← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 15677-2010 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 21/09/2010
OutcomeResultado
The amparo is granted, ordering the sued authorities to immediately and in coordination take the necessary measures to verify or rule out environmental damage from the fern plantation and, if so, bring it into compliance or prohibit its operation.Se declara con lugar el recurso de amparo y se ordena a las autoridades accionadas ejecutar de manera inmediata y coordinada las medidas necesarias para comprobar o descartar daños ambientales por la plantación de helechos y, en su caso, ajustarla a derecho o prohibir su operación.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber heard a writ of amparo filed by a Turrialba resident against MINAET, the Ministry of Health, the Municipality of Turrialba, SENARA, and SETENA, alleging that a fern plantation operated without permits, encroached on the 15-meter setback of two streams, and contaminated them with chemicals. Finding that the plantation had long operated without an environmental impact study, health permit, municipal license, or hydrogeological study, and had invaded a stream's protection zone, the Chamber granted the amparo. It held that, despite no conclusive damage, the uncertainty and the authorities' inertia warranted an immediate, coordinated order for all entities, within their powers, to take measures to verify or rule out environmental harm and either bring operations into compliance or prohibit them. The State, Municipality, and SENARA were ordered to pay costs.La Sala Constitucional conoció un recurso de amparo interpuesto por un vecino de Turrialba contra el MINAET, el Ministerio de Salud, la Municipalidad de Turrialba, SENARA y SETENA, alegando que una plantación de helechos operaba sin permisos, invadía el retiro de 15 metros de dos quebradas y contaminaba con químicos. Constatado que la plantación funcionaba desde hacía tiempo sin estudio de impacto ambiental, permiso de salud, licencia municipal ni estudio hidrogeológico, y que había invadido el área de protección de una quebrada, la Sala declaró con lugar el recurso. Consideró que, pese a no haber daño concluyente, la duda y la inercia de las autoridades ameritaban una orden inmediata y coordinada para que todas las entidades, dentro de sus competencias, adoptaran las medidas necesarias para comprobar o descartar daños ambientales y ajustar la operación a derecho o, en su defecto, prohibirla. Se condenó al Estado, la Municipalidad y SENARA al pago de costas.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Thus, the Chamber considers that, although there is no conclusive evidence to establish a potential environmental damage at the site as a result of the activities carried out at the aforementioned fern plantation, the truth is that, given the doubt that it generates, due to the lack of studies to confirm or rule it out, and the inertia of the authorities sued in the face of the situation, the appropriate, but above all prudent course in this case is to grant the amparo, so that the necessary measures are taken to bring the operation of that fern plantation into compliance with the law. For these reasons, it is considered necessary that the authorities sued immediately take the measures required so that, should this fern plantation intend to continue operating, it does so in accordance with the law, or, should it be proven that the activities to be carried out there may cause damage to the environment and the population, it not be authorized to operate. The amparo is granted. It is ordered (...) that each of them, within the scope of their powers, immediately and in coordination among all the institutions they represent, carry out 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 should this situation be proven, that it be ordered to come into compliance, or else not be permitted to continue operating.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. 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. Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se ordena (...) 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.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"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."
"Prima facie, to guarantee is to assure and protect the right against any risk or need, to defend is to forbid, prohibit and prevent any activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action aimed at sheltering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations."
Considerando II
"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."
Considerando II
"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."
"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."
Considerando II, Declaración de Río Principio 15
"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."
Considerando II, Declaración de Río Principio 15
"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."
"in environmental matters, after-the-fact coercion is ineffective, because once the damage has occurred, the biologically and socially harmful consequences may be irreversible; repression may have moral significance, but will hardly compensate the damages caused to the environment."
Considerando II
"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."
Considerando II
"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."
"the Chamber cannot understand how this plantation has been allowed to operate where it is known that chemical substances are handled, without even having questioned the need for an environmental impact assessment or a hydrogeological study to verify the possible harm to the environment."
Considerando IV
"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."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
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:
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.
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> </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> </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> </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> </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> </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'> </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> </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> </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> </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> </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'> </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> </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> </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> </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> </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'> </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> </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.
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.-
| |
|---|
| |
| 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. |
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:
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.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.