was not until June seventeenth, two thousand ten, that one of the representatives submitted documents to bring the plantation into compliance, and this process is pending resolution (see statements rendered under oath on folio 41); **g)** that in the Health Governing Area of Turrialba, no fern plantation is registered in the Money sector (see statements rendered under oath on folio 89 and document on folio 62); **h)** that no file has been processed before the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) in which an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) had been requested for the fern plantation referred to by the complainant (see statements rendered under oath on folio 15); **i)** that on July sixteenth, two thousand ten, officials of the Health Governing Area of Turrialba executed the closure of the fern plantation, Money estate, for lacking an operating permit (see statements rendered under oath on folio 89 and document on folio 97).

**II.- On the right to the environment.** Since the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, which expressly enshrined the right to the environment as a fundamental right, the obligation of the State to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also definitively established, thereby making it the guarantor for the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is by virtue of this provision, in relation with Articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, that the State's responsibility to exercise a protective and governing function in this matter was derived, as stipulated by the constitutional norm under discussion itself; a function which environmental legislation develops. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Regarding this obligation of the State to ensure and protect the environment, this Chamber has stated that:

"*Prima facie*, to guarantee is to ensure and protect the right against some risk or need; to defend is to veto, prohibit, and impede any activity that threatens the right; and to preserve is an action aimed at safeguarding the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a dual behavior of action and inaction; on one hand, it must refrain from itself attacking the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must undertake the task of issuing the measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements" (judgment number 9193-2000, at sixteen hours and twenty-eight minutes on October seventeenth, two thousand).

In this sense, as indicated supra, the control and oversight of environmental matters and activities constitutes an essential function of the State according to the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution, insofar as it stipulates, in the part that is relevant in the third paragraph: *"The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right"*; which is consistent with the constitutional principle established in the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Powers of the State from delegating the exercise of functions that are their own, especially when they are essential. Thus, in the matter of environmental protection, the functions of governance, control, and oversight of environmental matters correspond to the State, through the various administrative agencies created for this purpose. In addition to the foregoing, one cannot forget what is established by the Precautionary Principle in matters of environmental law, which is contained in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration, which 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." (See, in the same sense, Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law).

The term prevention derives from the Latin "praeventio," which alludes to the action and effect of preventing, to those preparations and arrangements made in advance to avoid a risk or execute something. 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 that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage — or a doubt in this regard — a precautionary measure must be adopted, and even the activity in question postponed. The foregoing is because in environmental matters, after-the-fact coercion is ineffective, since if the damage has occurred, the biologically and socially harmful consequences may be irreparable; repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment.

**III.- On the specific case.** As can be deduced from the reports rendered under oath and the evidence provided in the case file, the Chamber has deemed it established that despite the fact that there are no permits approved by the Ministry of Health or the Municipality of Turrialba, no Environmental Impact Study processed before the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), nor any hydrogeological study of the area submitted to the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage that would allow for determining the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination, the truth of the matter is that the fern plantation referred to by the complainant in this amparo, located in the Money sector, fifty meters north on the road to La Esmeralda in La Victoria de Juan Viñas, has been operating for a long time. Furthermore, it is established that this plantation has even encroached upon part of the protection area of a stream that, even though it has been dry during inspections carried out by officials of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Conservation Area, must be protected and therefore the crops that are barely two meters from said stream must be removed, despite the fact that the permanent protection area for these cases must be fifteen meters. It is recorded in the case file that the administrator of that property was warned in an official communication dated June eighth, two thousand ten, to uproot the crop he has in that protection zone, under the warning that if he fails to do so, the corresponding complaint would be filed before the Prosecutor's Office of the Public Ministry of Turrialba. It is also observed that this suggestion was accepted by the Plantation Administrator, who requested, on the following June eighteenth, a prudent period of two months to carry out the work, since he needed to remove greenhouses and adopt other measures; however, it is not recorded in the file that his request for additional time to carry out the works was accepted, or that it was rejected, but there is a report rendered under oath in which this Tribunal is informed that, during a visit to the site on the previous June thirtieth, the crop was still in the protection zone and that, for this reason, the corresponding complaint was filed before the Administrative Environmental Tribunal for its consideration. In addition to the foregoing, it has been affirmed under oath to this Tribunal that, in view that the fern plantation also lacked an operating permit, on the past July sixteenth, the closure of the business was executed, and therefore, as of today, it is not in operation.

**IV.-** Thus, the Chamber considers that, although there are no conclusive data that could prove a possible environmental damage at the site as a result of the activities carried out at the cited fern plantation, the truth of the matter is that, given the doubt this generates, due to the lack of studies to confirm or rule it out, and due to the inertia of the respondent authorities in the face of the situation, what is appropriate, but above all prudent in this case, is to declare the appeal with merit so that the measures necessary to bring the operation of that fern plantation into compliance with the law are adopted. Effectively, the Chamber considers that, despite the fact that, as inferred from the file, there is no absolute certainty that the fern plantation activity that has been taking place will not negatively impact the environment, the truth of the matter is that the respondent authorities have allowed its establishment and operation without verifying compliance with requirements, much less questioning whether the activity could be causing some damage to the environment or to the neighbors of the place. In this sense, the Chamber cannot understand how this plantation, where it is known that chemical substances are handled, has been allowed to operate without even having questioned the need to carry out an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) or a hydrogeological study to verify the potential harm to the environment. On the contrary, the Chamber observes in the reports rendered that the plantation has functioned normally until recently, and probably as a result of the existence of this amparo, the Ministry of Health proceeded to close it. For its part, it is observed in the file that, in the case of the Municipality of Turrialba, its officials accept as a normal situation that it was not until June seventeenth, two thousand ten, that the representative of the plantation submitted the necessary documents to obtain the respective municipal licenses, but, meanwhile, the plantation continued operating. For these reasons, it is considered necessary that the authorities respondent here immediately adopt the measures that are necessary so that, should this fern plantation intend to continue operating, it does so in compliance with the law, or, in the event that it is proven that the activities to be developed at that plantation may cause damage to the environment and the population, it shall not be authorized to operate.

**V.-** On the other hand, it cannot be overlooked that this matter is extremely sensitive, of public interest, and that precisely because of the aspects at stake, coordination between public agencies is also indisputably necessary. This is in order to guarantee the protection of the environment, which is a task that corresponds to all equally; that is, there is an obligation for the State — as a whole — to take the necessary measures to protect the environment in order to avoid degrees of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, and excessive or inappropriate use of natural resources that endanger the health of the administered public. It must be understood that within this notion of State, for the specific case, both the Central Administration (Ministries of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, and of Health) and other institutions such as the National Service for Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) are included; a task in which, of course, the municipalities have great responsibility with respect to their territorial jurisdiction, specifically in this case the Municipality of Turrialba. It is for this reason that one might think that this multiple responsibility would cause chaos in administrative management, which is not true, because in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and essence, the duplication of national and local efforts, as well as the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it becomes necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships between the various agencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between these and the municipalities, in order to be able to carry out the functions that have been entrusted to them. This Chamber has referred to this principle of coordination of public agencies, specifically in judgment number 5445-99, at fourteen hours and thirty minutes on July fourteenth, nineteen ninety-nine, in which, for what is relevant here, it stated:

"So that coordination is the ordering of relationships between these various independent activities, which takes charge of that concurrence on the same object or entity, to make it useful for a comprehensive public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the acting subjects. Since there is no hierarchical relationship of the decentralized institutions, nor of the State itself in relation to the municipalities, the imposition of specific conduct on these is not possible, and thus the essential inter-institutional 'agreement' emerges, in the strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and comprehensive scheme, in which each one plays a role towards a mission entrusted to the others." Thus, the relations of municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed-upon forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form detrimental to their autonomy, which would allow subjecting corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the interest thereof (through the «administrative oversight (tutela administrativa)» of the State, and specifically, in the function of legality control entrusted to it, with powers of general surveillance over the entire sector).” Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that any omission of the duty of collaboration between public institutions could endanger environmental protection, even though compliance with environmental regulations is of constitutional relevance, because, as a result of the Administration's inertia in this matter, damage to the environment and natural resources can occur, sometimes with similar or greater consequences than those derived from the actions of the Administration (see in that regard judgment number 2005-01173 of fifteen hours and eleven minutes of February eight, two thousand five).- **Por tanto:** The amparo action is granted. Sonia Espinoza Valverde, in her capacity as Secretaria General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, Teófilo de la Torre Argüello, in his capacity as Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, Bernal Soto Acuña, as Gerente General of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal of Turrialba, and Guisselle Solano Fernández, in her capacity as Directora of the Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba of the Ministerio de Salud, or whomever holds these positions in their stead, are each ordered, within the scope of their powers, to execute immediately and in a coordinated manner among all the institutions they represent, the necessary measures and actions to verify or rule out that the operation of the fern plantation to which this amparo refers produces damage to the environment and the population; and if this situation is verified, order that it be brought into compliance with the law, or on the contrary, that it not be permitted to continue operating. Likewise, they are warned that failure to comply with said order will constitute the crime of disobedience and that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of this jurisdiction, a prison sentence of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo action, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided the crime is not more severely punished. The State, the Municipalidad de Turrialba, and the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment of the contentious-administrative proceedings. This resolution shall be notified personally to Sonia Espinoza Valverde, in her capacity as Secretaria General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, to Teófilo de la Torre Argüello, in his capacity as Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, to Bernal Soto Acuña, as Gerente General of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, to Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal of Turrialba, and to Guisselle Solano Fernández, in her capacity as Directora of the Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba of the Ministerio de Salud, or to whomever holds these positions in their stead.-

Res. Nº 2010015677 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diecisiete horas y ocho minutos del veintiuno de setiembre del dos mil diez.

Recurso de Amparo interpuesto por Carlos Martín Chacón Martínez, mayor, casado, mecánico, vecino de turrialba, portador de la cédula de identidad 3-259-773; contra el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, el Ministerio de Salud, la Municipalidad de Turrialba, el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento y la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las ocho horas treinta y cuatro minutos del veinticuatro de junio del dos mil diez, el recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, el Ministerio de Salud, la Municipalidad de Turrialba, el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento y la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y manifiesta que, en el sector de Money del cruce a la Esmeralda de Turrialba, a los cincuenta metros se encuentra una plantación de helecho, que no dejó el retiro de los quince metros, respecto de las dos quebradas, siendo que una de ellas es de aguas continuas y la otra es de aguas intermitentes, las cuales son contaminadas con los químicos que fumigan diariamente a los helechos. Alega que la plantación no tiene estudios de impacto ambiental, no tiene permiso de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud. Señala que por ello, el treinta y uno de mayo del dos mil diez, le solicitó al Ministerio de Salud recurrido, copia certificada y foliada del expediente de plantación de helechos, ubicado en Money en el cruce Colorado hacia la Victoria. Añade que el veintiuno de junio del dos mil diez, recibió el oficio CE-ARG-T-AC-843-2010 donde se le indicó que, de acuerdo a los expedientes administrativos que maneja el Área de Salud, no se encuentra registrada ninguna plantación de helechos en el sector de Money, a nombre de Enrique Sterloff Rojas, así que tampoco se sabe quién es el dueño. Considera violentados el derecho a la salud y a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y por ello pide que se declare con lugar el recurso con sus consecuencias.

2.- Informa bajo juramento Sonia Espinoza Valverde en su calidad de Secretaria General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (folio 14), que en atención a este recurso, se procedió a revisar la base de datos del Archivo respecto a los expedientes de los proyectos presentados ante esa Secretaría, determinándose que no consta registro alguno sobre la plantación mencionada, en que se hubiera hecho evaluación de impacto ambiental sobre la actividad de plantación de helechos en Money La Esmeralda y por ello considera que su representada, no puede pronunciarse sobre los efectos en el ambiente dado que el proyecto nuevo, no cuenta con expediente en esa dependencia. Señala que esa Secretaría, solamente cuenta con la competencia legal para otorgar o denegar una viabilidad ambiental cuando el proyecto nuevo se somete a Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, ante esa dependencia. Finaliza solicitando que en vista de tal circunstancia, no se pronuncie condenatoria alguna contra su representada.

3.- Informa bajo juramento Teófilo de la Torre Argüello en su calidad de Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones (folio 17), que no le constan los hechos alegados por el recurrente pues, revisada la base de datos que al efecto lleva ese Despacho Ministerial, se ha podido comprobar que el recurrente no ha interpuesto ninguna denuncia de carácter ambiental, producto de la siembra de helechos (contaminación e invasión en áreas de protección por una plantación de helechos), en la propiedad del señor Enrique Sterloff Rojas localizada cincuenta metros norte del cruce camino a La Esmeralda, en La Victoria del cantón de Juan Viñas, provincia de Cartago. Manifiesta que no lleva razón el recurrente al alegar en el amparo que, por parte del Ministerio, no se ha tomado ninguna acción a fin de evitar daños ambientales negativos y significativos, ello por cuanto no se ha interpuesto formalmente una denuncia. Agrega que se pidió informe al Jefe de la Sub Región de Turrialba del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, que es el ente competente por territorio y que realizará una visita de campo para verificar los hechos ocurridos. Indica que el Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, por medio de la Oficina Subregional de Turrialba, es el ente competente para conocer, las denuncias ambientales de la zona donde se originan los hechos denunciados en este amparo. Añade que, si del informe técnico que remita el Jefe de la Sub Región de Turrialba del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, se colige la existencia de daños ambientales en el sector donde se originan los hechos recurridos, procederá a remitir el caso directamente al Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, que es el órgano desconcentrado del Ministerio, con competencia exclusiva e independencia funcional en el desempeño de sus funciones, encargado de conocer y tramitar las denuncias por violaciones a la legislación tutelar del ambiente y los recursos naturales, así como también con competencia, para dictar medidas cautelares de paralización de obras, a fin de evitar que se produzcan daños ambientales de difícil e imposible reparación. Indica que el Jefe de la Oficina Subregional de Turrialba del Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, en estricto cumplimiento a lo ordenado por ese Despacho Ministerial, mediante oficio OT-370-10 informó que el pasado ocho de junio, en patrullaje de control y protección realizado por funcionarios de esa oficina, visitó la plantación y aclara que no se ha recibido ninguna denuncia por los hechos recurridos. Afirma que, en ese oficio se indicó que el treinta de junio del dos mil diez, se realizó visita de campo en la finca del señor Enrique Sterloff ubicada en el sector Money cincuenta metros norte, camino a La Esmeralda en La Victoria de Juan Viñas, constatándose que es la misma instalación que se visitó el pasado ocho de junio, donde se comprobó que existe una plantación de helechos y que en el sector norte, colinda con una quebrada seca, donde el día de la visita no se observó agua. Manifiesta que, de esa visita se generó el oficio OT-330-10, en el que se le indica al señor Enrique Sterloff que a pesar de que la quebrada se observó seca, debe respetar el área de protección y eliminar parte de la plantación que se ubica en ese sector; oficio que fue retirado por el señor Sterloff el diecisiete de junio. Agrega que el dieciocho de junio siguiente, ese señor le contestó a la oficina que está dispuesto a cumplir con lo dispuesto en ese oficio. Añade que según el oficio, el veintinueve de junio del dos mil diez en esa visita, se comprobó que la quebrada que se observó sin agua el pasado ocho de junio, presentaba agua, señalando que lo que el recurrente mencionó como quebrada intermitente, corresponde a una depresión que sirve de desagüe del agua de lluvia. Indica que también se informó en ese oficio, que de la quebrada seca se puede concluir que es permanente y que seguramente por las condiciones geológicas en los períodos de menos lluvias, se profundiza por lo que se debe respetar el área de protección. Agrega que en dicho oficio se le comunicó además, que en la visita del veintinueve de junio, no se observó la eliminación de la plantación dentro del área de protección y por lo tanto, se le debe comunicar al señor Sterloff que ya se comprobó que la quebrada es permanente y que debe eliminar el cultivo en forma inmediata, de lo contrario, se procedería con la denuncia ante la Fiscalía del Ministerio Público. Indica que el Ministerio remitió por competencia, al Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, el asunto mediante oficio DAJ-V-1613-2010 del treinta de junio del dos mil diez. Finaliza solicitando que se declare sin lugar el recurso.

4.- Informa bajo juramento Bernal Soto Zúñiga en su condición de Gerente General del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (folio 37) que en atención a la audiencia otorgada en este amparo, remite el informe técnico DIGH-426-10 de la Dirección de Investigación y Gestión Hídrica de ese Servicio, para dar respuesta a lo requerido por la Sala. En ese informe, visible en folios 38 y 39 se afirma que el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, no cuenta con registros de trámites para la instalación de plantaciones de helechos en el sitio indicado, tampoco cuenta con estudios hidrogeológicos en la zona, que permitan determinar la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de las aguas subterráneas por lo que de ser necesario, el desarrollador deberá elaborar los estudios hidrogeológicos detallados, para su valoración por parte del Servicio y en relación con el retiro de la plantación respecto a las quebradas, se deben aplicar los retiros de ley.

5.- Informa bajo juramento Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños en su condición de Alcalde Municipal del cantón de Turrialba (folio 40), que el señor Luis Diego Sterloff Rojas, cédula 3-235-835, presentó en la Plataforma de Servicios de Patentes, solicitud para trámites de resolución municipal, de ubicación municipal y licencia y/o patente. Indica que según comprobante número 3666 del diecisiete de junio del dos mil diez, el expediente se encuentra en el Departamento de Desarrollo Urbano de esa Municipalidad para lo que proceda, por lo que está pendiente de resolución. Manifiesta que las actividades propiamente agropecuarias y de artesanía, están excluidas del pago de la patente comercial, siendo que en el caso concreto, las oficinas competentes están valorando y determinando si la solicitud realizada por la Finca Los Helechos, como actividad agropecuaria, se ajusta a lo dispuesto en la Ley 7803 y por ende, no está afecta al pago de la patente comercial. Finaliza solicitando que se declare sin lugar el recurso.

6.- Informa bajo juramento Giselle Solano Fernández en su condición de Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba (folio 57) que adjunta copia certificada y foliada, en estricto orden cronológico, de la documentación que maneja esa Área Rectora de Salud, sobre la plantación de helechos en el sector de Money de Turrialba. Indica que están programando una visita al lugar, dentro de las posibilidades de la institución, ya que el área cuenta con dos funcionarios, para realizar este tipo de inspecciones en los cantones de Turrialba y Jiménez.

7.- En resolución de Magistrado Instructor de las quince horas treinta minutos del ocho de julio del dos mil diez, se le otorgó audiencia al propietario de la plantación de helechos, ubicada cincuenta metros la norte del cruce Money, camino a La Esmeralda en La Victoria de Juan Viñas de Cartago (folio 69).

8.- Informa bajo juramento Ana Cecilia Morice Trejos, en su condición de Viceministra de Salud (folio 88) que según el informe técnico suministrado a ese Despacho por el Director Regional de Rectoría de la Salud Central Este, en inspección ocular realizada en el sitio por funcionarios del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba, se comprobó la denuncia del recurrente según la cual, la plantación de helechos no dejó el retiro de los quince metros respecto a las dos quebradas. Agrega que, según el informe de la inspección realizada, no se pudo comprobar la supuesta contaminación de las aguas de las quebradas con los químicos que fumigan los helechos, pues el día de la visita no estaban realizando trabajos de fumigación. Manifiesta que según el funcionario del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba, la plantación de helechos no tiene estudios de impacto ambiental ni permiso sanitario de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud. Indica que es cierto que mediante oficio número CE-ARS-T-AC-843-2010 del ocho de junio del dos mil diez, se le indicó al recurrente en su calidad de denunciante, que en el Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba, no se encuentra registrada ninguna plantación de helechos a nombre del señor Enrique Sterloft Rojas. Manifiesta que el dieciséis de julio del dos mil diez, se recibió copia de un acta de clausura realizada a la plantación de helechos denominada Helechos del Río Internacional Sociedad Anónima, finca Money, cuyo representante legal es el señor Enrique Sterloft Rojas, ello por no contar con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, señalando que, en consecuencia, el negocio no se encuentra en función en la actualidad. Considera que su representado ha realizado las gestiones pertinentes al amparo de las regulaciones establecidas por el ordenamiento jurídico, emitiendo los actos administrativos que ha estimado procedentes y oportunos, en procura del bienestar de la salud pública, solicitando por ello que este amparo, sea declarado sin lugar.

9.- Según constancia de folio 104, el señor Luis Diego Sterloff Rojas, en su condición de propietario de la plantación de helechos ubicada cincuenta metros al norte del cruce Money, camino a La Esmeralda en La Victoria de Juan Viñas de Cartago, no atendió la audiencia que le fuera otorgada, ello a pesar de que la resolución en la que se le concedió, le fue debidamente notificada (folio 103 vuelto).

10.- En constancia de folio 105 se indica que el Jefe de la Sucursal de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Turrialba, a pesar de que fue debidamente notificado de la resolución de curso en la que se le otorgó audiencia (folios 6 y 102), no rindió el informe solicitado.

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

Redacta la Magistrada Arias Madrigal; y,

Considerando:

I.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos: a) que cincuenta metros al norte del cruce Money, camino a La Esmeralda en La Victoria de Juan Viñas de Cartago, está operando una plantación de helechos, que tiene cultivos dentro del área de protección, que puede afectar la quebrada con la que colindan (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folios 23 y 89 y documento de folio 25); b) que mediante oficio OT-330-10 del ocho de junio del dos mil diez, el Jefe de la Oficina de Turrialba-Jiménez del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación del Área de Conservación de la Cordillera Volcánica Central, le comunicó a Enrique Sterloff en su condición de dueño de la plantación de helechos a la que se refiere este amparo, que por estar la plantación muy cerca de una quebrada, debía respetar el área de protección, dejando quince metros y desarraigando el cultivo de helechos en el sitio (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folio 21 y documento de folio 28); c) que el administrador de la finca de helechos, en atención a la anterior nota, comunicó que procedería a acatar la recomendación que se estaba haciendo y que requería dos meses para realizar los trabajos de remoción de invernaderos de la zona de protección (folio 29); d) que mediante oficio DAJ-1613-2010 del treinta de junio del dos mil diez, la Directora de la Dirección de Asesoría Legal del Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, remitió al Presidente del Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, denuncia sobre la plantación de helechos a la que se refiere este amparo, ya que no está respetando el área de protección de la quebrada con la que colinda (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folio 23 y documento de folio 31); e) que en el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, no se cuenta con estudios hidrogeológicos de la zona, que permitan determinar la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de las aguas subterráneas (folio 39); f) que la plantación de helechos a la que se refiere este amparo, ha estado operando sin permiso municipal, siendo que hasta el diecisiete de junio del dos mil diez, uno de los representantes presentó documentos para ajustar la plantación a derecho, y este trámite está pendiente de resolución (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folio 41); g) que en el Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba no está registrada ninguna plantación de helechos en el sector de Money (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folio 89 y documento de folio 62); h) que ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, no se ha tramitado ningún expediente en el que se hubiera solicitado evaluación de impacto ambiental, para la plantación de helechos a la que se refiere el recurrente (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folio 15); i) que el dieciséis de julio del dos mil diez, funcionarios del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba, ejecutaron la clausura de la plantación de helechos finca Money, por no contar con permiso de funcionamiento (ver manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento de folio 89 y documento de folio 97).

II.- Sobre el derecho al ambiente. A partir de la reforma del artículo 50 constitucional, en la cual se consagró expresamente el derecho al ambiente como un derecho fundamental, se estableció también en forma terminante, la obligación del Estado de garantizar, defender y tutelar este derecho, con lo cual, se constituye en el garante en la protección y tutela del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales. Es a tenor de esta disposición, en relación con los artículos 20, 69 y 89 de la Constitución Política, que se derivó la responsabilidad del Estado, de ejercer una función tutelar y rectora en esta materia, según lo dispone la propia norma constitucional en comentario; función que desarrolla la legislación ambiental. Es así como el mandato constitucional, establece el deber para el Estado de garantizar, defender y preservar ese derecho. Sobre esa obligación del Estado de asegurar y proteger el ambiente, esta Sala ha señalado que:

"Prima facie garantizar es asegurar y proteger el derecho contra algún riesgo o necesidad, defender es vedar, prohibir e impedir toda actividad que atente contra el derecho, y preservar es una acción dirigida a poner a cubierto anticipadamente el derecho de posibles peligros a efectos de hacerlo perdurar para futuras generaciones. El Estado debe asumir un doble comportamiento de hacer y de no hacer; por un lado debe abstenerse de atentar él mismo contra el derecho a contar con un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y por otro lado, debe asumir la tarea de dictar las medidas que permitan cumplir con los requerimientos constitucionales" (sentencia número 9193-2000, de las dieciséis horas veintiocho minutos del diecisiete de octubre del dos mil).

En este sentido, como se indicó supra, el control y fiscalización de la materia y actividad ambiental, se constituye en una función esencial del Estado según lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución, en tanto dispone, en lo que interesa en el párrafo tercero: "El Estado garantizará, defenderá y preservará ese derecho"; lo cual resulta concordante, con el principio constitucional establecido en el párrafo segundo del artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, que expresamente prohíbe a los Poderes del Estado, la delegación del ejercicio de funciones que le son propias, máxime cuando se constituyen en esenciales. De esta manera, tratándose de la protección ambiental, las funciones de rectoría, control y fiscalización de la materia ambiental, corresponden al Estado, a cargo de las diversas dependencias administrativas creadas para tal efecto. Aunado a lo anterior, no puede olvidarse lo establecido por el Principio Precautorio en materia de derecho ambiental, el cual está contenido en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, Declaración de Río, la cual dispone:

"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 igual sentido ver artículo 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad).

El término prevención deriva del latín "praeventio", que alude a la acción y efecto de prevenir, a aquellas preparaciones y disposiciones que se hacen anticipadamente, para evitar un riesgo o ejecutar una cosa. 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 o 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 el daño, las consecuencias biológicas y socialmente nocivas pueden ser irreparables, la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados al ambiente.

III.- Sobre el caso concreto. Según se desprende de los informes rendidos bajo juramento y de las pruebas aportadas a los autos, la Sala ha tenido por acreditado que a pesar de que no existen permisos aprobados por el Ministerio de Salud o la Municipalidad de Turrialba, Estudio de Impacto Ambiental tramitado ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental ni estudio hidrogeológico de la zona, presentado ante el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, que permita determinar la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de aguas subterráneas, lo cierto del caso es que, la plantación de helechos a la que se refiere el recurrente en este amparo, ubicada en el sector de Money, cincuenta metros norte camino a La Esmeralda en La Victoria de Juan Viñas, ha estado funcionando desde hace mucho tiempo. Además de ello se tiene que esa plantación, inclusive, ha invadido parte del área de protección de una quebrada que, aún cuando ha estado seca en las inspecciones realizadas por funcionarios del Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, debe protegerse y por tanto deben retirarse los cultivos que están a escasos dos metros de tal quebrada, a pesar de que el área de protección permanente para esos casos, debe ser de quince metros. Consta en autos que, el administrador de ese inmueble, ha sido prevenido en oficio del ocho de junio del dos mil diez, para que desarraigue el cultivo que tiene en esa zona protectora bajo apercibimiento de que en caso de no hacerlo, se hará la denuncia correspondiente ante la Fiscalía del Ministerio Público de Turrialba. También se observa que tal sugerencia fue aceptada por el Administrador de plantación quien solicitó, el dieciocho de junio siguiente, un tiempo prudencial de dos meses para realizar los trabajos, pues requería retirar invernaderos y adoptar otras medidas; sin embargo, no consta en el expediente, que se hubiera aceptado su solicitud de plazo adicional para efectuar las obras, o que se le hubiera rechazado, pero sí hay informe rendido bajo juramento en el que se le indica a este Tribunal que, en visita realizada al sitio el treinta de junio anterior, todavía se encontraba el cultivo en la zona de protección y que por tal razón se presentó la denuncia correspondiente ante el Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo para lo de su cargo. Aunado a lo anterior, bajo juramento se ha afirmado a este Tribunal que, en vista de que la plantación de helechos tampoco contaba con permiso de funcionamiento, el pasado dieciséis de julio, se ejecutó la clausura del negocio, por lo que, a la fecha, no se encuentra en función.

IV.- Así las cosas, considera la Sala que, aún cuando no hay datos concluyentes que pudieren tener por acreditado un eventual daño ambiental en el lugar, como producto de las actividades realizadas en la citada plantación de helechos, lo cierto del caso es que, ante la duda que ello genera, por la falta de estudios que lo confirmen o lo descarten, y por la inercia de las autoridades accionadas frente a la situación, lo procedente, pero sobre todo lo prudente en este caso es, declarar con lugar el recurso a fin de que se adopten las medidas que sean necesarias para ajustar a derecho la operación de esa plantación de helechos. Efectivamente, considera la Sala que, a pesar de como se infiere del helechos que se ha estado desarrollando, no incidirá de manera negativa en el ambiente, lo cierto del caso es que las autoridades accionadas han permitido su establecimiento y operación, sin verificar el cumplimiento de requisitos, ni mucho menos cuestionarse si la actividad, pudiere estar produciendo algún daño al ambiente o a los vecinos del lugar. En ese sentido, no puede comprender la Sala cómo se ha permitido que funcione esta plantación en donde se sabe que se manejan sustancias químicas, sin siquiera haberse cuestionado la necesidad de efectuar una evaluación de impacto ambiental o de un estudio hidrogeológico, para verificar la eventual lesión al ambiente. Por el contrario, observa la Sala en los informes rendidos, que la plantación ha funcionado con normalidad, hasta que en fecha reciente y probablemente a raíz de la existencia de este amparo, el Ministerio de Salud procedió a su clausura. Por su parte, se observa en el expediente que, en el caso de la Municipalidad de Turrialba, sus funcionarios aceptan como una situación normal, el que fuera hasta el diecisiete de junio del dos mil diez cuando, el representante de la plantación, presentó los documentos necesarios para obtener las respectivas licencias municipales, pero eso sí, mientras tanto la plantación siguió operando. Por tales razones, se considera necesario que las autoridades aquí accionadas, adopten de manera inmediata las medidas que sean necesarias para que, en caso de que esta plantación de helechos pretenda seguir operando, lo haga ajustada a derecho, o bien, que en el supuesto de que se compruebe que las actividades a desarrollarse en esa plantación, puedan ocasionar daños al ambiente y a la población, no se le autorice a funcionar.

V.- Por otra parte, no puede dejarse de lado que esta materia es en extremo sensible, de interés público y que precisamente por los aspectos que están en juego, es indiscutiblemente necesaria también, la coordinación entre las dependencias públicas, ello en aras de garantizar la protección del medio ambiente, que es una tarea que corresponde a todos por igual, es decir, que existe una obligación para el Estado -como un todo- de tomar las medidas necesarias para proteger el medio, a fin de evitar grados de contaminación, deforestación, extinción de flora y fauna, uso desmedido o inadecuado de los recursos naturales, que pongan el peligro la salud de los administrados, debiendo entenderse comprendida dentro de esa noción de Estado, para el caso concreto, tanto la Administración Central (Ministerios de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones y de Salud) como también otras instituciones como el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento y la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental; tarea en la que, por supuesto, tienen gran responsabilidad las municipalidades en lo que respecta a su jurisdicción territorial, específicamente en este caso la Municipalidad de Turrialba. Es por ello, que podría pensarse que esta múltiple responsabilidad provocaría un caos en la gestión administrativa, lo cual no es cierto, por cuanto a fin de evitar la coexistencia simultánea de esferas de poder de diferente origen y esencia, la duplicación de los esfuerzos nacionales y locales, así como la confusión de derechos y obligaciones entre las diversas partes involucradas, es que se hace necesario establecer una serie de relaciones de coordinación, entre las diversas dependencias del Poder Ejecutivo y las instituciones descentralizadas, y entre éstas con las municipalidades, a fin de poder llevar a cabo las funciones que les han sido encomendadas. Esta Sala se ha referido a ese principio de coordinación de las dependencias públicas, específicamente en la sentencia número 5445-99, de las catorce horas treinta minutos del catorce de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve en la que, para lo que interesa, señaló:

"De manera que la coordinación es la ordenación de las relaciones entre estas diversas actividades independientes, que se hace cargo de esa concurrencia en un mismo objeto o entidad, para hacerla útil a un plan público global, sin suprimir la independencia recíproca de los sujetos agentes. Como no hay una relación de jerarquía de las instituciones descentralizadas, ni del Estado mismo en relación con las municipalidades, no es posible la imposición a éstas de determinadas conductas, con lo cual surge el imprescindible «concierto» interinstitucional, en sentido estricto, en cuanto los centros autónomos e independientes de acción se ponen de acuerdo sobre ese esquema preventivo y global, en el que cada uno cumple un papel con vista en una misión confiada a los otros. Así, las relaciones de las municipalidades con los otros entes públicos, sólo pueden llevarse a cabo en un plano de igualdad, que den como resultado formas pactadas de coordinación, con exclusión de cualquier forma imperativa en detrimento de su autonomía, que permita sujetar a los entes corporativos a un esquema de coordinación sin su voluntad o contra ella; pero que sí admite la necesaria subordinación de estos entes al Estado y en interés de éste (a través de la «tutela administrativa» del Estado, y específicamente, en la función de control la legalidad que a éste compete, con potestades de vigilancia general sobre todo el sector).” Partiendo de lo dicho, no cabe duda de que cualquier omisión al deber de colaboración entre instituciones públicas, podría poner en peligro la protección del ambiente, a pesar de que el cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental es de relevancia constitucional, por cuanto, a consecuencia de la inercia de la Administración en esta materia, se puede producir un daño al ambiente y a los recursos naturales, a veces, de similares o mayores consecuencias, que de las derivadas de las actuaciones de la Administración (ver en ese sentido sentencia número 2005-01173 de las quince horas con once minutos del ocho de febrero del dos mil cinco).-

Por tanto:

Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a Sonia Espinoza Valverde en su condición de Secretaria General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, a Teófilo de la Torre Argüello en su calidad de Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, a Bernal Soto Acuña, como Gerente General del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, a Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, en su condición de Alcalde Municipal de Turrialba y a Guisselle Solano Fernández en su calidad de Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba del Ministerio de Salud, o a quienes en su lugar ejercieran esos cargos, que cada uno de ellos dentro del ámbito de sus competencias, ejecute de manera inmediata y coordinada entre todas las instituciones que representan, las medidas y acciones que sean necesarias para comprobar o descartar que la operación de la plantación de helechos a la que se refiere este amparo, produce daños al ambiente y a la población; y en caso de comprobarse esa situación, se ordene que se ajuste a derecho, o por el contrario, no se le permita continuar operando. Asimismo se les advierte que de no acatar la orden dicha, incurrirán en el delito de desobediencia y que, de conformidad con el artículo 71 de la Ley de esta jurisdicción, se le impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Estado, a la Municipalidad de Turrialba y al Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. Notifíquese esta resolución a Sonia Espinoza Valverde en su condición de Secretaria General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, a Teófilo de la Torre Argüello en su calidad de Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, a Bernal Soto Acuña, como Gerente General del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, a Manolo Alfonso Bogantes Bolaños, en su condición de Alcalde Municipal de Turrialba y a Guisselle Solano Fernández en su calidad de Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba del Ministerio de Salud, o a quienes en su lugar ejercieran esos cargos, en forma personal.- Gilbert Armijo S.

Presidente a.i.

Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Víctor Ardón A.

Doris Arias M.

José Paulino Hernández G.