Constitutionality of the Lomas de Barbudal Boundary ChangeConstitucionalidad de la modificación de Lomas de Barbudal

Decision No. 2020-0013836 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fifteen hours and thirty minutes on July 22, 2020.

Constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) filed by MARÍA DEL MILAGRO GAMBOA MIRANDA, of legal age, single, businesswoman, resident of San José, holder of identity card 1-1433-0357, and GARY DOUGLAS STEWART POSTEL, of legal age, married, businessman, resident of Bagaces, holder of identity card 1-0466-0672; against Law No. 9610 of October 17, 2018, entitled “Modification of the Boundaries of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for the Development of the Water Supply Project for the Middle Basin of the Río Tempisque and Coastal Communities.” Findings of Fact:

1. 1By written submission received by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) at 12:32 hours on 9 de enero de 2019, the petitioners filed an action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) against Law No. 9610 of 17 de octubre de 2018, “Modification of the Boundaries of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve for the Development of the Water Supply Project for the Middle Tempisque River Basin and Coastal Communities,” in defense of an interest concerning the community as a whole: the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. They state that, for this reason, an individual and direct injury is not required. They contend that Articles 7, 11, 45, 50, and 176 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and the constitutional principles of non-regression in environmental matters (no regresividad en materia ambiental), in dubio pro natura, reasonableness and proportionality, economy and efficiency, budgetary balance, and legal certainty have been violated.They assert that the procedure established in section 208 bis of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly (Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa) was violated. They indicate that the purpose of the challenged law is to remove 113 hectares from the protected status (desafectar) of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve (RBLB), which has a level of absolute protection similar to that of a national park, and to change its use in order to flood that land and construct the Río Piedras reservoir there, which would supply water to the middle basin of the río Tempisque and the coastal communities. That project, known as PAACUME, provides for a reservoir with a water-surface area of 850 hectares, as well as the expansion and improvement of the Canal Oeste and the construction of 300 kilometers of canals to convey and distribute water in the cantons of Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya.The challenged law also seeks to compensate for the area by which the RBLB would be reduced with other private lands adjacent to the biological reserve belonging to ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., and 3-101-734726 S.A. (known as Brindis de Amor or Brindis de Amor en Liberia). They state that, in compliance with the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas) (RAMSAR Convention), the Costa Rican State included parque nacional Palo Verde and refugio de vida silvestre Caño Negro on the list of wetlands of international importance. They assert that this park is part of Área de Conservación de Tempisque and that this area includes refugio de vida silvestre Caballero, parque nacional Barra Honda, and reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB).They add that, on RAMSAR’s official website, in the section entitled “RAMSAR Sites Information Service,” the technical information sheet for the expansion of the “RAMSAR Palo Verde, Costa Rica” site may be viewed, and it clearly identifies the RBLB as part of that international wetland. They further state that, because the RBLB is part of the Palo Verde wetland, Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque warned the Asamblea Legislativa at the time that it was necessary to notify the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat of the intention to carry out this project and to activate any other procedure necessary to fulfill the country’s commitments (see official letter SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018); however, RAMSAR was not notified of the removal of the protected status of the RBLB area or of the change to the boundaries of that biological reserve, which constitutes an omission that breaches our country’s international commitments and, therefore, violates Article 7 of the Political Constitution.They mention that section 4(2) of the RAMSAR Convention establishes that when a Contracting Party, because of urgent national interests, deletes a wetland from the list or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included therein, it must, insofar as possible, compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same region or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of their original habitat. They state that the modification of the RBLB’s boundaries has not been declared a matter of urgent national interest. They allege that the same official letter (No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018) stated that it was necessary to analyze whether the PAACUME project could have any indirect impact on the Área de Conservación Guanacaste World Heritage Site and to assess whether to activate the relevant mechanisms for notifying the World Heritage Centre of this initiative; however, this was not done.They complain that, consequently, the UNESCO World Heritage Convention was also violated. They assert that, according to various rulings of the Constitutional Chamber, Article 50 of the Constitution introduced science and technology into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that State actions in environmental matters must be based on, and may not contradict, the unequivocal rules of science and technology, in order to secure the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as greater well-being for all inhabitants of the country (this has been termed the principle of objective environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental)). They claim that Law No. 96 10 violates the aforementioned Article 50 of the Constitution because it does not incorporate a serious, comprehensive, and objective study of the consequences of removing 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status and replacing or compensating for them with approximately 500 hectares of private properties intended to be incorporated into the biological reserve.They refer to the report by Dr. Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura—commissioned by Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica to respond to a request for information from Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) concerning the PAACUME project—which concludes, with respect to the study by Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET), through which the aforementioned removal from protected status and compensation are intended to be justified, that it is “insufficient to define the change to the boundaries of Lomas de Barbudal and does not demonstrate that this change will be fully compensated for by additional areas in other sectors of the Reserve. The ASETREK property, studied in greater detail by the consultants, is ultimately acknowledged to be insufficient to justify the land exchange, and other nearby properties are hastily invoked to balance the compensation—an exercise that, in my view, lacks seriousness because it is not properly substantiated.” The cited report also states that “the unknown environmental impacts of the Río Piedras reservoir on the Biological Reserve and on all the wetland ecosystems of Bajo Tempisque must be understood before accepting the flooding of a sector of Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal and, more generally, of the ecosystems affected by the future PAACUME reservoir.” They allege that this violation of Article 50 of the Constitution is compounded by the violation of the principles of non-regression in environmental matters and in dubio pro natura.They insist that the study conducted by OET is neither complete, objective, scientific, nor technical, because it contains numerous omissions and weaknesses. They reiterate that the study focuses almost entirely on a portion of one of the three private properties intended to compensate for the 113 hectares removed from protected status by the law; however, it fails to include studies on the biological conditions of the other two properties, and it therefore cannot be scientifically determined that those properties actually possess environmental characteristics capable of replacing the ecosystem functions of the area to be removed from protected status. They add that the potential impact on parque nacional Palo Verde, a wetland afforded international protection by the RAMSAR Convention and of which the RBLB forms part, was not analyzed either. They claim that the challenged law was enacted even though the environmental impact study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) for carrying out the PAACUME project has not yet been approved, despite the fact that the project entails constructing a reservoir with a water-surface area of 850 hectares in a dry-forest area, which would inevitably affect Río Piedras and the internationally designated Palo Verde wetland.They allege that, consequently, during the consideration of the bill that gave rise to the challenged legislation, the authorities proceeded to “put the cart before the horse.” They contend that Law No. 9610 violates Article 45 of the Political Constitution because three legal entities (personas jurídicas) are deprived of private property in order to incorporate into the RBLB nearly 500 hectares of private properties as compensation for the removal from protected status of 113 hectares belonging to the State and forming part of the RBLB. They maintain that this deprivation of private property occurs without a legally established public interest and without prior compensation. They state that report No. AL-DESTCJU-068-2018 of Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa indicates that the bill that ultimately became Law No. 9610 modified the original boundaries of reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, bringing private property within those boundaries; it further states that, by “modifying the original boundaries of Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, private property is being interfered with, yet the bill fails to indicate that those properties will be acquired through expropriation (expropiación), leaving the private parcels within the new boundaries subject to environmental restrictions.” They add that the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Political Constitution clearly establishes that, for reasons of public necessity, the Asamblea Legislativa may impose restrictions in the social interest (limitaciones de interés social) on property; however, such restrictions require compliance with several conditions before they may take effect.First, passage of the law imposing such restrictions requires 38 votes; in this case, although the challenged law was indeed passed by more than 38 votes, a substantial part of the legislative proceedings was conducted under an expedited procedure (procedimiento abreviado) based on Article 208 bis of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly, rendering the law unconstitutional due to a violation of legislative procedure, because that expedited procedure is barred for bills requiring the vote of a qualified majority (mayoría calificada) of legislators for passage. Article 45 of the Constitution likewise provides that private property may be expropriated or encumbered if prior compensation is paid. That requirement has not been satisfied either, since the aforementioned private properties have never been expropriated. Nor was, or has, an appraisal (avalúo) of the affected private properties been prepared, and no budgetary appropriation existed before the bill was passed to pay the corresponding compensation.They claim that, as of the entry into force of this challenged law, which encompasses private properties belonging to three legal entities (ASETREK, Hacienda Ciruelas S.P. S.A., and Brindis de Amor), those properties became encumbered, which clearly violates Article 45 of the Political Constitution because this encumbrance was imposed without prior compensation; moreover, the manner in which it was decided to expropriate the Brindis De Amor property for incorporation into the RBLB excludes and leaves landlocked within the reserve a property of approximately 14 hectares belonging to Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa Rica Pacifico del Mar CMP S.A., but forming part of the entire Brindis de Amor project (a property left landlocked within the new boundaries of the RBLB, without access to a public road).

They reiterate that the law challenged through this action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) was processed in large part through an expedited procedure (procedimiento abreviado) based on numeral 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa. They allege that this violated the limitations established in that provision, which states that the Asamblea Legislativa may establish special procedures for processing amendments to its rules and bills whose approval requires an absolute majority; whereas the bill at issue, which subsequently became Law No. 9610, required a qualified majority for its passage, because it clearly affected private properties by incorporating them into the RBLB as compensation for the area that would be removed from protected status (desafectación). They state that, on this matter, the Departamento de Servicios Técnicos, in the aforementioned report AL-DESTCJU-068-2018, indicated: “By virtue of the foregoing, a defect is apparent in the processing of the Bill through the Special Committee created by a procedural motion and governed by article 208 bis, which provides that only bills whose approval requires an absolute majority may be processed, whereas in this particular case the Bill requires the votes of two-thirds of the members of the Plenario Legislativo…”.

They note that this procedural defect, identified by the Departamento de Servicios Técnicos, is clear and evident. They highlight a memorandum that the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) sent to the Asamblea Legislativa (official letter DIG-0388-2018) in response to the consultation submitted to it through official letter AL-DSDI-OFI-0313-2018, from which a violation of the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica) arises, insofar as inconsistencies and errors were found in the coordinates included in the law ultimately enacted. They argue that the enactment of Law No. 9610 resulted in violations of the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) (numeral 11 of the Political Constitution). They add that the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (Law No. 7554), articles 32, 34, 36, 37 and 38, was violated because the process of modifying the boundaries of the RBLB to remove 113 hectares from protected status and include approximately 500 hectares of privately owned land within the new boundaries of the biological reserve failed to comply with requirements set forth in that legislation; for example, no preliminary physiographic studies of the biological diversity of all the private properties incorporated into the RBLB were conducted; nor were socioeconomic studies conducted to justify, on the one hand, the removal from protected status and, on the other, the expansion of the RBLB by nearly 500 hectares of privately owned land; no study was ever conducted regarding the technical feasibility and land tenure (tenencia de la tierra) of all potential lands that could have been considered to compensate for the 113 hectares removed from the RBLB; nor was the minimum funding available to acquire, protect, and manage the area (there is not even an appraisal of the properties to be expropriated).

They state that the private lands incorporated into the RBLB were not compensated beforehand. They contend that no technical studies were conducted regarding two of the three properties ultimately incorporated into the RBLB, thereby violating article 50 of the Political Constitution and the principles of non-regression in environmental matters (no regresividad en materia ambiental) and in dubio pro natura. They consider that numeral 58 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad (Law No. 7788) was also violated, because there was no technical report containing recommendations and justifications for including within the biological reserve two of the three properties that ultimately fell within the new boundaries of the RBLB. They explain that numerals 71 and 72 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad were violated because the OET report does not state that the mandatory consultations were held with the communities that could be harmed by the removal of 113 hectares from the biological reserve and the creation of a large reservoir with a water-surface area of approximately 850 hectares.

They mention that no analysis was conducted of land tenure around the RBLB to determine which area was best suited to compensate for the area removed from that biological reserve; instead, SENARA determined which lands would be used as compensation. They state that the foregoing was not the result of a detailed land-tenure study. They assert that the requirement to verify the existence of sufficient financial resources to acquire the lands in the proposed area was not met. They add that, as may be seen from a review of the OET technical report, that report was not coordinated by the appropriate SINAC body, in clear violation of article 71 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad. They further contend that the Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales (Law No. 6084) was violated, numeral 8 of which makes clear the type of property restrictions (limitaciones a la propiedad) imposed on properties declared to be a biological reserve.

They argue that, in this case, no technical studies were conducted regarding two of the three properties included in the biological reserve and, moreover, an inholding (fundo enclavado) within the biological reserve was excluded from the expropriation area. They state that numeral 36 of the Ley del Ambiente provides that, in order to create new state-owned protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), regardless of the management category established, certain requirements must first be met, including minimum funding to acquire, protect, and manage the area. They maintain that this condition was not met in the case of Law No. 9610. They indicate that the ordinary budget for the year 2018, which was being executed when Law No. 9610 was enacted, contained no budgetary appropriation to pay for the expropriation of the private properties incorporated into the RBLB. They add that this failure violates the principle of budgetary balance (principio de equilibrio presupuestario) (article 176 of the Political Constitution), because that law assumes new payment obligations that were not provided for in the budget law, although this is a requirement for expanding protected areas.

They state that Law No. 9610 removes 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status so that they may be flooded. They note that, to carry out that removal, compensation is provided through more than 500 hectares of privately owned land; however, this raises the question of why those properties were chosen instead of other properties adjacent to the RBLB, including lower-value lands or state-owned lands adjacent to the reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal that have a much lower protection category than a biological reserve (more than 300 hectares). They allege that this consequently constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness and proportionality (principio constitucional de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad), because an expenditure of billions of colones to compensate for 113 hectares of the RBLB removed from protected status through the challenged law is not justified when options exist ranging from no cost to the State to a substantially lower cost.

They contend that the principle of economy and efficiency (principio de economía y eficiencia), in the context of the challenged law, is closely related to the aforementioned constitutional principle of reasonableness and proportionality. They allege a violation of the constitutional principle of economy and efficiency because the law requires the expropriation of more than 500 hectares to compensate for 113 hectares being removed from protected status, when more than 300 hectares of state-owned land having a lower management and protection category than a national park or biological reserve could readily be incorporated into the RBLB at no cost whatsoever to the public treasury. They maintain that no review was conducted of all properties adjacent to the RBLB to find a way to provide compensation at the lowest possible cost, nor was a cost-benefit analysis (análisis de costo-beneficio) conducted for all properties adjacent to the RBLB. In view of the foregoing, they request that the challenged provision be declared unconstitutional.

1. 2By an order issued at 15:16 hours on 10 de enero de 2019, the Presidency of the Chamber directed the petitioners to clarify: “a) whether they have any type of legal relationship or economic interest with respect to the companies ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., 3-101-734726 S.A. (known as Brindis de Amor or Brindis de Amor en Liberia), Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa Rica Pacífico del Mar CMP S.A., or any other legal entity that may be affected by the challenged provisions, and to provide documentary evidence supporting their statements; and b) with regard to the alleged infringement of the rights and interests of those companies, including the alleged violations of Articles 11 and 45 of the Constitución Política and 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, whether there is an underlying proceeding (asunto base) in which the unconstitutionality of the challenged provisions was expressly raised prior to the filing of the action and, if so, they must clarify the procedural phase or status of that underlying proceeding and provide a certified copy of the filing in which such unconstitutionality was raised.”
2. 3In a written submission received at 10:19 hours on 16 de enero de 2019, the petitioners María del Milagro Gamboa Miranda and Gary Douglas Stewart Postel entered an appearance. They state that the former is the legal representative of 3-101-734726 S.A. and the latter of Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. They indicate that neither has an ownership interest in or serves as legal representative of Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. or Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa Pacífico del Mar CPM S.A. They state that they bring the action in their personal capacities and not as representatives of those companies. They add that there is no prior proceeding in which the constitutionality of the enacted law is being disputed.
3. 4By a ruling of the Presidency issued at 11:05 hours on 23 de enero de 2019, the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) filed by María Del Milagro Gamboa Miranda and Gary Douglas Stewart Postel, respectively the legal representatives of 3-101-734726 S.A. and HACIENDA CIRUELAS SP S.A., against Law No. 9610 of 17 de octubre de 2018, entitled “Modification of the Boundaries of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for the Development of the Water-Supply Project for Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque and Comunidades Costeras,” was admitted for consideration, and the Procurador General de la República, the Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa, the Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, and the Gerente General del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento were granted an opportunity to be heard. It was also determined that the action was admissible because it met the requirements set forth in Sections 73 through 79 of the Jurisdicción Constitucional, and that the petitioners’ standing (legitimación) arose from paragraph 2 of Section 75 of that same body of law, insofar as the action was brought in defense of diffuse interests (intereses difusos) to safeguard the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
4. 5The notices specified in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in issues Nos. 35, 36, and 37 of the Boletín Judicial on 19, 20, and 21 de febrero de 2019, respectively.
5. 6In a written submission added to the digital case file at 11:07 hours on 15 de febrero de 2019, Julio Jurado Fernández enters an appearance in his capacity as Procurador General de la República. He states that, in order to organize and facilitate the analysis of the action, he will group the points to be presented according to their content, as follows: “1) Arguments concerning the violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado). a) Violation of Article 50 of the Constitución Política. Referring to constitutional case law on the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the petitioners state that Ley 9610 violates the principle of objective grounding of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental), because it was enacted without a serious, comprehensive, and objective study of the consequences of removing 113 hectáreas from the protected status (desafectar) of the RBLB and of the replacement or compensation involving 500 hectáreas of privately owned properties.Based on a study by the Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica that they submit as evidence, they state that the study by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET) used for the enactment of the Law (“Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) and Adjacent Property”) is insufficient to determine the change in boundaries; that it does not demonstrate that the area removed from protected status will be fully compensated for; that it hastily includes other nearby properties without adequate grounds; and that it does not take into account the environmental impacts of the Río Piedras reservoir on the Reserve and on all the wetland ecosystems of Bajo Tempisque. b) Violation of Article 7 of the Constitución Política. The petitioners maintain that Ley 9610 violates Article 7 of the Constitution because it is contrary to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention, approved by Ley No. 7224 de 9 de abril de 1991) and the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (approved by Ley No. 5980 de 16 de noviembre de 1976).They state that this Reserve is located north of Parque Nacional Palo Verde and that, in 2001, it was included within the geographical area of the Sitio Ramsar Palo Verde Verde (sic). For that reason, based on several official letters from Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, they maintain that the project should have been reported to the Convention, since otherwise the country is failing to honor the commitments undertaken upon signing it. Specifically, they consider Article 4, paragraph 2), of the Ramsar Convention to have been breached; it provides that “when a Contracting Party, for urgent reasons of national interest, withdraws or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the ‘List,’ it should as far as possible compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, should create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same area or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of the former habitat.” They further state that the modification of the boundaries of the RBLB has not been declared a matter of urgent national interest.Moreover, based on the submitted official letters from Área de Conservación Tempisque, they assert that Área de Conservación Guanacaste is a World Heritage Site under constant monitoring by UNESCO and that the World Heritage Committee recently requested that the country conduct a strategic environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental estratégica) of the area, allowing the possible direct or indirect impacts of projects to be anticipated, even when those projects are located outside the boundaries of the site declared to be World Heritage. They state that although the RBLB is not within that site’s area, it borders Corredor Biológico Morocochas, which in turn borders Parque Nacional Rincón de la Vieja, which does form part of the World Heritage Site. For that reason, they state, it is necessary to analyze whether PAACUME has any impact on that site. They argue that the OET study underlying the challenged Law does not mention Humedal Palo Verde or provide details on how the affected area is to be compensated for.They likewise state that the study does not mention the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, which affords special protection to Área de Conservación Guanacaste. c) Violation of the principle of non-regression in environmental matters (principio de no regresión en materia ambiental). The petitioners reproduce several decisions of the Sala Constitucional concerning the principle of non-regression in environmental matters and the application of that principle to the reduction in size of protected wildlife areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), and state that the challenged Law was enacted without satisfying the requirement established by the Sala Constitucional that there be a technical and scientific opinion justifying the reduction in size of the protected area. Relying on the opinion of the Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, which they submit and reproduce, they assert that the OET study underlying Ley 9610 is not a complete, objective, scientific, and technical study and that it contains numerous omissions and weaknesses.They begin by stating that the study’s first defect is that Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) determined which property was to be used to compensate for the area to be removed from the protected status of the RBLB, without any technical justification. They then state that the OET study includes two additional properties that were ultimately used to compensate for the area removed from protected status, without conducting a biological baseline study (estudio de línea base de biología) capable of scientifically determining that these properties actually possess environmental characteristics that replace the ecosystem functions of the area removed from protected status. They also criticize the study for failing to consider the possible impact on Parque Nacional Palo Verde, a Ramsar site of which the RBLB also forms part. Accordingly, they consider the study justifying the removal of 113 hectáreas of the RBLB from protected status to be incomplete and to fail to determine, technically or scientifically, the environmental impact of that removal and the flooding of those lands.In their view, this fails to satisfy the requirements established by the Sala Constitucional for reducing the boundaries of protected wildlife areas, as stated in decision No. 13367-20 12 concerning the bill recognizing the rights of the inhabitants of the southern Caribbean. In support of their position, they reproduce the memorandum from the Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, signed by Jorge Arturo Lobo, which states that the compensation proposal put forward by the OET is insufficient in relation to the environmental damage that the 850 hectáreas reservoir will cause to the ecological integrity of such an important protected dry-forest area. That memorandum questions the methodology used by the OET and states that, in order to determine the area of land that should be used to compensate for the lands removed from protected status, a numerical value was assigned to different ecosystem variables in the floodable area of the RBLB and the “ASETREK” property, after which the scores for each area were tallied and the totals obtained.It explains that in several respects the ASETREK property received a lower score than that obtained by the RBLB ecosystem; that the required area of the compensation property was therefore calculated so as to equalize the score; and that, based on that calculation, the final figure was reached for the number of hectáreas needed to compensate for the 113 hectáreas of the RBLB that will be flooded. Additionally, it questions the fact that, when ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) were tallied, pollination, soil protection, aquifer protection, and pest-control services were not considered; limitations in the field sampling are identified, since, for example, no bird sampling was conducted during the arrival season of migratory species; and it states that the scoring system has limitations because it did not adequately assess the difference in slopes between the two sites or quantify the importance of the water sources.The reproduced Report criticizes the final result of the OET study, stating that, because the authors considered that the ASETREK property has no riparian forests (bosques riparios), they proposed incorporating other lands that were not studied and to which no ecosystem-value score was assigned. It also criticizes the final recommendation that the planned Río Piedras reservoir be considered part of the compensation for the flooded area of the RBLB, on the ground that it could be declared a wetland under the category of Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre). Regarding this last point, it states that “this would involve an exchange between two formally different ecosystems (a forest ecosystem for a wetland ecosystem),” and further questions the failure to assess the environmental impacts that the reservoir will cause. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners reiterate that the OET study does not satisfy the requirements established by the Sala Constitucional for removing part of a protected wildlife area from protected status, and they add as deficiencies that the study itself states that, because of the shape and location of the “Brindis de amor” property, its annexation would extend the northern end of the RBLB, forming a forested peninsula that would not contribute to the formation of a compact block, and that this runs counter to basic principles of reserve design.They also allege that Hacienda Ciruelas (referred to in the study as Rancho Wilson) was incorporated into the RBLB without having been studied, since the OET study refers to it only tangentially and, moreover, the formal proposal for its incorporation was made by SENARA through official letter No. SENARA-INDEP-441-2017, after the OET study had been prepared, based on maps and on SENARA and Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía officials’ knowledge of the site. d) Violation of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio). The petitioners maintain that the precautionary principle was violated because, upon enactment of the Law, 113 hectáreas of the RBLB were removed from protected status for the purpose of flooding them and creating the Río Piedras reservoir, although the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) for the PAACUME project had not been approved by Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA).They therefore consider that the boundaries of a Biological Reserve, which enjoys a high level of protection, were modified without certainty that the project would obtain environmental approval (viabilidad ambiental) and could be carried out. e) Violation of the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica). Official letter No. DIG-388-2018 from Instituto Geográfico Nacional, submitted by the petitioners, refers to the content of bill No. 20645 and identifies several inaccuracies concerning the coordinates and geographical boundaries established in Article 1 of the bill. On that basis, the petitioners consider the principle of legal certainty to have been violated because it is impossible to know with certainty how many hectáreas must be expropriated and what the final boundaries of the RBLB are. f) Violation of the principle of legality (principio de legalidad). Another of the petitioners’ arguments is that the Law is contrary to several provisions of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley de Biodiversidad and its Reglamento, and the Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales, which establish the requirements for creating or modifying protected wildlife areas.For that reason, they believe that the principle of legality established in Article 11 of the Constitución Política has been violated. 2) Arguments concerning the violation of the principle of budgetary balance (principio de equilibrio presupuestario).

The petitioners contend that Article 176 of the Political Constitution gives rise to the principle of budgetary balance, or the principle of the budget’s necessary content, and that Ley 9610 is contrary to that principle because, disregarding the requirement established by Article 36 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente that minimum funding be available for the creation of protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), it includes private properties within the RBLB even though the 2018 budget did not provide any budget appropriation to pay for the necessary expropriations. Along the same lines, they consider the principle of reasonableness and proportionality to have been violated because, in their view, the Law requires the State to allocate a large amount of resources to expropriate the land that will compensate for the area removed from the RBLB’s protected status (área desafectada), when compensation could have been provided using land owned by MINAE or land less expensive than the parcels selected.

They consider that, in the current environment of public finance deficits, there is no justification for the State to allocate millions to expropriating that land when other, more favorable options were available. For the same reason, they consider the principle of economy and efficiency to have been violated, since there was an option to compensate for the area removed from protected status using a property belonging to MINAE, at no cost to the State. They further question the fact that not all properties adjoining the Reserve were studied to determine how to compensate for the area removed from protected status at the lowest possible cost. 3) Arguments concerning the infringement of the right to private property. In the petitioners’ view, Ley 9610 affects the private property of three legal entities and places it within the area of the RBLB, without a legally established public interest and without prior compensation.

In their opinion, this constitutes a violation of Article 45 of the Constitution. Closely related to that last argument, the petitioners state that, because it is a provision restricting the right to property, the Law was passed by a qualified majority (mayoría calificada), and therefore could not be processed under the procedure established by Article 208 bis of the Reglamento de Orden, Dirección y Disciplina Interior de la Asamblea Legislativa, which was designed as a procedure for processing bills passed by an absolute majority (mayoría absoluta). They state that, as noted by the Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea, the bill was processed in part through that procedure, and that this constitutes a violation of the limitations established by Article 208, which, in their view, is a standard for reviewing the constitutionality of legal provisions. Por tanto, they consider the Law unconstitutional because of a violation of parliamentary procedure.” In this regard, the Procuraduría considers that the petitioners have standing (legitimación) to bring this action under the second paragraph of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional only with respect to the claims concerning the violation of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and those concerning the violation of the principle of budgetary balance.

It notes that the Sala Constitucional has recognized standing for the defense of diffuse interests (intereses difusos) in environmental matters on numerous occasions (for example, in decisions nos. 18360-2017 at 10:50 hours on 15 de noviembre de 2017, 9201-2009 at 9 hours 7 minutes on 12 de junio de 2009, and 2699-2009 at 15 hours 6 minutes on 2 de marzo de 2011, among many others), as well as in cases involving the proper management of public funds (decisions nos. 472-2018 at 9:15 hours on 17 de enero de 2018, S798-2014 at 16:33 hours on 30 de abril de 2014, and 14348-2009 at 15:19 hours on 16 de setiembre de 2009). It states that there is no diffuse interest in defending against the alleged violation of the right to private property and that, in the case at bar (sub iudice), the existence of a prior proceeding in which the alleged unconstitutionality was invoked as a means of protecting the claimed right or interest has not been established.

It considers the action admissible only with respect to the arguments concerning the violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the principle of budgetary balance and, consequently, considers the objections concerning the violation of the right to private property inadmissible. Regarding the merits of the action, it states the following. 1) Arguments concerning the violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. A. Reduction of protected wild areas. It argues that the Sala Constitucional has recognized on numerous occasions that the validity of a reduction in the size of a protected wild area depends on whether it complies with Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. In other words, it explains, reducing the land area of a protected wild area is not unconstitutional if two essential requirements are met: the measure must be adopted by law, and it must first be justified by sufficient technical studies.

It partially cites decision no. 1056-2009 at 14:59 hours and, to the same effect, refers to judgments nos. 11155-2007, 14772-2010, and 2375-2017. It states that this Court, in decision no. 12887-2014 at 14:30 hours on 8 de agosto de 2014, added a third requirement: “A protected area may be reduced only if this is done by law, if technical and scientific studies rule out environmental harm, and if the removed area is compensated for with another area of equal size. This follows from what this Chamber has held on previous occasions in decisions numbers 2012-13367 and 2009-1056… there can be no doubt that all provisions reducing protected areas without the support of technical studies or any compensation are unconstitutional.” Regarding the technical study that must justify the measure, it partially transcribes judgment no. 13367-2012 at 11:33 hours on 21 de setiembre de 2012: “In this regard, the requirement for technical studies justifying the approval of bills intended to reduce or remove the protected status (desafectación) of an environmentally protected area must be satisfied before or during the legislative procedure.

Furthermore, the requirement for technical studies is not a mere formality but a substantive requirement; that is, an individualized scientific analysis must substantively demonstrate the extent of the corresponding measure’s impact on the environment, make recommendations aimed at mitigating its adverse environmental impact, and demonstrate how the measure entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” To the same effect, it refers to decision no. 10158-2013. It adds that the foregoing line of case law establishes the principle of irreducibility (irreductibilidad) of protected wild areas, under which such areas may not be reduced or modified unless the established requirements are met. It adds that the foregoing is clearly related to the principles of non-regression in environmental matters (no regresión en materia ambiental), evidence-based environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental), prevention (preventivo), and precaution (precautorio).

With respect to the principle of non-regression, it partially cites judgment no. 13367-2012, and with respect to the principle of evidence-based environmental protection, it partially transcribes decision no. 2063-2007 at 14:40 hours on 14 de febrero de 2007. It explains that the prevention principle, set forth in section 11 of the Ley de Biodiversidad (no. 7788 of 30 de abril de 1998), requires public authorities to adopt measures intended to prevent, mitigate, or correct the adverse environmental effects caused by human activities or actions. It argues that the precautionary principle is grounded in Article 15 of the Declaración de Río sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo and Article 11 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, and entails that, when there is a risk of environmental harm, even if there is no scientific certainty that it will occur, the activities or projects must be halted, or the granting of authorizations capable of causing such harm must be denied or suspended.

In support of the foregoing, it cites decision no. 6322-2003 at 14:14 hours on 3 de julio de 2003. B. The technical basis of the challenged law. It asserts that legislative expediente no. 2046, in which the challenged law was processed, contains the Organización para Estudios Tropicales study entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property” (folios 268-504), whose objective was to determine the biological and geophysical characteristics of the RBLB area that would be replaced by the reservoir area and to assess the biodiversity components on an adjacent property owned by ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., in order to evaluate its potential to compensate for the affected area of the RBLB; that is, the study was intended to determine whether the area of the RBLB that would be removed from protected status could be compensated for. It recounts that the study determined that, to compensate for the area, 444 hectares of the ASETREK property and 86 hectares of the Brindis de Amor property had to be included within the Reserve, in addition to using the Río Piedras reservoir as part of the compensation.

It maintains that, based on the opinion of the Comité Técnico del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (minutes no. 5 of 30 de junio de 2017, folios 1478-1491 of the legislative expediente), the regional council of that conservation area reviewed the OET study and stated: “…except for the observations made regarding the conservation feature (objeto de conservación) known as riparian forest (bosque ripario), it may be technically affirmed that: a) the conservation features underlying the creation of Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal are not being affected; and b) the area is compensated for by another area of equal size that serves the same purposes and has similar ecosystem conditions. III- It has been verified that the technical report submitted to this body for consideration has complied with the content required by sections 71 and 72 of Decreto Ejecutivo 34433-MINAE ‘Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad’.” (Official Letter No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 of 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497).” It states that, because the OET study identified a shortfall in riparian forest area needed to compensate for the affected area of that type of ecosystem, the Comité Técnico and the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación recommended in the cited documents: “Identify a riparian forest area sufficient to compensate for the shortfall in hectares of this type of ecosystem.” It notes that, in the aforementioned letter, the Consejo Regional stated: “Several official letters sent by SENARA—for example, SENARA-GG-0374-2017, SENARA-GG-0257-2017, and SENARA-INDER-172-2017—indicate that the ASETREK property contains 6,14 has (sic) of riparian forest.

However, this figure is not mentioned in the study conducted by OET or supported by any corresponding study having the same characteristics as the initial study. With respect to the Brindis de Amor property, this Council likewise considers that the studies were not conducted with the same depth of analysis as the initial study, or over a period sufficient to provide technical support for the quality of the components addressed from the beginning of the research. More in-depth studies must be conducted on this property or any other property proposed as compensation so that this Council may issue a substantiated opinion.” It notes that the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación recommended preparing a bill grounded in technical evidence that would incorporate the recommendations issued by the Comité Técnico and the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque. (Oficio No. SI NAC-CONAC-SA-226 de 14 de agosto de 2017, folios 1476-1478).

It states that, in view of the shortfall in riparian forest area (área de bosque ripario) identified by the Comité Técnico and the Consejo Regional, the final compensation proposal was established in oficio n.º SENARA-INDEP-441-2017 de 17 de julio de 2017 (folios 141-149), which indicated that, to compensate for the area removed from protected status (área desafectada) and cover the riparian forest shortfall, the proposal would include 444,04 hectares of the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property, the entirety of the Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., covering 86,96 hectares, and an area of 40 hectares from the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property. It asserts that, after the bill was approved on second reading, the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque stated that SENARA had essentially proposed compensation at a ratio of 5 to 1; that is, compensation with an area 5 times larger than the area to be removed from protected status (oficio n.º SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644).

It explains that, because the Procuraduría serves as legal counsel, it is not technically qualified to assess either the OET study or the manner in which the final proposal to compensate for the area removed from the RBLB was established. It mentions that this assessment must take into account the views of the other institutions that were given a hearing in this constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad). It states that, if the OET study and the final proposal to compensate for the protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) were found to be technically insufficient, the challenged law would be unconstitutional for violating the principle that environmental protection must be grounded in objective technical evidence (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental). It asserts that the explanatory statement accompanying the bill and the legislative record as a whole justified removing part of the RBLB from protected status on the ground that the proposed compensation guarantees that the conservation targets (objetos de conservación) underlying the creation of the RBLB would not be affected and that the area removed from protected status would be compensated for by another area of equal size serving the same purposes and having similar ecosystem conditions.

It explains that the guarantee that the protected wildlife area will not be affected and that the impact of removing part of it from protected status will be mitigated rests directly on the proposed compensation. It adds that, if the OET study and the final compensation proposal are found to be insufficient and technically flawed, the challenged law would violate the principle of non-reduction of protected wildlife areas (principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas), because it would not guarantee that the approved modification of the boundaries would preserve the integrity of the RBLB, nor would it adequately mitigate the environmental impact caused by removing part of that biological reserve from protected status. It adds that, consequently, the precautionary and preventive principles (principios precautorio y preventivo) would be violated, and there would be no technical support demonstrating that the adopted legislative measure does not infringe the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

It maintains that the foregoing could also be contrary to the Convención Ramsar, with respect to the obligation established by artículo 3° to promote the conservation of wetlands included in the list of wetlands of international importance, of which the RBLB forms part because Palo Verde is included within the Ramsar site. It asserts that, even if the sufficiency of the OET study and the final compensation proposal is established, it must be noted that this technical study would justify only the validity of the compensation undertaken and, as such, is not a technical study directly justifying the decision to remove part of the RBLB from protected status. It explains that, under the constitutional case law on the matter, the study required by artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente to justify reducing a protected wildlife area must determine the necessity and advisability of adopting such a measure.

It states that, in this case, this would be a study providing a technical basis for the need to remove part of the RBLB from protected status; that is, one determining that the only way to develop the PAACUME project and the Río Piedras reservoir is to remove part of the biological reserve from protected status. It notes that, in referring to the OET study, the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque stated: “this body considers that it has not yet been demonstrated whether other alternatives for the PAACUME project exist that would not necessarily require removing an area of the current RBLB from protected status. If such alternatives are indeed not viable, it will be necessary to assess the third measure, namely compensation” (oficio n.° SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo). It mentions that, after the bill was approved on second reading, the council itself stated: “there must be sufficient environmental, legal, and financial technical studies to justify the proper selection both of the area to be removed from protected status and of the areas that will serve as compensation.

The existence of these studies in the record of this bill must be verified, because as of this date this Council does not have such information” (oficio n.° SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644). It states that the document “Perfil del Proyecto PAACUME,” prepared by SENARA (folios 505-621), proceeds from the premise that “one of the properties within the reservoir area belongs to the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal and covers approximately 112 ha”; it further states that the “area must be compensated for with an adjacent area having similar ecological characteristics, for which purpose a biodiversity baseline study (estudio de línea base de biodiversidad) must be prepared to demonstrate the equivalence of the compensation areas.” It adds that the document records that the OET prepared that study (folio 557). It states that some of the officials who appeared at the sessions of the legislative committee that processed the bill explained that, from a technical standpoint, the PAACUME project could not be developed without removing part of the RBLB from protected status and flooding it; and that, in the document entitled “Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales.

Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal” (folios 622-726), one participant’s question was answered as follows: “if the 113 hectares of the RBLB cannot be obtained, the project changes completely, because without these 113 hectares of the RBLB, the dam specifications, the amount of water to be impounded, the project cost, and the design would all have to change completely” (folio 661). It contends that, based on the views of the institutions given a hearing in this constitutional challenge, it must be determined whether sufficient technical support exists to justify the need to remove part of the RBLB from protected status for purposes of implementing the PAACUME project. It argues that, if such support is not established, ley n.° 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of non-reduction of protected wildlife areas, objective technical grounding of environmental protection, and non-regression (no regresión).

It maintains that, in that event, the provision could be contrary to the Convención Ramsar because, although the Convention does not require States to give prior notice of a decision to modify the area of sites of international importance, its artículo 4° makes that possibility contingent on the existence of an urgent national interest, which would not be duly justified in this particular case. It asserts that it is also important to determine whether the text of the challenged law addressed the inaccuracies identified by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (oficios que constan a folios 1890-1914 y 2604-2608) concerning the coordinates and geographical location, and whether those inaccuracies affect the proper delineation of the area removed from protected status and of the areas included in the reserve that must be expropriated, since this could, to some extent, prevent the proposed compensation from being implemented.

It suggests requesting a technical opinion from the Instituto Geográfico Nacional. It indicates that the claimants’ arguments concerning violation of the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), arising from failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements for reducing or modifying the size of protected wildlife areas, are encompassed within the analysis conducted in that regard and therefore are not examined separately. It states that the possible violation of the Convención para la Protección del Patrimonio Mundial Cultural y Natural de la UNESCO and the potential effects of the PAACUME project on the site declared a World Heritage Site in the Área de Conservación Guanacaste are matters that must be assessed in the project’s ongoing environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental). Regarding the effects of the challenged law. It notes that ley n.° 9610 has certain distinctive features compared with other statutory provisions seeking to reduce the size of protected wildlife areas because, in this case, the decision to remove part of the RBLB from protected status is not based on a loss of environmental value or on protection of the area, but exclusively on the need to develop an infrastructure project as part of the implementation of the PAACUME project.

It adds that the authorized removal from protected status is relevant solely to the development of that project. Based on the foregoing, the Procuraduría considers that, in addition to the observations made in the preceding section, one defect in the law that could render it unconstitutional is its failure to include any provision regulating the effects of the removal from protected status until the project is implemented, since the decision to remove the area from protected status makes sense and is justified only if the project is carried out. It adds that, if the project is not developed for any reason, the removal from protected status would serve no purpose and would therefore lack justification. It reiterates that the justification for the removal from protected status depends on the project’s eventual implementation, which could be prevented for various reasons, including denial of the project’s environmental feasibility approval (viabilidad ambiental), lack of the necessary financing, loss of interest in developing it, or the impossibility of implementing it.

It states that the guarantee that the RBLB will not be adversely affected lies in the proposed compensation measure, but the fact remains that the challenged law removed part of the reserve from protected status and, although the compensation area was included within its boundaries, those lands are privately owned properties that have not been expropriated. It explains that, under numeral 37 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, until those properties are acquired or purchased, they cannot become part of the protected wildlife area, meaning that the proposed compensation has not materialized. It explains that, in other words, with the enactment of ley n.° 9610, the area of the RBLB was reduced, and the harm caused by that reduction has not been compensated for, in contravention of the precautionary and preventive principles. It states that, if the project is not developed for any reason and the expropriations necessary to implement the proposed compensation are likewise not carried out, the law will have removed part of the RBLB from protected status in vain, without valid justification and without compensating for or mitigating the effects caused by that reduction.

It states that the foregoing would constitute a violation of the principle of non-reduction (irreductibilidad) of protected wildlands (áreas silvestres protegidas), the principles of non-regression (no regresión), precaution (precautorio), and prevention (preventivo), and even a violation of the Ramsar Convention, because there is no urgently necessary reason justifying the reduction of the area of one of the sites of international importance. It argues that, without prejudice to what may be established regarding the sufficiency of the aforementioned studies and technical criteria, the Procuraduría considers that, for the reason just indicated, law n.° 9610 could be unconstitutional unless it is interpreted that the authorized removal of protected status (desafectación) will take effect only when the project is implemented and the lands necessary for the proposed compensation are expropriated. 2) Regarding the violation of the principle of budgetary balance (principio de equilibrio presupuestario).

It indicates that Article 176 of the Constitución Política establishes that the ordinary budget includes all probable revenues and all authorized expenditures of the Administración Pública throughout the fiscal year, and that the amount of budgeted expenditures may not exceed probable revenues. It notes that the principle of budgetary balance has been developed on the basis of that provision and states: “What the constituent authority contemplated was simply an accounting balance, in the sense that total projected expenditures could never exceed total projected revenues” (voto n.° 481-2002 de las 14:42 horas de 23 de enero de 2002, and, to similar effect, votos n.os 2794-2003 y 15712-2016). It clarifies that the discussion as to whether the ordinary budget includes the specific appropriation intended to cover the expropriations required for the compensation of the RBLB does not concern a violation of the principle of budgetary balance.

It states that failure to carry out those expropriations could instead constitute an impairment of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as explained above. It mentions that the selection of land to compensate for the reduction in the area of a protected wildland should not be based solely on an economic criterion but must instead be based on the land’s ecological attributes, so that it has environmental conditions equivalent to those of the area whose protected status was removed and the compensation thereby fulfills its ultimate purpose. It argues that the Sala Constitucional has held that the rights to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are fundamental rights and that “any economic criterion sought to be applied in a specific case must yield in importance to the former,” and, furthermore, that “the criterion of placing them in opposition while assigning greater value to purely economic considerations…” is not valid (voto n.° 5906-1999 de las 16:15 horas de 28 de julio de 1999).

It asserts that the existence of other, less costly land on which to carry out the compensation does not constitute a violation of the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, economy, and efficiency, as alleged by the applicants, unless it were technically established that other, less costly land existed with the same or better environmental conditions and that it was fully suitable for compensating for the area removed from the reserve. It concludes as follows: “ 1. The action is admissible only with respect to the claims concerning the violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the principle of budgetary balance; consequently, the claims concerning the violation of the right to private property are inadmissible. 2. If the OET study and the final proposal for compensation of the RBLB are found to be technically insufficient, the challenged law would be unconstitutional for violating the principles of the objective grounding of environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental), precaution, prevention, and non-reduction of protected wildlands, because it would not guarantee that the approved modification of the boundaries does not affect the integrity of the RBLB, nor would it adequately mitigate the environmental impact (impacto ambiental) caused by removing protected status from part of that Reserva Biológica.

This would also be contrary to the obligation established by Article 3° of the Ramsar Convention to promote the conservation of wetlands (zonas húmedas) included in the list of wetlands of international importance. 3. It must be assessed whether sufficient technical grounds exist to justify the need to remove protected status from part of the RBLB so that it may be used in the implementation of the PAACUME project. If such grounds are not established, Ley 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of non-reduction of protected wildlands, the objective grounding of environmental protection, and non-regression, and because the urgently necessary reason of national interest upon which the Ramsar Convention conditions the possibility of modifying the area of sites of international importance has not been established. 4. It is advisable to request the opinion of the Instituto Geográfico Nacional as to whether the challenged Law took into account the inaccuracies identified in the coordinates and geographical location, and whether those inaccuracies have any effect on the proper delimitation of the area whose protected status was removed and of the areas being incorporated into the Reserve that must be expropriated, because this could prevent the proposed compensation from being implemented. 5 .

If, for any reason, the project is not developed and the expropriations necessary to implement the proposed compensation are likewise not carried out, Ley 9610 would have removed protected status from the RBLB in vain, without valid justification and without compensating for and mitigating the effects caused by that reduction. This would constitute a violation of the principles of non-reduction of protected wildlands, precaution, prevention, and non-regression, and even a violation of the Ramsar Convention, because there would be no urgently necessary reason justifying the reduction of the area of one of the sites of international importance. The foregoing applies unless it is interpreted that the authorized removal of protected status will take effect only when the project is implemented and the lands necessary for the proposed compensation are explored. 6. Whether or not the ordinary budget includes the specific appropriation intended to cover the expropriations required for the compensation of the RBLB does not entail a violation of the principle of budgetary balance. 7 .

The fact that other, less costly land existed on which to carry out the compensation does not constitute a violation of the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, economy, and efficiency, unless it were technically established that such land has the same or better environmental conditions than the land selected and was fully suitable for compensating for the area removed from the Reserve”.

1. 7In a written submission received by the Secretaría de la Sala at 11:02 hours on 15 de febrero de 2019, Carolina Hidalgo Herrera appeared in her capacity as president of the Asamblea Legislativa. She states that the action was filed by Gary Douglas Stewart Postel and María del Milagro Gamboa Miranda, who justified their standing (legitimación) under the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Constitution, insofar as they seek the protection of diffuse interests (intereses difusos), because, in their view, the challenged provision infringes the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the principles of legality, pro natura, precaution, and non-regression in environmental matters. She partially cites Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional in relation to diffuse interests. She points out that, in light of the second paragraph of the foregoing provision, no prior case pending resolution is necessary when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury, or when the action concerns the defense of diffuse interests affecting the community as a whole.She partially transcribes judgment n.° 8239-2001 of the Sala concerning the parameters of diffuse interests. She notes that, under the case-law position, diffuse interests are those held by groups of persons who are not formally organized but are united by a particular social need, a physical characteristic, their ethnic origin, or a particular personal or ideological orientation, among other factors. She states that the Sala has repeatedly held that, when the legal protection of the environment is at issue, the standing of private individuals to bring judicial proceedings and secure the application of rules intended for that purpose, or to request judicial protection to restore rights deemed to have been infringed, is particularly relevant. She mentions that, in this matter, the petitioners justified their action on the ground that the challenged provision, in their view, infringes every person’s right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as established in Article 50 of the Carta Fundamental; in other words, they do not base their standing on harm to any particular private individual or to themselves, but rather to society as a whole—that is, collective interests (intereses colectivos)—and therefore their standing is not disputed.Regarding wetlands (humedales) and their legal framework (régimen jurídico). She states that the Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas (Convención de RAMSAR), incorporated into the Costa Rican legal system through law n.° 7224 of 9 de abril de 1991, defines wetlands as follows: “For the purposes of this Convention, wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland, or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish, or salt, including areas of marine water whose depth at low tide does not exceed six metres. For the purposes of this Convention, waterfowl are birds ecologically dependent on wetlands.” She argues that, based on this definition, the Convención RAMSAR provides that the parties shall designate within their territories the wetlands they consider to be of international importance in accordance with the Convention itself, thereby giving rise to a list of wetlands.She contends that, as established by Article 2 of the Convención RAMSAR, the international importance of a wetland is determined on the basis of ecological, botanical, zoological, limnological, or hydrological criteria, with particular attention to their importance for waterfowl throughout the year. She adds that this provision states the following regarding the possibility of adding areas to or reducing the list of wetlands: “The Contracting Parties shall have the right to add to the ‘List’ other wetlands situated within their territory, to extend the boundaries of those already included, or, because of urgent national interests, to delete or restrict the boundaries of wetlands already included, and shall inform, as rapidly as possible, the organization or government responsible for the continuing bureau duties specified in Article 8 of any such changes.” She asserts that Article 3 of the Convención RAMSAR requires the States Parties to formulate management plans (planes de gestión) conducive to the conservation and wise use of wetlands: “Article 3.- The Contracting Parties shall formulate and implement their management plans so as to promote the conservation of the wetlands included in the ‘List’ and, as far as possible, the wise use of the wetlands in their territory.Each Contracting Party shall arrange to be informed at the earliest possible time if the ecological character of any wetland in its territory and included in the ‘List’ has changed, is changing, or is likely to change as a result of technological developments, pollution, or other human interference. Information on such changes shall be forwarded without delay to the organization or government responsible for the continuing bureau duties specified in Article 80.” She maintains that, as the foregoing provision indicates, technological development is relevant and important as a factor to be considered, because it does not prohibit intervention provided that the sustainability of the ecosystem is ensured. She notes that Article 4 of the Convención RAMSAR encourages the States Parties to establish legal conservation regimes for wetlands, but does so in general terms without reference to any particular type and, moreover, recommends compensation when wetlands included in the list are reduced: “Article 4.- Each Contracting Party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by establishing nature reserves on wetlands, whether or not they are included in the ‘List,’ and shall provide adequately for their management and care...Where a Contracting Party, because of urgent national interests, deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the ‘List,’ it should as far as possible compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, should create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same region or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of their former habitat.” She maintains that the philosophy of the Convención Ramsar revolves around the concept of the wise use of wetlands (uso racional de los humedales), which is defined as “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development.” She asserts that the conservation of wetlands, as well as the sustainable use of wetlands and their resources, lies at the heart of “wise use,” for the benefit of humanity. She states that, regarding the legal framework governing wetlands in Costa Rica, pursuant to Article 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, they are defined as: “ecosystems dependent on aquatic regimes, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, lentic or flowing, fresh, brackish, or salt, including marine areas up to the outer limit of marine phanerogams or coral reefs or, in their absence, to a depth of six metres at low tide.” She states that, from this legal perspective, wetlands are ecosystems defined by their biological characteristics, in which water resources predominate or are exclusive (Article 1.1 of the Convención de RAMSAR, Articles 40, 51, and 52 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambienta, and Articles 5, 6, and 7 of executive decree n.° 35803 of 7 de enero de 2010).She notes that other provisions also apply to wetlands, including those contained in the Ley de Aguas, the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, and the Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre. She observes that national legislation does not contain a legal framework specific to wetlands as an ecosystem and, consequently, it has been accepted that certain activities may be carried out without this entailing a reduction in the legally established level of protection. She clarifies that Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal is not itself a wetland, but it does form part of sitio Ramsar Palo Verde because, when Ramsar sites are designated, consideration is given not only to the ecosystems themselves but also to the existing interrelationships that affect wetlands positively or negatively, including that protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida). She mentions that “The Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas (Convención RAMSAR), although it is true that this Convention encourages compensation, insofar as possible, for the loss of wetland resources through the creation of new nature reserves in those cases in which a wetland is removed from the list of wetlands of international importance or the boundaries of one of them are reduced, and likewise addresses communication regarding changes to wetlands situated within its territory and included in the ‘List’; it is appropriate to clarify that the purpose of Law N 9610 is the (sic) development of the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), as stated in its statement of reasons (expediente legislativo numero 20.465), a matter considered vitally important; likewise, the Convention does not specify a precise time at which the Contracting State must provide such notice and carry out the required compensation measures; therefore, in this specific case, the enactment of Law N° 9610 is the point from which such action could be taken by virtue of the effects generated by that law, and not before; consequently, there is no violation of that Convention or infringement of Article 7 of the Constitution, since the Costa Rican State may provide the corresponding notice in parallel with the domestic actions undertaken to protect wetlands by the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, as the competent entity, specifically in relation to (sic) the management category (categoría de manejo) to be assigned to Embalse Río Piedras, pursuant to Article 6 of the aforementioned law.” Principle of objective substantiation of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental).She states that this principle is also known as the principle of adherence to science and technology (principio de vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica), or the principle of reasonableness (principio de razonabilidad) in relation to environmental law. She explains that it has been recognized in constitutional case law and consists of the obligation to substantiate environmental decision-making through technical and scientific studies, whether in connection with individual administrative acts (actos administrativos individuales) or generally applicable legal and regulatory provisions. She adds that, by virtue of the foregoing, serious, exhaustive, and comprehensive technical and scientific studies must always be available to ensure the least possible environmental impact. She partially cites judgment n.° 2063-2007 of 14:40 hours on 14 de febrero de 2007. She states that this principle is linked to the preventive principle (principio preventivo) contained in Article 15 of the Declaración de Río and Article 11 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, which requires public authorities to adopt measures aimed at preventing, mitigating, or correcting the adverse environmental effects caused by human activities or actions.She explains that, in connection with the legislative proceedings for law n. ° 9610 (expediente legislativo 20.465), appearing at folios 268 through 728, the study entitled “Establishment of a Biodiversity Baseline for Reserva Biológica Lomas del Barbudal (RBLB) and the Adjacent Property” (“Establecimiento de línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas del Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente”), prepared by Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET), is included.

It adds that this document defined the baseline (línea base) for determining the ecological integrity, significance, and fragility of the ecosystems present, as well as the existing biodiversity in the RBLB area that would be directly impacted by the Río Piedras Reservoir; it also conducted a comparative analysis between the reserve and previously selected adjacent lands to determine their similarity and the feasibility of using them as an ecologically equivalent replacement (statement of reasons for the bill). It further states that this study used the “habitat-hectare method” (método de hábitat-hectárea) developed in Australia, which employs a set of indicators describing site condition (stage composition, structure, recruitment potential, invasive species, etc.) and its landscape-level context. It notes that these indicators are weighted and combined into a habitat score, all of which is explained in detail (pages 296 and 297 of legislative file 2/10).

It maintains that, after applying this methodology, the OET was able to establish that the portion of the RBLB proposed for de-designation (desafectación) was in better ecological condition than the areas proposed as compensation, at a ratio of 3 to 1; that is, for each hectare de-designated, 3 hectares would have to be provided as compensation. It asserts that, even so, a detailed review determined that one of the conservation targets (objetos de creación) of the RBLB—specifically, riparian forest (bosque ripario)—was not represented within the ASETREK property, which had been proposed to compensate for the 113 hectares that would be de-designated. It states that this gave rise to the need to identify other adjacent lands containing riparian forest to compensate for the absence of that ecosystem in the compensation proposal. It explains that, because the only requirement was to locate riparian forest, the studies of the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties did not examine them in the same detail as the ASETREK studies; nevertheless, the OET did conduct a characterization study (estudio de caracterización) of the Finca Brindis de Amor as supplemental compensation, which appears on folios 209 through 215 of the Baseline Study.

It notes that the Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (ACAT) of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, acting as the competent technical authority, analyzed the study entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) and Adjacent Property,” as recorded on folios 126 through 131 of the legislative file, and accordingly issued the following recommendations for improvement: “... Accordingly, except for the observations made concerning the conservation target known as riparian forest, it may be technically affirmed that: a) the conservation targets underlying the establishment of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for those same purposes are not being affected; and b) the area is being compensated for by another area of equal size that fulfills the same purposes and has similar ecosystem conditions. III. It has been verified that the Technical Report submitted to this body for consideration has complied with the content required by sections 71 and 72 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 34432-MINAE ‘Regulations to the Biodiversity Law.’ IV.

The study contains a series of recommendations that have been analyzed by this collegiate body and that, where applicable, must be adopted...” (Resolution No. 1 from the extraordinary session of 5 de julio de 2017 of the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, appearing on folios 126 through 131 of legislative file 1/10). It states that the technical studies were examined and reviewed by the corresponding SINAC bodies: the ACAT Scientific and Technical Committee, the ACAT Regional Council (Resolution No. 1 from the extraordinary session held on 5 de julio de 2017), and the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (extraordinary session No. 3-2017 of 11 de julio de 2017). Principle of environmental non-regression or irreducibility (principio de no regresión ambiental o irreductibilidad). It notes that the RBLB is a protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) in the absolute-protection category, which was declared by executive decree No. 16849-MAG of 23 de enero de 1986, covers 2602 hectares, and forms part of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque (ACAT) of SINAC.

It states that the modification of protected wildlife areas is provided for in the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), Article 38 of which provides: “The surface area of protected wildlife areas that constitute the State’s natural heritage, regardless of their management category, may be reduced only by a Law of the Republic, after conducting the technical studies that justify that measure.” It adds that the legislature may reduce such areas, provided that the required technical justification has first been established. It further discusses the principle of non-regression (a substantive guarantee of strictly environmental rights that prohibits the State from adopting measures or policies, or approving or amending rules, that, without reasonable or proportionate justification, diminish previously attained rights, deriving this principle from the principles of progressive realization of human rights, objective grounding of environmental protection, and non-retroactivity of rules).

It mentions Constitutional Chamber decision No. 2012-13367. It argues that the Constitutional Court has held that it is valid to expand the physical extent of protected areas by executive decree (principle of progressivity); however, any reduction may be made only by law, following a technical study consistent with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the requirements of ecological balance and a healthy environment, and the general welfare of the population, and capable of justifying the measure. It partially quotes judgment No. 7294-98. It refers to decision No. 5994-2017 regarding the scope of the principle of non-regression in environmental matters: “not every amendment to environmental regulations must be regarded as violating that principle.” It asserts that, in judgment No. 2012-13367, the Chamber explains the circumstances in which the principle of non-regression is not violated, as well as its connection to the principle prohibiting singular derogation from regulations (principio de inderogabilidad singular de la normativa).

It contends that, in this specific case, the modification made to the RBLB serves the improved use of water resources in the province of Guanacaste and, therefore, constitutes a justified and reasonable modification in light of the principle of sustainable development (principio de desarrollo sostenible), as conceptualized in judgment No. 763-1994 of 16:45 hours on 13 de abril de 1994, which it partially transcribes. It asserts that, at the national level, this principle is enshrined in section 50 of the Political Constitution, which establishes a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It partially quotes judgment No. 15315-2008 of 14:59 hours on 10 de octubre de 2008. It states that, with respect to the legislative proceedings, folios 268 through 726 contain the study entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) and Adjacent Property,” conducted by the OET, which carried out a comparative analysis between the reserve and previously selected adjacent lands to determine their similarity and the feasibility of using them as an ecologically equivalent replacement: “Accordingly, based on the results presented in the study conducted by the OET and the proposal made by Piaag’s high-level commission, the final compensation proposal is: 1.- A total of 444,04 hectares from the Asetrek Tres Azul S.A property, in accordance with the map of the proposed area. 2.- The entire Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., with a registered area of 86,96 hectares, in accordance with the map. 3.- An area of 40,00 hectares from the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property.

In total, the purchase of 571 hectares, representing 5 times the area that will be affected in the RBLB, with direct equivalence among forest types, as indicated in Table 7. Table 7. Comparison of the area by forest type between the affected area of the RBLB and the area proposed for compensation Type of cover Area affected in the RBLB (Ha)¹ Area of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. (Ha) Area of Brindis de Amor S.A. (Ha) Area of the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property Total proposed compensation area (Ha) Mature forest (bosque maduro) (Riparian) 24,71 6,14 16,41 8,49 31,04 Secondary forest (bosque secundario) 9,13 59,5 6,63 2,44 68,57 Deciduous forest (bosque deciduo) 96,05 286,67 45,74 26,91 359,32 Grasslands (pastos) 0,79 73,23 18,18 2,16 93,57 Non-forest areas (áreas no forestales) 0,39 18,5 - - 18,5 TOTALS 131,07 444,04 86,96 40 571 ¹Although the required area of the RBLB is 113 hectares, the OET conducted the study over 130,64 hectares, which is why this value is used for the comparison.

The proposed compensation measures achieve the conservation objective and, therefore, it may be stated: 1.- That the conservation targets underlying the creation of the “protected area” are not being affected. 2.- That the area is compensated for by another area of equal size that fulfills the same purposes and has similar ecosystem conditions.” It states that the Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, in its capacity as the competent technical authority, analyzed the foregoing study. It notes that, in light of the foregoing, there is a prior, scientifically based and duly substantiated study for this specific case, containing recommendations concerning mitigation of the impacts—unavoidably—generated through equivalent biodiversity compensation. It mentions that this study was used as a basis in the legislative record and that, therefore, the requirements concerning both statutory and constitutional parameters have been met.

It states that the study includes provisions to ensure, at the technical level, that the conservation targets underlying the creation of the protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) are effectively compensated for. Constitutional in dubio pro natura or precautionary principle (principio precautorio). It asserts that this principle is contained in article 11 of the Ley de Biodiversidad and in Principle 15 of the Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo. It partially quotes legal opinion n.º OJ-139-2001 of 27 de setiembre de 2001 of the Procuraduría General de la República: “In any event, even if there were doubt as to whether the environmental alterations analyzed here would occur upon authorizing the titling of land in protected wildlife areas, it is clear that the State must refrain from approving this type of legislation pursuant to the so-called precautionary principle, contained in the Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo (to the same effect, article 11 of the Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788 of 30 de abril de 1998): ‘Principle 15 In order to protect the environment, States shall broadly apply the precautionary approach according to their capabilities.

Where there is a threat of serious or irreversible harm, a lack of absolute scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’ In other words, given the serious threat posed to the various ecosystems by allowing land within protected areas to be registered in the Registro Público in the names of private individuals, the precautionary principle requires eliminating that possibility or replacing it with a rule that is not harmful to natural resources. Failure to do so violates this principle, which derives directly from ‘in dubio pro natura,’ a fundamental pillar of Environmental Law.” It transcribes, insofar as relevant, resolution n.º 2000-10465 of 24 de noviembre de 2000: “...One of the essential principles comprising environmental law is the ‘precautionary principle’ or ‘principle of prudent avoidance’; it is contained in the Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, Declaración de Rio, which literally states: ‘Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, States shall broadly apply the precautionary approach according to their capabilities.

Where there is a threat of serious and irreversible harm, a lack of absolute scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’ (See, to the same effect, article 11 of the Ley de Biodiversidad). The term prevention derives from the Latin ‘preventivo,’ which refers to the act and effect of preventing and to preparations and arrangements made in advance to avert a risk or perform an action. Prevention seeks to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and proper management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and adopt all precautionary measures to avoid or contain possible harm to the environment or human health. Accordingly, where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm—or doubt in that regard—a precautionary measure must be adopted, including postponement of the activity concerned.

This is because, in environmental matters, ex post coercion is ineffective, since once biologically and socially harmful consequences have already occurred, punishment may have moral significance but will scarcely compensate for the harm caused to the environment.” It argues that a distinction must be drawn between the study required for processing law n.° 9610 (which it discussed above) and the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) for the “Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Cesteras (Paacume),” which must be processed before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, as provided in section 4 of that law: “ARTICLE 4- The Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) shall be the entity responsible for conducting the environmental study for the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Cosieras (Paacume), which must include measures for the prevention, mitigation, and compensation of the area whose protected status is removed pursuant to article 2 of this law, and those measures must be implemented by the developer.

The environmental impact study must consider the baseline approved by the entities and endorsed by the Consejo Regional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), without prejudice to the terms of reference issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena), in accordance with the applicable legal framework.” It states that the Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica and its annexes 1 and 2, signed in Río de Janeiro in 1992 and approved through law n.° 7 416 of 30 de junio de 1994, establish in article 14 the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) instrument, under the preventive principle of minimizing adverse impacts: “Article 14. Impact assessment and minimization of adverse impacts 1. Each Contracting Party, insofar as possible and as appropriate: a) Shall establish appropriate procedures requiring the environmental impact assessment of its proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity, with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects and, where appropriate, shall allow public participation in those procedures. b) Shall establish appropriate arrangements to ensure that due consideration is given to the environmental consequences of its programs and policies that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity.” It adds that section 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente provides: “Environmental impact assessment.

Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste or toxic or hazardous materials shall require an environmental impact assessment by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental created under this law. Prior approval by that body shall be an indispensable requirement for commencing the activities, works, or projects. Statutes and regulations shall specify which activities, works, or projects require an environmental impact assessment.” It mentions that articles 92 et seq. of the Ley de Biodiversidad require an Environmental Impact Assessment for all projects deemed capable of affecting biodiversity. It partially transcribes subsection 38 of article 3 of executive decree n.º 31849: “the scientific and technical administrative procedure that makes it possible to identify and predict the effects that an activity, work, or project will have on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to guide decision-making.

In general, the Environmental Impact Assessment encompasses three phases: a) the Initial Environmental Assessment, b) preparation of the Environmental Impact Study or other applicable environmental assessment instruments, and c) environmental monitoring and follow-up of the activity, work, or project through the established environmental commitments.” It adds that the EIA concerns the development and implementation of the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), as stated in article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. It explains that the EIA must be conducted before any human activity capable of altering, polluting, or harming the environment: “VI.- Powers concerning environmental assessment. In furtherance of the State’s obligations to defend and preserve the environment established in constitutional article 50, section 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, number 7554 of cuatro de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y seis, has imposed upon natural or legal persons the obligation, before undertaking activities or projects that by their nature may alter or pollute the environment, to conduct an environmental impact study” (judgment n.º 2003-06311 of 3 de julio de 2003).

It contends that the EIA granted by SETENA, pursuant to section 84 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, will determine whether the activities proposed under that project are environmentally feasible or whether the activities submitted for consideration must be restricted as a precondition for approval, and will, in turn, establish the corresponding mitigation measures. It argues that the EIA is not a requirement for enactment of a law removing protected status (desafectación), pursuant to article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. It asserts that SETENA must consider the study entitled “Establecimiento de línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente” as one of its inputs, without this being understood to mean that it is the only one, since the same provision states that, in accordance with the legal framework, it must issue the relevant terms of reference enabling it to analyze that project in the exercise of its technical and legal powers.

It maintains that article 4 of law n.º 9610 is consistent with constitutional section 50 and sections 17 and 43 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, because it requires an EIA before the project is developed. It states that article 1 of the challenged law contains the following: “ARTICLE 1- The area of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, created by Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 16849-MAG, of 23 de enero de 1986, is corrected and delimited for the development of the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume)...” It states that it was not feasible, as the claimants contend, to complete the project’s environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) proceeding before the law was approved. Privately owned areas located within the boundaries of protected wildlife areas (article 37 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and article 45 of the Constitución Política).

It cites artículo 37 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente: “When establishing protected wildlife areas, regardless of their management category, the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Environment and Energy, is empowered to include within their boundaries any privately owned properties or portions thereof necessary to fulfill the objectives set forth in this law and to implement them in accordance with the respective management plan, or to create legal easements for ecological protection and compliance with this law. In the case of national parks, biological reserves, or state-owned national wildlife refuges, the lands shall be acquired through purchase, expropriation, or both procedures, with prior compensation. In the case of forest reserves, protective zones, mixed wildlife refuges, and wetlands, the properties or portions thereof may also be purchased or expropriated unless, at the owner’s request, they are voluntarily subjected to the forestry regime.

Such subjection shall be recorded in the Public Property Registry as an encumbrance on the property, which shall remain in effect for the period established in the management plan. Privately owned properties affected pursuant to this article because they are located within national parks, biological reserves, wildlife refuges, forest reserves, and protective zones shall become part of the state protected areas only from the time they have been paid for or legally expropriated, unless they are voluntarily subjected to the Forestry Regime. In the case of forest reserves, protective zones, and wildlife refuges, where payment or expropriation has not occurred and while it is being carried out, the areas shall be subject to an environmental land-use plan that includes an environmental impact assessment and, subsequently, to the plan for the management, recovery, and restoration of resources.” It notes that this provision establishes the authority of the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to establish protected wildlife areas, regardless of their management category, and empowers it to include within their boundaries any privately owned properties or portions thereof necessary to fulfill the objectives set forth by law and to implement them in accordance with the respective general management plan.

It states that, in the case of national parks, biological reserves, or state-owned national wildlife refuges, the lands must be acquired through purchase, expropriation, or both procedures, with prior compensation, because the management and conservation purposes of those management categories make them incompatible with private ownership. It cites the Chamber’s judgment n.º 1019-1997: “Despite the declaration of a protected wildlife area by decree or law, private owners retain all attributes of ownership, subject to the limitations of ordinary environmental legislation, until expropriation or payment. These persons may continue their crops or pastures and maintain their buildings, but they may not expand their activities if doing so entails a change in land use, that is, the cutting of trees and loss of forest cover. When forest reserves, protective zones, and wildlife refuges are established, the owner is given the option of voluntarily subjecting the land to the regime, since, by following the management plan, the owner may continue to use it for economic purposes.

However, integration shall be voluntary. If those affected by the restrictions do not wish to submit to the forestry regime, they may negotiate the sale of the land to the State or undergo expropriation proceedings.” It states that current legislation provides for the possibility of including privately owned real estate within the boundaries of protected wildlife areas, since the right to property is not absolute and may be subject to limitations. It partially transcribes the Chamber’s decision n.º 2007-011359 of 10 de agosto de 2007. It asserts that legal scholarship indicates that there has been a shift from the inviolability of the concept of absolute and unlimited property (artículo 29 Constitución Política de 1871) to a functional, flexible right adaptable to the social reality experienced by the community (artículo 45 supra), which provides for authorization of expropriation on grounds of public utility and the imposition of limitations in the social interest and by reason of the social function of property.

It cites decision n.º 4205-1996 of 20 de agosto de 1996: “The content of this ‘property-function’ consists in the owner having the power to use the property subject to ownership to satisfy the owner’s own needs, while also having the duty to place it at the service of social needs when such conduct is indispensable. This new concept broadens the legislature’s powers to determine the content of the right to property, which it accomplishes through the limitations and obligations in the social interest that it may create, thereby bringing an end to its exclusive, sacred, and inviolable character.” It partially transcribes the Chamber’s Voto n.º 2007-011359: “The property right under artículo 45 of the Constitución Política, like all other rights, is not absolute and may therefore be subject to restrictions, which are legitimate only when necessary to enable democratic and constitutional values to remain in force; accordingly, in addition to being ‘necessary,’ ‘useful,’ ‘reasonable,’ and ‘timely,’ the restriction must entail the existence of a compelling social need supporting it.” It argues that a restriction on the right to property that deprives it of its essential content becomes a disguised expropriation and, consequently, creates an obligation to compensate.

It explains that the Chamber, in decision n.° 4465-99 of 11 de junio de 1999, established an obligation to compensate in cases of expropriation, but not in the case of limitations in the public interest established by a qualified vote. It adds that, in this specific case, artículo 37 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente once again becomes relevant. It further states that privately owned lands included in the declaration of a protected wildlife area retain their status until the Executive Branch carries out the expropriation proceedings, in accordance with artículo 37 supra, and therefore the right to property is not being deprived of its content. It explains that artículo 37 itself provides for acquisition by direct purchase or expropriation, and therefore there is no omission whatsoever in Ley n.° 9610. It contends that the legal system must be interpreted as a whole so that, because the applicable management category is a biological reserve, there is an obligation to acquire the properties through the mechanisms established for that purpose (Ley de Expropiaciones n.º 7495).

It asserts that it was not feasible to conduct the proceedings set forth in the Ley de Expropiaciones until the privately owned properties had been legally designated as affected. It maintains that the matters indicated regarding budgetary appropriations and administrative appraisals should likewise not constitute a prior requirement, since appropriate administrative and procedural stages are provided for that purpose, so that private owners may be duly compensated in the corresponding proceedings. It indicates that, with respect to the matters stated in points 4 and 5 of section E, the arguments concern private interests (the impact on the development of a tourism project and the existence of easements and landlocked parcels), which must be defended by the allegedly affected companies, and therefore it makes no reference to them. It states that there are no constitutional defects because the current legal system contains regulations governing all the matters identified in this action, which are issues of ordinary legality.

Legislative procedure (artículo 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa). It notes that legislative expediente n.º 20.465 was forwarded to the Board Secretariat on 20 de julio del año 2017 and that, at that time, the President of the Legislative Assembly assigned it to the “Special Investigative Committee for the Province of Guanacaste to analyze, study, report on, and assess the pertinent recommendations concerning the social, economic, business, agricultural, tourism, labor, and cultural issues affecting the entire province of Guanacaste” (special committee n.º 19.206). It states that this was ordered in accordance with the ordinary legislative enactment procedure; however, at ordinary session n.º 28 of 20 de junio de 2016, the Plenary Assembly agreed to apply a special procedure for its consideration, pursuant to artículo 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa.

It states that, under those rules, legislative expediente n.º 20.465 was assigned to special committee n.º 20.869, the “Special Committee Responsible for Analyzing, Studying, and Reporting on Expediente No. 20.465, ‘Law Amending the Boundaries of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve for the Development of the Water Supply Project for the Middle Tempisque River Basin and Coastal Communities.’” It argues that this body issued a report on the bill. It states that, in view of those facts and following the arguments of several male and female Deputies, at ordinary Plenary session n.º 46 of 7 de agosto de 2018, it was agreed, by a majority of 46 votes in favor and 3 against, to approve a procedural motion providing: “That the special procedure approved pursuant to artículo 208 bis for legislative expediente No. 20.465, ‘LAW AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOMAS DE BARBUDAL BIOLOGICAL RESERVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS FOR THE MIDDLE TEMPISQUE RIVER BASIN AND COASTAL COMMUNITIES,’ be set aside because constitutional conflicts have been identified in the proceedings that make them incompatible with the application of a special procedure, and that henceforth its ordinary legislative proceedings continue.” It explains that, consequently, the Legislative Assembly disregarded all agreements adopted under the special procedure and considered the bill under the rules of the ordinary legislative enactment procedure.

It adds that the minutes show that, after approving the procedural motion, the Legislative Assembly resumed consideration of the bill and agreed to waive all prior procedural steps except publication, pursuant to artículo 177 of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa (minutes of ordinary session n.º 46 of 7 de agosto de 2018). It further states that the bill was not previously considered by any legislative committee but was instead considered directly by the Plenary Assembly, which acted as a committee of the whole. It explains that legislative expediente n.º 20.465 was placed on the Plenary Assembly’s order of business on 9 de agosto de 2018 and, at extraordinary session n.º 7 held on that date, was debated and approved on first reading. It contends that the President of the Legislative Assembly stated at the beginning of the debate: “Debate begins at the first-reading stage. This bill has been exempted from all procedural steps except publication and has had that status since the procedural motion approved at ordinary session número 46, held on 7 de agosto del 2018.” It asserts that there is no substantial procedural defect because the bill was not considered or approved on first and second readings pursuant to artículo 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, but rather pursuant to numerales 135, 150 y 177 as a bill exempted from prior committee proceedings. Principle of legal certainty.

It recounts that the Chamber has repeatedly held that legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) is a constitutional principle which, in its generic sense, consists of the guarantee given to individuals that their person, property, and rights will not be subjected to violent attacks, or that, if such attacks do occur, they will be assured protection and redress; furthermore, it is the situation of an individual as an active and passive subject of social relations who, knowing or being able to know which legal rules are in force, has fundamental expectations that those rules will be observed. It states that this legal value seeks to provide certainty and endeavors to prevent uncertainty regarding the law in force (arbitrary legal amendments made without prior study and consultation). It explains that it may be considered in both a subjective and an objective sense: the former is a person’s conviction that the situation they enjoy will not be altered by an action contrary to the principles governing social life, and the latter is the existence of a state of social organization or a social order.

It notes that Law No. 9610 is supported by the corresponding studies and, therefore, does not entail an arbitrary amendment of the legal system. It mentions that, in this specific case, there is absolute certainty as to the properties registered in the names of Asetrek Tres Azul S.A, Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. and Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. affected by Law No. 9610 (conditions recorded in the National Registry entry), and that, as previously indicated, they must undergo the procedure established in the Expropriations Law (Ley de Expropiaciones) for their effective incorporation into the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve. It states that the boundaries of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve are duly identified in Executive Decree No. 16849-MAG of January 23, 1986 and in the coordinates established in Law No. 9610. It asserts that, should doubts arise in the field (after the acquisition of the privately owned properties), the Ministry of Environment and Energy will be responsible for complying with the provisions of Article 16 of the Ley Forestal: “ARTICLE 16.- Boundaries.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall demarcate on the ground the boundaries of the areas comprising the Natural Heritage of the State. The boundary-demarcation procedure (procedimiento de deslinde) shall be established in the regulations to this law.” It mentions that the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) is defined in Article 13 of the Ley Forestal and comprises Protected Wildlife Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas), regardless of their management category, declared by law or Executive Decree; that is, forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments. It states that this is in accordance with the regulations set forth in Articles 1, 2, and 3 subsection i) of the Ley Forestal; 31 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); 22 and 58 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad); 3 subsections d) and f) of the National Parks Service Law (Ley de Servicio de Parques Nacionales); and 82 subsections a) and b) of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre).

It partially cites Chamber Judgment No. 2003-03840 of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003 and, to the same effect, refers to decision No. 05266-2009 of 12:24 hours on March 27, 2009. It argues that the matters identified by the petitioners are regulated by the environmental legislation currently in force and, therefore, Law No. 9610 is not constitutionally defective. Principle of legality (Article 11 of the Political Constitution). It clarifies that Law No. 9610 concerns an amendment to the boundary of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve, which was established as a protected wildlife area by Executive Decree No. 16849-MAG of January 23, 1986. It states that the applicable regulations were complied with, since Article 71 of the Regulations to the Biodiversity Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad) provides: “For the declaration, amendment, or change in the management category of an ASR, a technical report shall be prepared under the coordination of the corresponding SINAC body.” It adds that, in order to carry out those studies, the Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterránea, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) retained the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET) to conduct the study entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve (RBLB) and Adjacent Property.” It explains that the purpose of the study was to develop and define a baseline that would make it possible to determine the ecological integrity, significance, and fragility of the ecosystems present, as well as the existing biodiversity in the area of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve that would be directly affected by the Río Piedras Reservoir; it also included a comparative analysis between an area of the RBLB and previously selected adjacent lands in order to ascertain their degree of similarity and the feasibility of using them as an ecologically equivalent replacement area.

It adds that this study was conducted in accordance with the specifications of Article 72 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, as expressly indicated in the communication from the Organización para Estudios Tropicales dated January 30, 2017 and appearing at folio 212 of legislative record 1/10. It adds that, in relation to paragraph h) of Article 72 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad (Executive Decree No. 34433-MINAE), the legislative record contains a document entitled “Mandatory Consultation with Local Communities: Compensation Proposal for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve.” It explains that, likewise, the Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, in its capacity as the competent technical body, stated the following concerning the study by the Organización Para Estudios Tropicales (OET): “…It has been verified that the technical report submitted to this body for its consideration has complied with the content required under Articles 71 and 72 of Executive Decree No. 34433-MINAE, ‘Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad’...” (resolution No. 1 from the extraordinary session of July 5, 2017 of the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, appearing at folios 126 through 131 of legislative record 1/10).

Principle of Budgetary Balance. It contends that, pursuant to Article 5 of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets Law (Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos) (No. 8131), the budget must reflect a balance among revenues, expenditures, and funding sources. It asserts that, in addition to what has already been stated regarding the procedure established in the Ley de Expropiaciones, which must be followed for the State’s acquisition of the privately owned properties affected by Law No. 9610, it must be noted that the legislative record contains communication DM-MAG-264-2017 of April 18, 2017 from the Ministro Agricultura y Ganadería, in which he undertakes to include, above the budgetary ceiling, the 1.425.000.000,00 million colones required to acquire the land intended to compensate for areas of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve under the PAACUME project (folio 150 of legislative record 1/10).

It notes that the foregoing was established on the basis of estimates prepared by SENARA: “To comply with this statutory requirement, it is necessary to have an estimated amount of one billion four hundred twenty-five million colones and 00/100 (1.425.000.000,00), it being understood that, once the law authorizing the compensation has been enacted, the corresponding expropriation proceedings will be undertaken” Communication SENARA-GG-0231-2017 of April 06, 2017, folios 214 through 218 of legislative record 1/10).” It mentions that the requirement established in subsection g) of Article 72 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad was fully satisfied during the legislative proceedings, because MAG undertook to secure the budgetary allocation (contenido económico) required to meet the obligations established in Law No. 9610. It states that the enactment of Law No. 9610 gives rise to the obligation to purchase the privately owned properties located within the biological reserve, which is distinct from the actual time at which the funds required for compensation must be available pursuant to the Ley de Expropiaciones.

Principle of reasonableness and proportionality. It cites Chamber decision No. 732-2001: “V. THE PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLENESS AS A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD. Constitutional case law has been clear and consistent in holding that the principle of reasonableness constitutes a standard of constitutionality... To conduct the reasonableness assessment, United States doctrine first calls for an examination of so-called ‘technical reasonableness,’ within which the specific rule (law, regulation, etc.) is examined. Once it has been established that the selected rule is appropriate for regulating a particular matter, it must be determined whether the means chosen are proportional to the intended purpose. After the ‘technical reasonableness’ criterion has been satisfied, ‘legal reasonableness’ must be analyzed. For this purpose, this doctrine proposes examining: a) balancing reasonableness, which is a type of legal assessment applied when, given the existence of a particular antecedent (e.g., income), a particular obligation is required (e.g., a tax), in which case it must be determined whether that obligation is equivalent or proportionate; b) reasonableness based on equality, which is the type of legal assessment founded on the principle that equal antecedents must produce equal consequences, without arbitrary exceptions; c) reasonableness of purpose, at which point it is assessed whether the objective sought is inconsistent with the purposes contemplated by the legislature when approving it.

Within this same analysis, it is not enough to assert that a means is reasonably suited to an end; it is also necessary to verify the nature and extent of the restriction that a personal right must bear as a result of that means. Thus, if the same end can be achieved through another means that imposes a less burdensome restriction on personal rights, the means chosen is not reasonable….” It argues that the principle of reasonableness and proportionality plays a leading role in Administrative Law, as it applies across various fields. It states that it is vitally important as a limit on the exercise of administrative discretion, because the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) provides that discretionary administrative acts may not be issued contrary to the unequivocal rules of science or technology, or to elementary principles of justice, logic, or expediency (Articles 16, paragraph 1, 158, paragraph 4, and 160) (Constitutional Principles Governing Public Administrations, Ernesto Jinesta L).

It explains that, regarding compensation and the properties selected for that purpose, the explanatory statement for the bill, based on the study entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve (RBLB) and Adjacent Property,” states: “The land evaluated for the compensation area is owned in the name of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., corporate identification number No. 3-101-370259, whose representative is Mr. Ramón Agilitar Facio, identity card No. 9-0001-0541, cadastral plan No. 5-666-1976, real-property folio No. 034932-000, located in the first district, Bagaces, of the fourth canton, Bagaces, in the province of Guanacaste, with a registered area of 751 hectares. The procedure used by OET to evaluate the compensation is based on a methodology called Habitat/Hectare, a scoring system developed by Australian researchers that identifies a series of environmental-quality indicators and assigns values to each of the factors pertaining to the habitats under evaluation.

Two independent compensation (compensación) assessments were conducted, one based on habitat-quality indicators (indicadores de calidad de hábitat) and the other on community diversity and composition (diversidad y composición de comunidades), both adapted to tropical dry forest (bosque seco tropical). Additionally, the methodology used by the OET was modified to include other indicators (geophysical indicators, ecosystem services, among others). The final score is the sum of the values determined for each indicator and represents habitat quality or community composition relative to the reference habitat (RBLB). Based on the results obtained in the Study, it was possible to estimate the number of hectares required to achieve a quality level equivalent to that of the reference site and thus compensate for the 113 hectares to be flooded in the RBLB. It is important to note that the study conducted by the OET considered an area of 131,07 hectares in the RBLB because, while it was being carried out, SENARA performed the topographical fieldwork needed to prepare the final plan for the actual area required for the reservoir, which resulted in 113 hectares, all contained within the 131,07 hectares studied by the OET.

The Study conducted by the OET (covering 131,07 hectares), taking the established area into account, determined that this sector of the RBLB has three types of forest cover (cobertura forestal): deciduous forest (bosque deciduo) on 96,05 hectares, secondary forest (bosque secundario) on 9.13 hectares, and mature forest (bosque maduro) on 24,71 hectares. The latter shall hereinafter be called riparian forest (bosque ripario), because it is associated with the waterways in the area and consists of remnants of vegetation that survive along the banks of rivers and streams, comprising evergreen species. The property also contains 1,18 hectares of non-forest area and pasture. The riparian-forest area at ASETREK consists of small fragmented areas, a situation that led to its existence not being considered for purposes of assigning scores in the assessment conducted in the Study to determine the required compensation area.

According to habitat quality, the study’s conclusions show that an equivalent area of between 290 and 332 hectares is required to compensate for the area to be flooded in the RBLB, because the property studied represents between 34,00 % and 51,20 % of the reference site, corresponding to the 113 hectares of the RBLB. These differences indicate that the ASETREK Tres Azul SA property has been more heavily disturbed and, because it lacks riparian-forest cover, 332 hectares will be required for compensation, based on the maximum probable value resulting from the methodology applied. On the other hand, applying the methodology for community diversity and composition, ASETREK contains 30,90 % of the reference site (113 hectares of the RBLB); that is, the reserve has greater species richness among the taxonomic groups studied, and therefore 290 hectares are needed to compensate for the loss in the RBLB.

In conclusion, based on the results obtained from applying the methodology for both habitat quality and community diversity and composition, the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A compensation site is inferior in environmental quality, composition, and biodiversity to the RBLB site that would be flooded by the Embalse Río Piedras. Accordingly, in considering the condition most appropriate for the RBLB, the OET recommended that at least 332 hectares of the Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S A. be acquired to compensate for the RBLB’s losses. The Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A, studied by the OET as an extension for compensation, has a total area of 751 hectares, a significant portion of which is devoted to agricultural and livestock production. Taking into account the compensation area proposed as a result of the Study, a site analysis was conducted to assess the area that should be proposed as compensation for the 113 hectares of the RBLB to be flooded, based on the following fundamental parameters: 1.

Satisfy the minimum area required for compensation according to the study, corresponding to 332 hectares. 2. Ensure that the area to be acquired for compensation contains a sufficient quantity of forest, based on the types of cover found in the area of the RBLB to be flooded. 3. Ensure that the area to be purchased includes the 189,30 hectares studied by the OET for the corresponding comparisons between the potential compensation site and the reference site (RBLB). 4. Ensure that the area can be properly integrated into the remainder of the RBLB while maintaining the greatest possible percentage of shared boundary between them. 5. Ensure that the area proposed for compensation enables connectivity between the RBLB and the protection areas (áreas de protección) intended to remain around the future Embalse Río Piedras as a protective ring, primarily along its left bank. 6- Minimize the boundary shared by the proposed area with areas having non-forest cover, paddocks, or pasture, since these may increase and facilitate the risk of fires within the RBLB. 7- Standardize the property boundary so that the compensation area can be properly managed by the SINAC administration in the RBLB.

Once the foregoing parameters had been analyzed, the result indicated that the area of the Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. that should be purchased is 444,04 hectares. This area is estimated to contain 286,87 hectares of deciduous forest, 59.50 hectares of secondary forest, 73,23 hectares of grassland, and 18,50 hectares of non-forest area, meaning pasture with other native grasses. It is important to indicate that the selected area of the property also includes 6.14 hectares of riparian forest, distributed in small sections that, because they are not connected or are located within the reservoir’s direct-impact area, were not considered when applying the methodology used in the Study to determine the compensation area. Although the proposed area of 444,04 hectares as compensation for the 113 hectares of the RBLB that would be flooded meets the requirements established on the basis of the results of the habitat-quality methodology applied by the OET in the Study, the fact is that this area contains only 2,2 hectares of mature or riparian forest with characteristics similar to those of the forest found in the area of the RBLB to be flooded.

Under these circumstances, it was deemed appropriate to seek an additional area that could remedy this shortage of riparian forest in the compensation area at the Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S A. while satisfying the parameters mentioned above. Following joint fieldwork by OET experts and officials from the RBLB, SINAC, and SENARA, two potential compensation properties were identified along the northwestern boundary of the RBLB. These properties are registered to Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A and Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. In this regard, according to joint field inspections conducted by experts from the OET, SINAC, and SENARA, supported by aerial images taken by a drone flying at low altitude, it was determined that the Brindis de Amor properties have an initial estimate of 1141 hectares of riparian forest and that Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. has an estimated 8.49 hectares of riparian forest comprising forest cover (cobertura boscosa) made up of evergreen species and comparable in quality to that found at the potential flooding site in the RBLB.

The riparian-forest area at Brindis de Amor represents 7,40 % of the area currently covered by this forest type within the RBLB; hence the importance of incorporating this area into the RBLB. Another important consideration is that the riparian-forest area on this property could serve as a core area for species to repopulate other riparian environments on the property. Although, according to the OET, this situation does not chronologically correspond to the loss in the RBLB, it is nevertheless a considerable advantage because this core area would enable the short-term restoration and incorporation of new riparian forests, which would not occur on the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property. The deciduous forest (45,74 hectares), as well as the secondary forest (6,63 hectares), at Brindis de Amor have been protected for at least twenty years, and there are no records of recent logging or fires; consequently, they are in better structural and compositional condition than those found at the potential impact site in the RBLB or on the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property.

Although this is not the primary objective, annexing this type of forest from Brindis de Amor to the RBLB also represents a significant gain in these types of forest cover. The Biodiversity Baseline Study (Estudio de Línea Base de Biodiversidad) for the RBLB showed an increase in the diversity of various taxonomic groups in response to more permanent water sources, a condition that is greatly favored on the Brindis de Amor property, which has several permanent water sources, including the río Cabuyo and its tributaries, thereby adding value to this property. Studies by Dr. Susan Perry (University of California, Los Angeles) indicate that troops of white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capuccinus) from the RBLB use the forests within Brindis de Amor as feeding and resting sites; that is, there is evidence of a constant flow of animals between the RBLB and Brindis de Amor as a foraging site, demonstrating the biological importance of incorporating this property into the RBLB.

Finally, it is important to mention that the Study conducted by the OET establishes a compensation area based on the current condition of the lands being assessed, without reference to the future improvements they will undergo once incorporated into a protection regime such as that of the reserve. Accordingly, an area of riparian forest was identified that would compensate for the shortfall in hectares of this ecosystem type while maintaining the protected area’s ecosystem connectivity (conectividad ecosistémica). It was concluded that the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property meets these conditions and makes it possible to compensate for an area of 8,49 hectares of riparian forest. Additionally, it was concluded that the best option for completing the riparian-forest compensation is to acquire an area of 40,00 hectares owned by Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., which contains 8,49 hectares of riparian forest.

According to the aforementioned cover layers, this property has a total of 33,64 hectares of riparian forest, most of which borders the quebrada Amores; the area selected for compensation contains 8,49 hectares of riparian forest, 2,44 hectares of secondary forest, 26,91 hectares of deciduous forest, and 2,16 hectares of pasture. For its part, the future benefits expected from the regeneration of the grasslands on the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property include contributing to the establishment of secondary forest, carbon (CO2) sequestration, soil protection, increased cover, protection of biodiversity and the area’s scenic beauty, and protection of water sources, while also helping to increase its ecological, economic, and social value. In other words, the new area placed under the protection regime will tend to improve upon its current condition in terms of both habitat quality and community diversity and composition.

As indicated by Quesada, R (2008), in his Manual for Promoting Natural Regeneration in Degraded Pastures in the Central and Northern Pacific Regions of Costa Rica, “to restore pasture areas to forests through natural regeneration (regeneración natural) methods, they must be strategically located near seed sources and forest patches,” conditions found in the proposed area on the properties of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. and Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. These conditions make it foreseeable that, although the 91,74 hectares (a pasture area of 73,23 hectares and a non-forest area of 18,51 hectares) on ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., 18,18 hectares of pasture on Brindis de Amor, and 2.16 hectares on Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. are currently in this condition, within a few years, under a protection regime such as that of the RBLB and with controlled fire management, these areas may enter the various stages of secondary forest succession (sucesión de bosques secundarios).

Accordingly, based on the results presented in the study conducted by the OET and the proposal made by the PIAAG High-Level Commission, the final compensation proposal is: 1- A total of 444,04 hectares from the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property, in accordance with the map of the proposed area. 2-The entirety of the Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. property, with a registered area of 86,96 hectares, in accordance with the map. 3- An area of 40,00 hectares from the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property. In total, the purchase of 571 hectares, representing five times the area that will be affected within the RBLB, with direct equivalence in forest types.” It adds that the following relevant considerations may be drawn from the foregoing: “The Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property was indeed taken into consideration in the study. The decision regarding which properties to select was based on the application of the habitat-hectare method (método de hábitat-hectárea), on which the OET study is founded.

The study’s considerations concern technical rather than economic matters. Compensation using land already subject to a protection regime was not considered merely because of its status; doing so would have placed an economic issue above the technical considerations contained in the OET report, which provides the basis for genuine compensation—based on the characteristics of the land to be included so that it encompasses the conservation targets (objetos de conservación) for which the protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) was created—and would prevent it from becoming a mere equivalency using state-owned land to satisfy the requirement without any supporting basis, which would indeed weaken the law under review.” Principle of Economy and Efficiency (Principio de Economía y Eficiencia). It states that the petitioners’ assertions regarding the violation of this principle are repetitive. It requests that the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) be dismissed.

1. 8In a written submission received by the Secretariat of the Chamber at 13:21 hours on 15 de febrero de 2019, Patricia Quirós Quirós appears in her capacity as General Manager, vested with the powers of an unrestricted general attorney-in-fact with no monetary limit, of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA). I. Public Interest of the PAACUME Project. She states that the project is intended to supplement, with water from Laguna Arenal, the water-resource availability for various uses currently supplied by natural sources on the right bank of the Río Tempisque (cantons of Carrillo, Santa Cruz and Nicoya), which are ultimately insufficient to meet the continually growing need for water resources, both for human use (drinking water) and agricultural use (irrigation), thereby ensuring a sustainable year-round water supply. She notes that the Chorotega region generally has a natural precipitation regime with more than 5 months of water deficit per year, without taking into account extreme natural effects such as the longer droughts caused by the El Niño phenomenon or climate change, which are becoming increasingly frequent and recurrent (e.g., the drought from 2014 to 2016), severely affecting communities and both productive and economic activity and which, for the first time in Costa Rica, required the declaration of a drought emergency pursuant to executive decree n.° 38642-MP-MAG of 30 de noviembre de 2014.She states that SENARA is an autonomous institution created by law n.º 6877 of julio de 1983 and is responsible for implementing PAACUME. She adds that Article 2 of that body of law entrusted it with the following objectives: “•Promote agricultural development in the country through the establishment and operation of irrigation, drainage and flood-protection systems. •Contribute preferentially to the development of agricultural-development projects founded on a fair distribution of land. •Seek to ensure that, within the territory benefiting from the creation of irrigation and drainage districts, land ownership is rationally and democratically modified.” She mentions that PAACUME represents an excellent initiative for using the water stored in Laguna Arenal that feeds the Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal-Dengo-Sandillal (ARDESA), operated by ICE, in value-generating activities such as irrigation for agricultural production and irrigation at coastal tourism developments, as well as for drinking water and hydroelectric generation, which inherently provides a major opportunity for growth and development in the province of Guanacaste, with nationwide impact.She states that the project would use the existing water-intake and conveyance infrastructure in the Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque operated by SENARA (presa Miguel Pablo Dengo and Canal Oeste Tramo I), and would also entail the construction of works such as the storage dam on the río Piedras, the expansion and improvement of the canal oeste (from the río Piedras to the río Tempisque, approximately 55 kilometers in length), and the water-conveyance and distribution networks on the right bank of the río Tempisque (approximately 300 kilometers of gravity-fed and pumped conveyance lines). She argues that, through storage in the río Piedras reservoir, PAACUME will make it possible to supply water to a historically dry area whose drought conditions have worsened because of climate variability and climate change, in many cases reaching extreme drought, thereby limiting sustainability and discouraging the socioeconomic growth of the region and the country as a whole.She states that PAACUME consists of four components: the río Piedras reservoir (including system automation, the powerhouse, and the dam and reservoir themselves); the expansion of the Canal Oeste from the río Piedras to the río Tempisque, over a distance of approximately 55 kilometers; construction of the distribution network on the right bank of the río Tempisque (approximately 300 kilometers long); and the proposed implementation of a Regional Development Plan for the area directly and indirectly affected by the project, a process currently at the conceptualization and formulation stage. She states that PAACUME, as a public-investment project, is linked, according to the classification established in executive decree n.° 38536-MP-PLAN of the Reglamento Orgánico del Poder Ejecutivo, published on 25 de julio de 2014, to the Agricultural and Rural Development sector (because of its importance and impact on food security and the social development of the area of influence) and the Environment, Energy, Seas and Land-Use Planning sector (because of its value as a climate-change adaptation measure and its effect on water availability in the impact area).She adds that PAACUME is included in the National Development Plan and is one of the principal projects designated as priorities for the country’s economic recovery. She further states that construction of the set of works comprising PAACUME will directly benefit agricultural producers located in the cantons of Carrillo, Santa Cruz and Nicoya, as well as consumers of drinking water and water used to irrigate green areas at tourism businesses. She adds that the direct beneficiaries include large, medium-sized and small producers (the latter category referring primarily to beneficiaries awarded land in rural settlements, who are characterized by a greater need for support from agricultural-sector institutions). She explains that the irrigated area for agricultural production is estimated at 18.639 hectares, where 746 large, medium-sized and small landowners could benefit (SENARA, 2 018 PAACUME Feasibility Study).She adds that this project is of vital importance to the community because 2 cubic meters of water per second will be allocated for human consumption (the treatment and distribution of which will be the responsibility of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados). She explains that, with respect to the supply of water for human consumption, the flow rate established for the sector is based on a 50-year demand projection; likewise, it is estimated that by 2025 the population within the project area will exceed 220.000 inhabitants, who will become users of the area’s main aqueduct systems. She adds that rural aqueduct systems currently serve a population of more than 139.000 people. She argues that, in addition to the population that will be supplied with water for human consumption (estimated at approximately 200.000 inhabitants of the region), indirect benefits will accrue to the entire population engaged in the goods and services sector, to persons hired to work in the new irrigated areas during the various stages of production, and to new stakeholders who succeed in consolidating production and marketing activities.She adds that another benefiting sector will be tourism, for which PAACUME will seek to supply irrigation water to an estimated area of 1.213 hectares distributed among the 171 duly identified tourism businesses in the coastal area that express their willingness to participate in the project, thereby also seeking to reduce the pressure caused by groundwater extraction from coastal aquifers (SENARA, 2018 PAACUME Feasibility Study). She asserts that PAACUME will be able to generate electricity at the Río Piedras dam (7 MW per year), a project benefit that entails optimal use of the available water resource. She maintains that, as previously mentioned, the infrastructure proposed under PAACUME includes three main components: the reservoir on the río Piedras, comprising the reservoir itself, the dam, the overflow spillway, the intake structure and the powerhouse for electricity generation; the main conveyance network running from the Río Piedras reservoir to the río Tempisque (55 kilometers long); and, lastly, the distribution network consisting of the network of canals on the right bank of the río Tempisque, through which the 20 m3/sec withdrawn from the río Piedras reservoir and originating in Laguna Arenal will be distributed.She states that construction of the río Piedras dam will create a reservoir with a surface area (water surface) of approximately 85 0 hectares. She notes that the dam will be located on the río Piedras, specifically between the coordinates West Longitude 358930, North Latitude 1163180 and West Longitude 359690, North Latitude 1155330, at a maximum water-surface elevation of 50.00 m.s.n.m. She states that the dam site will be located at a natural narrowing of the río Piedras channel. She adds that the water from Laguna Arenal collected at Presa derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B. is conveyed to the río Piedras through Canal Oeste Tramo I, which is 21 km long and has a hydraulic capacity of 55 m3/sec. She mentions that it is important to emphasize that, before Canal Oeste Tramo I intersects the río Piedras, there is a natural drop, and it is precisely that drop that makes it possible to design the storage site that creates the reservoir on the río Piedras.She states that the location of the dam on the Río Piedras is dictated by a unique topographical condition that does not allow it to be moved elsewhere; therefore, that location and the difference in elevation between the inlet of the canal supplying it and the outlet of the canal that will carry the water to the río Tempisque will determine the maximum reservoir level and its capacity to supply PAACUME with 20 m3/sec for distribution on the right bank of the río Tempisque. She states that, at one point, the possibility of constructing a dike to prevent the flooding of that area of the RBLB and a tunnel more than 2 kilometers long to discharge the water was considered; however, the site where the dike would have to be built was found to coincide with a geological fault that would make its construction impossible because of the high risk posed to the structure. She concludes that there is no possibility of relocating or reducing the reservoir volume without significantly affecting the scope of PAACUME, thereby establishing the urgent and indispensable need for the 113 hectares of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal that are to be flooded, which constitute an essential element for construction of the dam on the río Piedras; accordingly, a dam at that site is PAACUME’s only means of storing the available water from Laguna Arenal.She argues that law n.° 9610, “Modification of the Boundaries of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal for Development of the Water-Supply Project for the Río Tempisque Basin and Coastal Communities,” is urgently and necessarily indispensable for the implementation of PAACUME. She states that construction of the dam on the río Piedras is an essential element of PAACUME and requires law n.° 9610 to remain in force in order to serve the public interest by providing solutions to various needs, including agricultural and productive needs and the supply of water for consumption in an area where water resources are becoming increasingly scarce. She explains that the challenged law is urgently needed to provide solutions to the communities in the Tempisque basin and the coastal communities of Guanacaste, such as Sardinal, which have been affected by supply problems and the salinization of aquifers (situations that have come before the Sala Constitucional in numerous amparo proceedings (recursos de amparo) seeking protection of water resources).

It adds that, in those cases, SENARA’s role has enabled the proper protection of the water resource (recurso hídrico). It further states that, in this specific case, SENARA’s participation will ensure the proper use and development of the water resource, positively affecting the Tempisque watershed and the coastal areas of Guanacaste. It requests that this constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) be analyzed in light of the public interest of the coastal communities and the Tempisque watershed that will benefit from the PAACUME project, whose development absolutely requires Law No. 9610. It states that the petitioner’s arguments will be analyzed in the same order in which they were presented. A) No obligation to notify the Convention regarding the law entitled “Amendment of the Boundaries of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve for the Development of the Water Supply Project for the Middle Tempisque River Watershed and Coastal Communities.” It rejects the petitioner’s assertions because there is no obligation whatsoever to notify the RAMSAR Convention of the scope of the challenged provision.

It explains that the Convention establishes an obligation for signatory States to protect wetlands (humedales) reported as sites included among Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. It asserts that the challenged provision does not diminish or reduce the RAMSAR site of international interest registered by our country (Parque Nacional Palo Verde); rather, it increases the protected areas by expanding the boundaries to incorporate a larger flooded area as well as a larger area of forest cover (cobertura boscosa). It maintains that Article 4 of the RAMSAR Convention establishes the obligation to promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by creating nature reserves for that purpose; subsection 2, in turn, establishes a specific obligation concerning the removal or reduction of a wetland’s boundaries, providing that if such a need arises for urgent reasons of national interest, the loss of wetland resources must be compensated for insofar as possible: “Article 4. 1.

Each Contracting Party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by establishing nature reserves on wetlands, whether or not they are included in the ‘List,’ and shall adequately provide for their management and care. 2. Where a Contracting Party, for urgent reasons of national interest, withdraws or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the ‘List,’ it shall, insofar as possible, compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, shall create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same region or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of their former habitat. 3. The Contracting Parties shall encourage research and the exchange of data and publications regarding wetlands and their flora and fauna.” It states that, according to the petitioner, this provision gives rise to an obligation to provide notice, before its approval, of the modification of the boundaries of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal.

It notes that this argument by the petitioner will be addressed more extensively by the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, which states that, although no wetland is affected, it should be clarified that approval of the challenged provision would indeed comply with the Ramsar Convention because the declassification (desafectación) of 113 ha would be offset by incorporating 549 ha of land subject to an environmental protection regime (régimen de protección ambiental). It states that Law No. 9610 provides that the approximately 850 ha water surface of the reservoir to be constructed and the protection zone, once consolidated, are to be declared a wetland under a special management category (categoría de manejo especial). It considers that there is no violation whatsoever of Constitutional Law. B) The OET study guarantees compliance with Article 50 of the Constitución Política. It clarifies that, contrary to the petitioner’s assertion, the study for the “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) and Adjacent Property” was indeed conducted and was prepared by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales.

It notes that the communities also participated and were consulted. It mentions that a formal event was even held on 8 de mayo de 2017 at the CEPROMA Bagatzí premises to consider the communities’ comments regarding the project (the consultation report is attached). It states that the Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (ACAT) likewise participated. It affirms that, on 30 de junio de 2017, at a meeting of the Comité Técnico attended by 19 ACAT professionals, including its legal department, the Embalse Río Piedras project and the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal were analyzed (the meeting minutes are submitted). It argues that oficio SINAC-COACAT-SE-041 of 7 de julio de 2017, sent to the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación so that it could be apprised of the resolution adopted by the Consejo Regional de ACAT upon reviewing the project in question, is attached. It states that the petitioners clearly do not understand the difference between the study prepared by OET, which was required for purposes of approving Law No. 9610, and the so-called environmental impact study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EIA).

It explains that the former is the specific study exclusively concerning the area of Lomas de Barbudal to be declassified and the adjacent property serving as the compensation area (área de compensación); the EIA, by contrast, covers the entire PAACUME project area and is intended to incorporate the technical studies necessary to assess impacts and propose environmental mitigation measures (medidas de mitigación ambiental) so that environmental feasibility approval (Viabilidad Ambiental) may be obtained from SETENA. It adds that the OET study was prepared in coordination with SENARA, MINAE, and other institutions involved. It explains that OET is an organization with considerable prestige and technical capacity for this type of study; it also possesses technical expertise by virtue of having operated for more than 50 años as part of a consortium of 50 universities, colleges, and research institutions from seven countries on four continents.

It adds that OET’s mission is to provide leadership in education, research, and the responsible use of natural resources in the tropics; its objective is to preserve tropical ecosystems by advancing scientific discovery and knowledge, enriching human understanding of nature, and improving policy measures throughout the tropics worldwide. It adds that the organization operates four research stations: Skukuza in South Africa, and La Selva, Palo Verde, and Las Cruces in Costa Rica. It explains that, based on the foregoing, it must be understood that the first prerequisite for implementing the PAACUME project is the declassification of 113 ha of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, so that the reservoir can be constructed, because without the reservoir there is no project and, without a project, environmental feasibility approval is not required; consequently, these are entirely independent studies and procedures.

It argues that the study conducted by OET is unquestionably scientifically rigorous, was developed by a world-renowned organization, and was issued pursuant to an administrative procurement process (contratación administrativa). It asserts that, although SENARA entered into the contract, its terms, subject matter, purpose, and scope were defined jointly with MINAE and the other institutions involved. It maintains that, because of the seriousness of the study and the organization that prepared it, the Asamblea Legislativa decided to use it as the basis for approving the law. It states that the petitioner overlooks the fact that this is a constitutional challenge and not a full evidentiary proceeding (procedimiento de pleno conocimiento) in which questions of legality, science, or technical matters may be debated. It notes that the procedure established by the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional does not provide for adversarial proceedings (contradictorio) in which the terms of the study may be debated.

It states that the procedure for approving the challenged law required only the submission of that study, which has already been prepared and a copy of which is hereby submitted. It partially quotes judgment No. 3049-08 of the Sala. It notes the need to distinguish constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) from judicial review of legality (control de legalidad) in matters involving protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It partially transcribes the dissenting opinion (voto salvado) of former Magistrado Ernesto Jinesta and Magistrado Salazar Alvarado issued in judgment No. 06340-2017 of the Sala. It states that any disagreements the petitioner may have with the OET study are matters to be debated in ordinary proceedings and not in constitutional proceedings. It requests that the challenge be dismissed as to this claim. C) No violation of the principle of environmental non-regression (principio de no regresividad en materia ambiental).

It affirms that Law No. 9610 provides for compensation for the area and that, because the declassification of 113 hectáreas is being offset by the incorporation of 556, there is no reduction whatsoever. It argues that OET recommends the acquisition of at least 332 hectáreas of Finca ASETREK; however, to facilitate management and fire control, it was decided to incorporate 444 hectáreas of ASETREK, thereby compensating for all the different ecosystems found within the 113 ha of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, except for the riparian forest (bosque ripario). It states that, if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the study prepared by OET, these proceedings are not the appropriate forum in which to contest it. It clarifies that the incorporation of the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties into the compensation proposal was undertaken on the recommendation of Manrique Montes Obando, administrator of Lomas Barbudal, because they contain riparian forest lands in an adequate state of conservation, as well as the principal springs (nacientes) of the río Cabuyo and quebrada Amores.

It quotes the second paragraph of Article 5 of Law No. 9610: “Of the fee charged by the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) to users for the use and exploitation of water, fifty percent (50%) shall be allocated to the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) for implementation of the General Plan for Sustainable and Rational Use Management, thereby incorporating financial resources,” and Article 6: “Once construction work has been completed and the Embalse Río Piedras has been placed into operation by the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA), the reservoir area, including the protection ring, shall become a wetland ecosystem administered by the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) in accordance with Article 33 of Ley 7575, Ley Forestal, of 13 de febrero de 1996. Strict coordination with SENARA shall be required for the use of water in accordance with the various required uses.

In this same article, the Law provides: ‘For preparation of the General Plan for Sustainable and Rational Use Management, a commission shall be formed with representatives from SINAC, SENARA, and the Municipalidad de Bagaces.’” It concludes that the compensation proposal, as established in Law No. 9610, does not constitute environmental regression (regresión ambiental) for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve, but rather strengthens environmental protection and administration, since the area of the reserve is increased; areas containing natural wetlands (humedales naturales) (río Cabuyo and Quebrada Amores) are protected and incorporated; financial resources are allocated for the administration and management of natural resources; interinstitutional coordination is established for the management and preparation of the corresponding environmental plans; and, finally, a new wetland ecosystem is incorporated, which, in addition to being a new destination for waterfowl, will be an ecosystem that contributes to climate-change adaptation throughout the province of Guanacaste.

It requests that the action be dismissed with respect to this claim. D) No violation of the in dubio pro natura principle. It states that the definition in Law No. 9610 of the new boundaries of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve does not violate constitutional law (Derecho de la Constitución); rather, the statute provides for a boundary modification that allows 113 ha to be removed from protected status (desafectar) and compensated for with another 556 ha. It adds that, although the OET study recommended acquiring at least 332 ha of Finca ASETREK, the decision was made to include 444 ha in order to facilitate management and fire control; moreover, the incorporation of the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties makes it possible to include riparian forest (bosque ripario) in an adequate state of conservation and also to preserve, because they are located within the project area, the principal springs (nacientes) of río Cabuyo and quebrada Amores located on those properties.

It adds that Articles 5 and 6 of Law No. 9610 also establish obligations for MINAE and SENARA, respectively: the former is charged with allocating 50% of the fee collected by MINAE from users for the use and exploitation of water so that SINAC may implement the General Sustainable and Rational Use Management Plan, while SENARA is directed, once the construction phase has been completed and the Río Piedras reservoir begins operating, to have the reservoir area (including the protection ring) constituted as a wetland ecosystem administered by SINAC, pursuant to Article 33 of Ley 7575. It explains that, in addition, a commission composed of SINAC, SENARA, and the Municipalidad de Bagaces will be responsible for preparing a General Sustainable and Rational Use Management Plan for the areas that will increase the zones of interest due to the existence of wetlands. It contends that this does not constitute environmental regression, but instead will strengthen protection and administration in Guanacaste.

• E)No violation of Article 45 of the Political Constitution. It asserts that Article 1 of Law No. 9610 redefines the boundaries in order to expand the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve: “ARTICLE 1—The area of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve, created by Executive Decree No. 16849-MAG of 23 de enero de 1986, is corrected and delimited for the development of the Water Supply Project for the Middle Basin of Río Tempisque and Coastal Communities (Paacume). The protected area begins at a point located on río Cabuyo, with coordinates in the CRTM05 System x 350792,224 and Y 1163050,33, and continues along the boundary with the property of Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa del Pacífico del Mar CPM S.A., with the following coordinates: (…)”. It maintains that, as is apparent from a reading of this provision, no owner is being deprived of private property. It states that, pursuant to the Expropriations Law (Ley de Expropiaciones), the corresponding procedures will be conducted to expropriate the properties required for the project, including the preparation of cadastral plans (planos catastrados), the definition of access routes or easements (servidumbres), the preparation of appraisals (avalúos), the issuance of the expropriation decree stating the public-interest status, and notification of the appraisal to the owner.
• F)Appropriateness of using the 208 bis procedure for the enactment of Law No. 9610. It states that the challenged law contains no provisions expressly affecting, dispossessing, or expropriating any private property, and therefore the procedure used for its enactment is valid. It notes that the 208 bis mechanism under the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa is a regulated legal instrument; that is, it states with complete clarity which circumstances are applicable and which are not. It explains that this procedure may not be used to enact a bill concerning the approval of administrative contracts, the sale of State assets or the opening of State monopolies, or international treaties and conventions, regardless of the vote required for approval. It cites Article 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa. It states that this case does not involve any of the circumstances that the provision in question deems inadmissible, nor does it involve a provision requiring a qualified majority (mayoría calificada); consequently, there was no impediment to processing the bill through the special procedure.
• G)Observance of the principle of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica). It explains that this representation is clear that the action does not allege that the coordinates contained in the law are incorrect, but rather that they do not match those recorded by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional. It adds that this does not give rise to any constitutional defect, because the coordinates delimiting the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve set forth in Law No. 9610 are correct. It adds that the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve was established by Executive Decree No. 16849-MAG, published in La Gaceta 45 of 5 de marzo de 1986, at a time when the geographically precise technological instruments available today did not exist. It explains that MINAE and SENARA jointly conducted the necessary studies and field topographic resurvey, making it possible to establish the reserve’s actual location and boundaries with adequate geographic precision.

It explains that the coordinates established in Executive Decree No. 16849-MAG were considered for the delimitation and that the 3 properties included as compensation were also incorporated in accordance with their respective cadastral plans. It argues that, likewise, the 113 ha required for the río Piedras reservoir were excluded. It maintains that the coordinates set forth in Law No. 9610 mark the total area of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve in strict accordance with its former delimitation, with the inclusion and exclusion of the corresponding areas. It considers that there is no legal uncertainty that could render the project unconstitutional. H) No violation of constitutional Article 11. It partially transcribes Article 4 of the RAMSAR Convention: “Article 4. 1. Each Contracting Party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by establishing nature reserves in wetlands, whether or not they are included in the ‘List,’ and shall adequately provide for their management and care. 2.

Where a Contracting Party, for urgent reasons of national interest, deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the ‘List,’ it shall, as far as possible, compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, shall establish new nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same region or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of their former habitat. 3. The Contracting Parties shall encourage research and the exchange of data and publications regarding wetlands and their flora and fauna”. It asserts that, as may be gathered from the foregoing, the State has the authority to remove a wetland from the list or reduce its boundaries when warranted by the national interest. It states that this requires compensation, insofar as possible, for the loss of wetland resources. It indicates that, following this reasoning, a compensation study (estudio de compensación) is required to reduce the boundaries of a wetland.

It states that, in this particular case, those studies were prepared by OET, as well as by MINAET, SENARA, and other institutions. It notes that this area-compensation study, included in the study “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve (RBLB) and Adjacent Property,” should not be confused with the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) required for construction of the PAACUME project, because they are different. With regard to the Environmental Impact Study, it cites Article 4 of the challenged law: “ARTICLE 4—The Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) shall be responsible for conducting the environmental study for the Water Supply Project for the Middle Basin of Río Tempisque and Coastal Communities (Paacume), which shall include measures to prevent, mitigate, and compensate for the area removed from protected status referred to in Article 2 of this Law, and those measures shall be implemented by the developer.

The environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) shall take into account the baseline approved by the entities and endorsed by the Consejo Regional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), without prejudice to the terms of reference issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena), pursuant to the applicable legal framework”. It states that, as follows from the foregoing, the law contains no constitutional defect. I) No violation of Article 176 of the Political Constitution. It considers that the petitioning party is incorrect in asserting that the entire project had to be available before the challenged law was enacted, because, as is apparent from a simple reading of the provision in question, it does not provide for the creation of any obligation that must be funded from the national budget. It states that Law No. 9610 could be described as an ancillary rule necessary for carrying out the PAACUME project, because it permits a new delimitation of the boundaries of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve so that those properties may subsequently be acquired through expropriation proceedings.

It states that the challenged law is not intended to govern the expropriation process; rather, at the appropriate stage of the PAACUME project, the State will initiate the corresponding procedures to complete the expropriation of all properties declared to be in the public interest for execution of the project, at which time their owners may assert their rights pursuant to the procedure established by the applicable regulations. It argues that, because the project’s implementation phase has not begun—and no proceeding seeking to expropriate any parcel has been initiated—there is no obligation to have budgetary funds available to cover the processing and payment of the expropriations. It states that, as of today, the corresponding appraisals needed to determine the exact amount payable are not available. It clarifies that SENARA has made an overall estimate (because the specific appraisals will be conducted once the law has been enacted), and on that basis extraordinary budget No. 3 was prepared and approved by the Contraloría General de la República through official letter DFOE-AE-0602 of 20 de diciembre de 2018, in the amount of ¢2.851.1 million, included in Law No. 9622, with a corresponding expenditure entry under the compensation subitem, to be applied to the expropriation of three properties corresponding to the compensation for 113 hectares of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve.

It attaches official letter DFOE-AE-0602, as well as budgetary-content certification (certificación de contenido presupuestario) SENARA-DAF-FIN-PRES-O63-2019, issued by the head of the Budget Process. It requests that this claim be rejected. J) Regarding the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. It asserts that no violation whatsoever of these principles occurred in the processing of Law 9610. It explains that, with respect to the assessment of the Brindis de Amor, ASETREK, and Hacienda Ciruelas properties, there is a technical study demonstrating that they do qualify as compensation areas (áreas de compensación), and they were identified as such in the OET study, which establishes the parameters used to determine reasonableness and proportionality. It contends that determining the properties to be expropriated (expropiar) does not entail a constitutional issue, but rather a question of legality concerning whether other areas might have met the parameters for being deemed suitable for compensation.

It argues that there is a high-level scientific study prepared by a recognized international organization, which established that the Brindis de Amor and Asetrek properties were suitable, given their characteristics, for use as compensation. It asserts that this was not a discretionary decision (decisión discrecional), whereby the Administration arbitrarily selected one property or another, but instead involved a scientific analysis of the properties to determine whether their use as suitable compensation areas was warranted. It maintains that the proposed compensation (Asetrek and Brindis de Amor) was submitted to the Ministro de Ambiente y Energía for the corresponding processing, pursuant to Articles 71 and 72 of the regulations to the Ley de Biodiversidad. It adds that CORACAT, under Resolution No. 1 adopted at the special session held on July 5, 2017, and subsequently CONAC, at special session No. 3 of July 11, 2017, determined that the aggregate area of proposed riparian forest (bosque ripario) was 18.07 hectares; that is, an area smaller than the portion that would be lost at the RBLB inundation site (24.71 hectares).

It further states that, for this reason, those bodies proposed identifying an additional area for the compensation proposal that would include riparian forest and thereby make up the shortfall in hectares for this type of ecosystem. It contends that the identified shortfall was approximately 6.64 hectares of riparian forest, because the area had to be compensated with another area of equal size (24.71 hectares) that served the same purposes and had similar ecosystem conditions; that is, at a minimum ratio of 1:1. It maintains that, after analyzing proposed potential compensation areas for the missing riparian forest, together with SINAC officials, it was decided to add part of the property owned by Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., corporate identification number (cédula jurídica) No. 3-101-290749, registered cadastral plan (plano catastrado) No. 5-734177-2001, real property folio (folio real) No. 034930-000, located in the first district, Bagaces, of the fourth canton, Bagaces, in the province of Guanacaste, with a total area of 1299 hectares (1699.15 m2).

It asserts that, following a field assessment conducted by officials from the Dirección de Aguas and SENARA, the acquisition of 25.00 hectares was proposed. It states that the proposed area borders the Brindis de Amor property to the north, the remainder of the Hacienda Ciruelas property to the east, quebrada Amores to the south, and RBLB to the west. It indicates that a preliminary assessment was conducted of the property’s 25.00 hectares, which contain 7.16 hectares of riparian forest, 2.42 hectares of secondary forest (bosque secundario), 13.13 hectares of deciduous forest (bosque deciduo), and 2.28 hectares of pastureland (pastos). It explains that, for purposes of processing Law 9610, the document entitled “Compensation Proposal for Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal” was considered, and a copy thereof is submitted. It states that, because there is scientific evidence supporting the administrative decision, the actions taken during the process of approving the law were reasonable and proportionate.

• K)Law 9610 and the identification of the properties of interest for the PAACUME project are consistent with the principles of economy and efficiency. It states that it has been established that the selection of the properties that will subsequently be expropriated derives from a technical scientific study prepared by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales; therefore, given its scientific rigor, questioning why another property was not selected is irrelevant when the determination is duly reasoned (debidamente motivada). It states that the affected properties are suitable for the proper protection of the areas in the zone. It notes that debating whether one property or another should have been selected as an area eligible for compensation (área compensable) is not a constitutional matter, but rather an issue properly addressed through ordinary administrative litigation proceedings (vía ordinaria contencioso administrativa).

It requests that the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) be rejected with respect to this claim. It requests that an oral hearing (comparecencia oral) be held to present closing arguments before judgment is rendered in this action. It requests that the constitutional challenge filed against Law No. 9610 be dismissed.

1. 9In a written submission added to the digital case file at 15:04 on 18 de febrero de 2019, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi appears in his capacity as Ministro de Ambiente y Energía. Regarding the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (PAACUME), he states that the project is intended to promote the socioeconomic development of the province of Guanacaste through the sustainable use of water resources from the Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal-Dengo-Sandillal (ARDESA) and other available sources, as climate-change adaptation measures within a framework of sustainability and equity. He notes that it includes the automation of the Presa Derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B and Canal Oeste Tramo I up to the río Piedras reservoir (embalse), including the construction of a storage reservoir on the río Piedras and the expansion and construction of Canal Oeste Tramos II and III from that point to the río Tempisque.He states that it also includes secondary and tertiary conveyance lines for agricultural irrigation (riego agropecuario) and tourism-development areas, as well as water-delivery works for communities, to be administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, extending from the río Tempisque plain to the coastal area. He adds that the project likewise includes the construction of a powerhouse for electricity generation at the dam site. He mentions that the fundamental objective is to provide water—available in sufficient quantity and quality and at the appropriate time, at a rate of 20 cubic meters per second—for various potential uses. He states that the project is expected to benefit at least 204 thousand people and cover at least 17 thousand hectares under irrigation. He asserts that, from this flow, 2 cubic meters per second will be made available for the long-term supply of communities in the cantons of Santa Cruz, Nicoya, and Carrillo, which will be administered by the ICAA.He argues that the project provides at least 1.5 cubic meters per second of water for irrigation to support tourism activity in the coastal area, thereby benefiting coastal communities by freeing up groundwater currently used for irrigation. He states that this project will not only provide communities and the productive sector with sustainable access to water, but also seeks to harmonize and regulate the rational exploitation of the principal groundwater resources in aquifers (acuíferos) on the right bank of the middle río Tempisque basin, because it will enable the State to regulate the maximum use of wells (pozos) for these activities. He adds that construction of the dam (presa) on the río Piedras entails a reservoir with a water-surface area of approximately 850 hectares, of which, according to the field survey conducted by SENARA, 113 hectares are located within the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal.He further states that the dam site will be located at a natural narrowing of this river channel between the coordinates West Longitude 358930, North Latitude 1163180 and West Longitude 359690, North Latitude 1155330, at a maximum water-level elevation of 50.50.m.s.n.m. He explains that the dam will create an impoundment (represamiento) for storing water that SENARA will capture at the presa Miguel Pablo Dengo, located on the Rio Santa Rosa. He states that, from that site, the water will be conveyed through Canal Oeste, Tramo I, which is 21 km long and has a hydraulic capacity of 55 cubic meters per second. He asserts that, before Canal Oeste Tramo I intersects the río Piedras, there is a natural drop that makes it possible to establish a storage site. He mentions that the project will be located in the región Chorotega, province of Guanacaste, and that its area of influence encompasses the cantons of Bagaces, Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya.He maintains that the irrigation area covers only certain districts: Filadelfia, Palmira, Belén, and Sardinal in the canton of Carrillo; Santa Cruz, Bolsón, Cartagena, and Diriá in the canton of Santa Cruz; and San Antonio in the canton of Nicoya. He states that the location of the dam on the río Piedras is dictated by a unique topographical condition that prevents it from being relocated; consequently, the location and elevation difference between the inlet of the canal that supplies it and the outlet of the canal that will carry the water to the río Tempisque determine the reservoir’s maximum level and its capacity to supply PAACUME with 20 cubic meters per second. He notes that the possibility of building a dike to prevent the flooding of that area of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal and a tunnel more than 2 kilometers long to drain the water was considered at one point; however, the dike site coincides with a geological fault that would make construction impossible because of the high risk it would pose to the works.He states that, for the foregoing reason, the reservoir cannot be relocated or reduced in volume without significantly affecting the scope of PAACUME and, consequently, its benefits for the population of Guanacaste; it was therefore determined that 113 hectares of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal must be flooded. He adds that it is vitally important for this reservoir to be developed to its full extent, for which purpose it is essential that this area be available for inundation. He mentions that SENARA, through multiple studies, has demonstrated that a reservoir of this size, including the area within the Reserva Lomas de Barbudal (113 hectares), is the only way to meet water demand within the scope of the project sustainably. He states that the project was conceived to use water from the already constructed Sistema Hidroeléctrico ARDESA and infrastructure already installed in the Distrito de Riego administered by SENARA.He asserts that the project-profile document prepared by SENARA addresses several matters that were later developed, based on studies conducted in junio de 2016 by ICE at SENARA’s request. He argues that, according to the petitioners, the following were not assessed in the baseline study: project identification, background, identification of the water problem, and assessments of potential reservoirs. Project beneficiaries. He states that PAACUME will provide irrigation benefits to three cantons in the province of Guanacaste (Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya) and will allocate 2 cubic meters per second of water for human consumption (the treatment and distribution of which will be handled by the ICAA), thereby resolving the projected deficit over a 50-year horizon for approximately 500.000 people (including the water supply for the populations of the aforementioned cantons). He adds that the project also contemplates hydroelectric generation at the dam site, which will produce 7 MW per year, and that, regarding irrigation, in addition to irrigation intended for the agricultural productive sector, the project seeks to cover an estimated area of 1.875 ha in the tourism sector of the coastal area, which would free up groundwater currently used for that purpose.He emphasizes that, during the project’s feasibility stage (its current stage), not only do the principles of the Política Hídrica Nacional -PHN- apply—particularly 5.1 .1.4, priority of water use for human consumption; 5.1.1.1, the fundamental human right of access to drinking water and basic sanitation; and 5.1.1.7, sustainable use of water—but the project is also being managed to provide the stated supply and, as reported, to ensure an alternative water supply on the coast that will allow groundwater to be released from irrigation use. He adds that the purpose of the foregoing is to reserve that water solely for drinking and thereby reduce pressure on this resource in the coastal area, which is the most vulnerable to water shortages and high demand. He asserts that the project’s potential beneficiaries comprise the general population of the province of Guanacaste. He explains that, according to data from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), the projected population as of 2016 was 371.375 inhabitants, in addition to a transient population consisting of domestic and foreign tourists, estimated at more than one million people per year, to which must be added another population composed of workers from various businesses, including tourism businesses, who continually enter and leave the area.He states that the ICAA estimated that, by 2025, the population within the project area would exceed 220.000 inhabitants as users of the area’s principal aqueducts (Senara, 2006). He contends that, with respect to the tourism sector, the entry of 1.113.359 tourists was recorded in 2002, and the growth trend has been constant, since the number of visitors to the country had doubled by 2014. He relates that, in contrast to the poverty prevailing in the región Chorotega, this is one of the areas that has experienced the greatest tourism development; the country’s principal hotel complexes are located along its coasts. He asserts that, in 2015, the installed capacity of hotels in the project area was estimated at 140.812 people during peak season and was projected to reach 230.900 people by 2025 (Senara, 2006). He maintains that the resource currently under the greatest pressure is water, owing to withdrawals from aquifers for human consumption and other uses, a situation that is further aggravated in tourism areas by the threat of well salinization.He states that, in 2005, average drinking-water demand (based on installed capacity) was estimated at 570 l/s and, with sustained growth through 2025, would reach 935 l/s. He notes that the agricultural irrigation area is estimated at 17000 ha, where 1067 agricultural producers (large, medium-sized, and small) could benefit. Table 1. Distribution of producers by canton (source: SENARA, 2017):

Canton Number of beneficiaries Nicoya 84 Santa Cruz 482 Carillo 505 Total 1067 Table 2. Distribution of current land use (uso actual del suelo) within the PAACUME area of influence, by canton in hectares (source: SENARA, 2016) Current land use Carrillo (ha) Nicoya (ha) Santa Cruz (ha) Total (ha) Total (%) Protection areas 962 188 2396 3546 8.5 Protected areas 327 269 596 1.4 Rice 874 507 1380 3.3 Forest 659 448 1355 2462 5.9 Sugarcane 11282 616 1612 13510 32.6 Brushland 90 203 293 0.7 Forestry 1 9 33 52 0.1 Fruit crops 257 95 352 0.8 Industry 3 2 32 0.1 Melon 39 1 391 0.9 Hay bales 1814 1814 4.4 Palm 46 46 0.1 Pasture 4945 1464 9960 16370 39.5 Sorghum 37 37 0.1 Urban 328 268 596 1.4 TOTAL AREA 20166 2716 18595 41477 100 IRRIGABLE AREA 17749 2080 14071 33900 81.7 It notes that Table 2 reflects the project’s total coverage area, corresponding to 41.477 hectares, and the irrigable area (área regable), which, after excluding protection areas (áreas de protección), protected areas (áreas protegidas), forest, scrubland (charral), forestry areas, industrial areas, and the urban zone in the three cantons, totals 33.900 hectares.

Proposed land use (uso propuesto del suelo). It states that, based on the water supply introduced by PAACUME, the area that will actually be irrigated is identified. It argues that, for the areas that cannot be supplied by the project, the feasible and viable option among the potential alternative solutions must subsequently be sought and analyzed. It states that, in the case of the water supply for human consumption, what is being proposed is a future reserve for a priority use. It asserts that, based on the identification of the crops located within the project’s irrigable area and considering that the potential irrigation area exceeds the area that can be irrigated with the available water, a proposal for crops to be irrigated will be determined based on land use; this proposal will be used as a reference for determining water demand and for the project’s financial and economic assessment.

It mentions that Table 3 presents the proposed land use adjusted according to the available water supply for agricultural and livestock use. It adds that, depending on the available flow rate, water demand may vary according to the proposed planting seasons, the efficiency of the irrigation method, and water availability. Table 3. Proposed land use, planting and harvest seasons according to the available water supply (source: SENARA, 2017):

Crops Planting season Harvest season Total (ha) Total (%) Rice January–July April, November 1400 8.2 Sugarcane Dec–April 8500 50 Forage crops May January–Dec 600 3.5 Fruit crops February–April 400 3.5 Vegetables January–May, July, Sept, Nov, Dec January–September, Nov 400 2.4 Melon Nov–January January–May 600 2.4 Bales May January–Dec 4000 23.5 Roots and tubers November–February February–April June–November 700 4.1 Watermelon Nov, March, April Jan, Feb, March, May, June, July, August 400 2.4 TOTAL 17.000 100 Potential land use (uso potencial del suelo). It explains that the potential land-use table reflects a crop proposal for an estimated period of three years after the irrigation system begins operating, maintaining the same crops and planting seasons. It contends that the production area increases because the operation of the irrigation system is expected to be optimized and the efficiency of the irrigation methods used is expected to improve.

It asserts that Table 4 provides a breakdown of the planted area for each of the different production systems and shows increases in the areas planted with sugarcane, fruit crops, bales, roots and tubers, and watermelon. Table 4. Potential crops, planting and harvest seasons, and potentially irrigable areas (source: SENARA, 2017) Crops Planting season Harvest season Total (ha) Total (%) Rice January–July April, November 1400 7.5 Sugarcane Dec–April 8500 45.2 Forage crops May January–Dec 1000 5.3 Fruit crops February–April 1000 5.3 Vegetables January–May, July, Sept, Nov, Dec January–September, Nov 400 2.1 Melon Nov–January January–May 1000 5.3 Watermelon Nov, March, April Jan, Feb, March, May, June, July, August 500 2.7 Bales May January–Dec 4000 21.3 Roots and tubers November–February February–April June–November 1000 5.3 TOTAL 18.800 100 It maintains that the 18.800 hectares reach their maximum demand in April, with a total of 16.35 m³/s.

Regarding the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), it indicates that the Ramsar Convention (1971) is an intergovernmental treaty whose mission is the conservation and wise use of wetlands through local, regional, and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution toward achieving sustainable development throughout the world. It states that, upon joining the convention, countries undertake to add sites to a list of wetlands of international importance (the Ramsar List). It notes that those sites are internationally recognized for their ecological value to humanity. It explains that the Lomas Barbudal Biological Reserve is part of Palo Verde, designated by Costa Rica on the list of Ramsar sites. It argues that, through Agreement 3 of extraordinary session No. 4-2017 of the National Council of Conservation Areas (CONAC), it was agreed that the Ramsar Convention must be notified of the intention to carry out this project and that any other procedure necessary to comply with the country’s commitments must be initiated.

It recounts that the Palo Verde wetland, together with Caño Negro, were the first wetlands declared Ramsar sites for Costa Rica in 1991; it asserts that it is a complex of seasonal and permanent wetlands formed by a group of swamps, marshes, lakes, rivers, and streams in the middle and lower Tempisque River basin, which, together with its tributaries, are the basin’s principal river systems. It asserts that, as a result of the pronounced changes in precipitation between the dry and rainy seasons, the flow varies considerably, causing overflows that flood areas adjacent to the riverbeds. Location of the site. It indicates that it is located in the cantons of Nicoya and Bagaces in the province of Guanacaste and includes the following protected wilderness areas: Palo Verde National Park; Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve; Mata Redonda and Cipancí National Wildlife Refuges; Corral de Piedra, Laguna Madrigal, and Zapandí Wetlands; and the wetland ecosystems of El Tendal and Sonzapote.

It states that this wetland is administered by the Tempisque and Arenal-Tempisque Conservation Areas. It states that some of the communities located near the wetland are: Bagaces, Bagatzi, Bebedero, Bolsón, Ortega, Playitas, Pijije, Llanos del Cortés, Falconiana, Pozo de agua, Charco, Colorado, Puerto Humo, Raizal, Roblar, Rosario, and San Antonio. It notes that, in 2002, the site was expanded and its boundary continues as follows (according to Rodríguez and Alvarado, 2014): “The new boundary begins at a point located on the left bank of the Bebedero River channel (coordinates 25 74 20 N and 40 37 80 W) and continues along a public road, crosses a landscape matrix composed of low vegetation, pastures, and crops near the sector known as Asentamiento Tamarindo, then the banks of La Mula Creek are used as a natural boundary; the boundary along the bank of the western irrigation canal is also used until it meets the boundary of the Lomas Barbudal Biological Reserve.

It continues using physical boundaries such as roads leading to different rural settlements and drainage canals until reaching the former channel of the Tempisque River, where it intersects the former boundary of Palo Verde National Park, closing at the current channel of the Tempisque River. Source: Technical Information Sheet updated 2018.” It mentions that, for its geographical location, the following coordinates correspond to a midpoint in the Ramsar site and “are in Costa Rica’s official CRTM05 system with WGS84 Datum and Transverse Mercator projection 357269 and 11431 26.” Regarding the area of Ramsar sites in Costa Rica, it reports the following: “Palo Verde 27/12/1991 Guanacaste 24,519 ha 10º20´ N 085º 20´W.” It states that the Ramsar handbooks address, topic by topic, the various relevant guidelines adopted by the parties, to which material from information documents of the conferences of the parties, case studies, and other relevant publications have been added in order to illustrate the essential aspects of the guidelines.

It asserts that Ramsar Handbook No. 17, 4th edition, entitled “Designating Ramsar Sites: Strategic Framework and Guidelines for the Future Development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance—HPII—,” establishes the criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance, guidelines for applying them, and long-term targets. Justification criteria that determined the inclusion of Palo Verde as a Ramsar site. It reports the following: “The Ramsar criterion and its justification specifically used for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve. Criterion 1: Representative, rare, or unique natural or near-natural wetland types. The Palo Verde Wetland is located in a region representative of tropical dry forest; therefore, the wetlands located in the middle and lower Tempisque River basin are considered representative and important. This is a very extensive basin within Costa Rican territory and is interconnected with a river network possessing all its characteristic features, such as rainfall collection areas, floodplains, forests, and estuaries.

The Tempisque and Bebedero Rivers are the main tributaries within the basin and are essential to the wetlands. Their flows vary, and during the rainy season they may overflow (Rodríguez and Alvarado, 2014). The wetlands in the lower parts of the basin that comprise this Ramsar site are considered islands or refuges for the diversity of species distributed throughout this region. This is due to the loss of ecosystems to which the wetlands of Guanacaste were and continue to be subjected (50%), particularly through their conversion into agricultural and livestock fields (Convention on Ramsar Wetlands, 1998). This occurred in the case of the Cañas lagoons, the wetlands of Filadelfia and Liberia, Hacienda el Viejo and Pelón, and others in Bagaces. Practices such as planting rice, sugarcane, and melon are common around the wetlands, reducing the space and availability of resources for biota, in addition to more than 60000 ha devoted to livestock and forest plantations.

This absence of wetland ecosystems is especially critical considering the long and pronounced dry period experienced in this part of the country during the dry season. In this regard, the lacustrine and palustrine wetlands, mangroves, flooded forests, estuaries, rivers, among others, forming part of the different protected areas of the Wetlands of International Importance—HPII—maintain ecosystems important for life in general throughout the year and especially during dry conditions (Rodríguez et al. 2012; UNED-SINAC, 2012; SINAC, 2013a; SINAC, 2013b, SINAC, 2013c); moreover, their natural forested areas allow wildlife to move between areas to make use of bodies of water. Likewise, springs, which are natural water sources during times of scarcity, may be found; in Palo Verde these include those known as Guayacán, Almendro, Coyol, Espíritu Santo, Saíno, Bejuco, Avellanal, Cerritos, and Oropopo (SINAC,2013b).” Regarding the provisions of the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands concerning notification of the removal of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve area from protected status, it argues that both the Ramsar Convention and its handbooks are intended to guide the “wise use” of ecosystems.

It asserts that the wise use of wetlands is defined as: “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development.” It explains that paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the convention states: “Any Contracting Party shall have the right to add to the List other wetlands situated within its territory, to extend the boundaries of those already included or, because of urgent national interests, to delete or restrict the boundaries of wetlands already included in the List, and shall inform the organization or government responsible for the continuing bureau duties specified in Article 8 of these changes at the earliest possible time.” It adds that the international instrument provides that, for reasons of urgency and national interest, wetlands may be reduced or removed from the list and, in this case, the urgent need for water to serve the population, provide development options for the Guanacaste region, and ensure access to water resources for future generations constitutes a matter of public interest, as declared by the decrees concerning advisability and national interest mentioned in the project section.

It asserts that Handbook 19, entitled “Addressing Change in Wetland Ecological Character” (4th edition), establishes: “The promotion of the conservation of designated Wetlands of International Importance (‘Ramsar Sites’) (Article 3.1 of the Convention), through the maintenance of their ecological character, is one of the fundamental principles of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Contracting Parties to the Convention are therefore expected to establish planning and oversight mechanisms for wetland management in order to maintain the ecological character of all wetlands they have designated for the List of Wetlands of International Importance.” It adds that this handbook states the following: “D. Deletion or restriction of the boundaries of a Ramsar Site on the List: interpretation of the phrase ‘urgent national interests’ under Article 2.5 of the Convention 35. Article 2.5 of the Ramsar Convention provides that ‘Any Contracting Party shall have the right ... because of urgent national interests, to delete or restrict the boundaries of wetlands already included in the List.’ 36.

Following from Article 2.5, Article 4.2 of the Convention provides that ‘Where a Contracting Party in its urgent national interest deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the List, it should as far as possible compensate for any loss of wetland resources.’ 37. However, at COP8 (2002), the Contracting Parties recognized through Resolution VIII.20 that neither Article 2.5 nor Article 4.2 provides any guidance concerning the interpretation of the phrase ‘urgent national interests’ or how compensation should be determined, and they adopted general guidance on these matters as an Annex to Resolution VIII.20. 38. That guidance for interpreting the phrase ‘urgent national interests’ in Article 2.5 is provided below, and Section G of this Handbook contains the provision concerning compensation under Article 4.2. General guidance for interpreting the phrase ‘urgent national interests’ under Article 2.5 of the Convention (paragraphs 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 of the Annex to Resolution VIII.20) Purpose 39.

In accordance with Article 2.3 of the Convention, which provides that ‘the inclusion of a wetland in the List does not prejudice the exclusive sovereign rights of the Contracting Party in whose territory the wetland is situated,’ the determination of ‘urgent national interests’ rests exclusively with the Contracting Party. The following guidance may assist Contracting Parties in interpreting Article 2.5 and Article 4.2. Contracting Parties may use this guidance if they so wish. 40.

This general guidance does not prevent a Contracting Party from maintaining or introducing stricter regulations for applying the clause concerning “urgent reasons of national interest” and the provisions concerning compensation when that clause has been invoked. 41. When invoking its right under Article 2.5 to delete from the List of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites) or restrict the boundaries of a wetland included therein, in the case of urgent reasons of national interest, a Contracting Party may take into account, among other things, the following: i) the national benefits of maintaining the integrity of the wetland system and its related benefits; ii) whether maintaining the status quo threatens a national interest; iii) whether the proposed change is compatible with national policies; iv) whether immediate action is required to prevent a significant threat; v) whether a national interest is subject to a growing threat; vi) other reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, including the “no-project” option, the search for an alternative location, the introduction of buffer zones (zonas de amortiguamiento), etc.; vii) the existing economic, social, and ecological values and functions of the site in question.

(The more important the values and functions of the site, the greater the social, economic, or ecological benefits of the proposed project must be); viii) the particular value of habitats supporting endemic, threatened, rare, vulnerable, or endangered species; ix) whether the proposed action provides benefits to a broad base of beneficiaries; x) whether the proposed action offers greater long-term benefits; xi) the alternative that minimizes harm to the site in question; and xii) transboundary effects.” Law No. 9610 establishes that the Río Piedras reservoir must be assigned a management category (categoría de manejo) that allows its activities to be regulated sustainably. It states that the foregoing, without abandoning its purpose of creation, constitutes the reasonable alternative contemplated in subsection 41 above of Manual 19, which provides for the introduction of buffer zones, an alternative location, consideration of social benefits, among other measures.

It cites Article 6 of Law No. 9610: “ARTICLE 6—Once construction has been completed and the Embalse Río Piedras has been placed into operation by the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara), the reservoir area, including the protection ring (anillo de protección), shall become a wetland ecosystem administered by the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), in accordance with Article 33 of Law No. 7575, Ley Forestal, of 13 de febrero de 1996. There must be close coordination with Senara regarding the use of the water for the various required purposes. The Executive Branch, through Sinac, shall conduct the studies necessary to assign that area a management category that must not conflict with the use made of the water produced by the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume). For the preparation of the General Sustainable and Rational Use Management Plan (Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional), a commission shall be formed with representatives from Sinac, Senara, and the Municipalidad de Bagaces.” It states that important criteria have been considered regarding the special management category for that reservoir and its ecosystem benefits: “• The authority of each institution would be defined more clearly, and the mechanisms and procedures for resource planning and use would be better defined. • Under the official Wetland category, there would be greater opportunities to regulate use so that local, national, and international society could have access to quality goods and services produced by the well-conserved resource, including education, research, water, recreation, and tourism. • It would enable more efficient and rigorous prevention and control of various unlawful activities, such as land encroachment and illegal logging, poaching and illegal fishing, and forest fires. • By assigning a management category to the Reservoir and incorporating it as a Ramsar Site, the country would responsibly fulfill its international commitments as a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance—the Ramsar Convention—approved by Law No. 7224 of 02 de abril de 1991. • Granting it official Wetland status would facilitate the process of regulating tourism activities, through which local groups and microentrepreneurs in the area could participate in developing sustainable rural tourism as a socioeconomic alternative. • The creation of this protected area would strengthen an important zone that serves as a Biological Corridor among Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, Parque Nacional Palo Verde, and Corredor Biológico Nambiral. • Local civil society and related local institutions would be brought together to coordinate and carry out comprehensive environmental planning and management through the Consejo Local del Humedal, making efficient use of the resources and installed capacity of each related institution. • The Wetland category would allow for the harmonious and sustainable planning, regulation, and use of natural resources with a low level of friction or conflict, unlike what might occur if a National Park or Biological Reserve category were assigned. • Having a core wilderness area (área silvestre núcleo) would provide justification and encouragement for local and regional bodies and international entities to cooperate technically and financially in promoting measures aimed at conservation and sustainable socio-productive activities throughout the watershed. • Assigning a management category for the regulation and sustainable use of the Reservoir would contribute significantly to the conservation of the ecosystems and species of Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal because, in addition to promoting connectivity and species movement, it would also serve as a buffer zone and reduce pressure on the Reserve’s resources.” It clarifies that there is a procedure concerning the questions raised about communications with Ramsar.

It contends that, following the enactment of Law No. 9610, Costa Rica is currently gathering information to identify probable changes, given that modification of the site depends on the development of the reservoir project and that some of this information is part of the environmental assessment process (Evaluación ambiental) before the Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental; all of this is undertaken pursuant to Article 2.5 to modify the boundaries of the Pato Verde wetland included on the list, for urgent reasons of national interest, because of the threat to the availability of water resources and the project’s human, social, and economic benefits. It maintains that, through official letter No. VAM-068-2019 of 11 de febrero de 2019, the Viceministra de Aguas y Mares requested that the Consejo Nacional Asesor de Humedales, with respect to the PAACUME project, provide “assistance to ensure faithful compliance with the obligations assumed by the country in accordance with the procedures established in the Convención RAMSAR.” Regarding the inconsistencies in the coordinates included in Law No. 9610, it asserts that Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal was established on 23 de enero de 1986 through Executive Decree No. 16 849-MAG, published in La Gaceta No. 45 of 5 de marzo de 1986, at a time when today’s precision geographic instruments were unavailable.

It indicates that, through joint work by MINAE and SENARA, the necessary studies and field topographic resurveys were conducted, enabling adequate geographic precision in identifying and establishing the actual boundaries of the RBLB area. It notes that, for the modification approved in the challenged law, the coordinates established for Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal in Executive Decree No. 16849-MAG were considered; additionally, the 3 properties included as compensation were incorporated in accordance with the cadastral plans (planos catastrados) for each, and the 113 ha required for the Río Piedras reservoir were excluded. It states that the coordinates identified in Law No. 9610 delimit the entire area of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal in strict accordance with the previous boundaries, with the inclusion and exclusion of the corresponding areas. Regarding the allegations concerning the violation of constitutional principles: • Right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

It notes that Article 50 of the Constitution establishes the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the State’s duty to guarantee, preserve, and defend that right. It states that the same provision also mandates the State to pursue the greatest welfare for all the country’s inhabitants by organizing and encouraging production and the most appropriate distribution of wealth. It explains that this constitutional provision is the basis for developing this public works project. It states that one of the fundamental obligations of the Costa Rican State is to promote the welfare of its inhabitants through development and production; however, genuine development cannot exist unless it proceeds in harmony with the environment. It argues that these are two concepts which, far from being mutually exclusive, complement one another, and it is precisely in this context that the concept of sustainable development (desarrollo sostenible) arises.

This concept has been defined from various perspectives, with the globally prevailing definition being that set out in the Brundtland Report, “Nuestro Futuro Común,” prepared by the Comisión Mundial para el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo (1987): “… sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, technological development, and institutional change are in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs. The concept presupposes limits imposed upon environmental resources by the present state of technology and social organization and by the biosphere’s capacity to absorb the effects of human activities, but both technology and social organization can be managed and improved so as to pave the way for a new era of economic growth.” It states that constitutional Article 50 mandates development and production in harmony with the environment, such that there are two constitutional mandates of equal rank, compliance with both of which is compulsory.

It explains that this Article embodies the State’s obligation to provide public services efficiently to the community, in genuine balance with the environment. It adds that the foregoing constitutes a fundamental parameter framing the State’s actions and placing on an equal footing its powers concerning the country’s development for the benefit of the community and environmental protection. It cites Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 11 of the Protocol of San Salvador. It argues that the combined effect of the cited articles of these two international instruments leads to sustainable development in harmony with the environment, the progress of peoples, and the fulfillment of other economic and social rights—a result that, in the case of Costa Rica and especially Provincia de Guanacaste, would improve the living conditions of the area’s inhabitants. • In dubio pro natura. It cites judgment No. 2000-10465 of 24 de noviembre de 2000 issued by the Sala.

It argues that there is no violation whatsoever of this principle, because the institutions involved in this project have conducted the corresponding studies, as well as the actions that compensate for the areas in which the project will be developed. • Non-regression in environmental matters and lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad). It asserts that the principle of non-regression, or the prohibition against backsliding, provides that laws and case law should not be amended if doing so entails retreating from previously achieved levels of environmental protection; therefore, a new rule or judgment must not and cannot worsen the situation of preexisting environmental law in terms of its scope, breadth, and effectiveness. It maintains that the State is authorized to approve the reduction of protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) in accordance with Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente.

It partially transcribes Resolution No. 2012-13367 of the Chamber. It explains that, in January 2016, SENARA entered into the “Agreement with the Organization for Tropical Studies (OET) to Conduct the Study for Establishing the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property.” It states that the objective of the study was to develop and define a baseline that would make it possible to determine the ecological integrity, relevance, and fragility of the existing ecosystems, as well as the existing biodiversity, in the area of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal that would be directly affected by the Río Piedras reservoir. It notes that a comparative analysis was also conducted between an area of the RBLB and previously selected neighboring lands to ascertain the degree of similarity and the feasibility of using them as an ecologically equivalent replacement area; that is, scientific criteria and a sustainable-development policy supporting the project were available from the standpoint of access to water as a Human Right. • Inviolability of private property.

It cites Articles 37 and 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. It adds that the petitioners are guaranteed ownership of their real property until the expropriation proceeding (proceso de expropiación) is instituted. It partially transcribes a judgment of the First Chamber identified as No. 356. It disputes that Article One of Law No. 9610 deprived the petitioners of their properties and, consequently, the State is not obligated to pay any compensation until the expropriation proceeding. • Regarding the technical basis of Law No. 9610. It partially cites Judgments No. 7294-98 and No.6322-2003 and also refers to Vote No. 18665-20 12. It states: “The Study for Establishing the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal—RBLB—and Adjacent Property, conducted by the Organization for Tropical Studies—OET—constitutes the technical input considered for the enactment of Law No. 9610.

The procedure used by OET to evaluate the offset (compensación) is based on a methodology called Habitat/Hectare, a scoring system developed by Australian researchers that identifies a series of environmental-quality indicators and assigns values to each factor of the habitats to be evaluated. Two offset assessments were conducted independently, one based on habitat-quality indicators and the other on community diversity and composition, both adapted to tropical dry forest (bosque seco tropical). Additionally, the methodology used by OET was modified to include other indicators (geophysical indicators, ecosystem services, among others). The final score is the sum of the values determined for each indicator and represents habitat quality or community composition relative to the reference habitat (RBLB). Based on the result obtained in the Study, it was possible to estimate the number of hectares required to attain a quality level equivalent to that of the reference area and thus offset the 113 hectares to be flooded in the RBLB.

It is important to note that the study conducted by OET considered an area of 131,07 hectares in the RBLB because, during its execution, SENARA performed the field survey work to prepare the final survey plan (plano) for the area actually required for the reservoir, which resulted in 113 hectares, all included within the 131,07 hectares studied by OET. By considering the designated area, the Study conducted by OET (on 131,07 hectares) determined that this sector of the RBLB contains three types of forest cover (cobertura forestal): deciduous forest (bosque deciduo) on 96,05 hectares, secondary forest (bosque secundario) on 9.13 hectares, and mature forest (bosque maduro) on 24,71 hectares. The latter shall hereinafter be called riparian forest (bosque ripario), because it is associated with the area’s waterways and consists of remnants of vegetation surviving along the banks of rivers and streams, composed of evergreen species.

In addition, the property contains 1,18 hectares of non-forest area and pastureland. The lands evaluated for the offset area are owned by ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., corporate identification number No. 3-101-370259, whose representative is Mr. Ramón Aguilar Facio, identity card No. 9-0001-0541, registered survey plan No. 5-666-1976, real-property folio No. 034932-000, located in the first district, Bagaces, of the fourth canton, Bagaces, in the province of Guanacaste, with a registered area of 751 hectares. The riparian-forest area at ASETREK consists of small fragmented areas, a situation that led to its existence not being considered when scores were assigned in the assessment conducted in the Study to determine the required offset area. The study’s conclusions regarding habitat quality show that an equivalent area of between 290 and 332 hectares is necessary to offset the area to be flooded in the RBLB, because the property studied represents between 34,00 % and 51,20 % of the reference site, which corresponds to the 113 hectares of the RBLB.

These differences indicate that the ASETREK Tres Azul SA property has been disturbed to a greater extent and, because it lacks riparian-forest cover, 332 hectares will be required for the offset, taking into account the maximum probable value yielded by the methodology applied. Furthermore, under the methodology for community diversity and composition, ASETREK contains 30,90 % of the reference area (113 hectares of the RBLB); that is, the reserve has greater species richness among the taxonomic groups studied, and therefore 290 hectares are needed to offset the loss in the RBLB. In conclusion, considering the result obtained by applying the methodology for both habitat quality and community diversity and composition, the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A offset site is inferior in environmental quality, composition, and biodiversity to the RBLB site that would be flooded by the Río Piedras Reservoir.

Therefore, taking into account the condition most favorable to the RBLB, OET recommended acquiring at least 332 hectares of the ASETREK Tres Azul S A. Property to remedy the RBLB’s losses. The ASETREK Tres Azul S.A property, studied by OET as an extension for the offset, has a total area of 751 hectares, a significant portion of which is devoted to agricultural and livestock production. Taking into account the offset area proposed as a result of the Study, a site analysis was conducted to assess the area that should be proposed to offset the 113 hectares of the RBLB to be flooded, based on the following fundamental parameters: 1. Satisfy the minimum area required for the offset as determined by the study, which corresponds to 332 hectares. 2. Ensure that the area to be acquired for the offset contains a sufficient amount of forest, based on the types of cover found in the area of the RBLB to be flooded. 3.

Ensure that the area to be purchased includes the 189,30 hectares studied by OET for the respective comparisons between the potential offset site and the reference site (RBLB). 4. Ensure that the area can be properly integrated with the remainder of the RBLB, maintaining the greatest possible percentage of shared boundaries between them. 5. Ensure that the area proposed for the offset enables connectivity between the RBLB and the protection areas (áreas de protección) intended to remain around the future Río Piedras Reservoir as a protective ring, primarily along its left bank. 6- Limit as much as possible the boundary shared by the proposed area and areas with non-forest cover, paddocks, or pastureland, because these may increase and facilitate the risk of fires within the RBLB. 7- Regularize the property boundary so that the offset area can be properly managed by the SINAC administration at the RBLB.

Once the foregoing parameters were analyzed, the result indicated that the area of the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. Property that should be purchased is 444,04 hectares. This area is estimated to contain deciduous forest on 286,87 hectares, secondary forest on 59.50 hectares, grasslands on 73,23 hectares, and a non-forest area—that is, pastureland with other native grasses—on 18,50 hectares. It is important to indicate that the selected area of the property also contains 6.14 hectares of riparian forest, distributed among small sections that, because they are not connected or are located in the reservoir’s direct-impact zone, were not considered when applying the methodology used in the Study to determine the offset area. Although the proposed area of 444,04 hectares as an offset for the 113 hectares of the RBLB that would be flooded satisfies the requirements established on the basis of the results of the habitat-quality methodology applied by OET in the Study, the fact is that this area contains only 2,2 hectares of mature or riparian forest with characteristics similar to those found in the area of the RBLB to be flooded.

Under these circumstances, it was deemed appropriate to seek an additional area capable of remedying this deficiency of riparian forest in the offset area on the ASETREK Tres Azul S A. Property, while satisfying the aforementioned parameters. Following joint fieldwork by OET experts and officials from the RBLB, SINAC, and SENARA, two potential offset properties were identified along the northwestern boundary of the RBLB. This property is registered in the names of Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A and Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. In this regard, based on joint field inspections by OET, SINAC, and SENARA experts, supported by aerial images taken with a low-flying drone, it was determined that the Brindis de Amor properties contain an initial estimate of 1141 hectares of riparian forest, while Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. contains an estimated 8.49 hectares of riparian forest consisting of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) composed of evergreen species and comparable in quality to that found at the potential flooding site in the RBLB.

The riparian-forest area at Brindis de Amor represents 7,40 % of the area currently covered by that type of forest within the RBLB; hence the importance of incorporating this area into the RBLB. Another important consideration is that the riparian-forest area on this property may serve as a core area of species for repopulating other riparian environments on the property.

Although this situation does not chronologically correspond to the loss in the RBLB, according to the OET, it does represent a considerable advantage, since this core area allows for the short-term restoration and incorporation of new riparian forests (bosques riparios), which would not occur on the property of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. In other words, the property of Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. is indeed being taken into consideration. The deciduous forest (bosque deciduo) (45,74 hectares), as well as the secondary forest (bosque secundario) (6,63 hectares), in Brindis de Amor have been protected for at least twenty years, and there are no records of recent logging or fires; consequently, they are in better structural and compositional condition than those found at the potential impact site in the RBLB or on the property of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. Although this is not the primary objective, the annexation of this type of forest in Brindis de Amor to the RBLB also entails a significant gain in this forest cover (cobertura forestal).

The Biodiversity Baseline Study for the RBLB documented an increase in the diversity of different taxonomic groups in response to more permanent water sources, a condition that is strongly favored on the Brindis de Amor property, which has several permanent water sources, including the Cabuyo River and its tributaries, thereby adding value to this property. Studies by Dr. Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Angeles) indicate that troops of white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capuccinus) from the RBLB use the forests within Brindis de Amor as feeding and resting sites; in other words, there is evidence of a constant flow of animals between the RBLB and Brindis de Amor as a foraging site, demonstrating the biological importance of incorporating this property into the RBLB. Finally, it is important to mention that the Study conducted by the OET establishes a compensation area (área de compensación) that takes into account the current condition of the lands being assessed, without referring to the future improvements they will undergo upon being incorporated into a protection regime (régimen de protección) such as that of the reserve.

Accordingly, an area of riparian forest was identified that makes it possible to compensate for the shortfall in hectares of this type of ecosystem while maintaining the ecosystem connectivity (conectividad ecosistémica) of the protected area (área protegida), concluding that the property of Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. meets these conditions and makes it possible to compensate for an area of 8,49 hectares of riparian forest. Additionally, it is concluded that, as the best option for completing the compensation of the riparian forest, it is necessary to acquire an area of 40,00 hectares owned by Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., which contains 8,49 hectares of riparian forest. According to the aforementioned land-cover layers (capas de cobertura), this property has a total of 33,64 hectares of riparian forest, most of which borders the Amores stream; the area selected for compensation contains 8,49 hectares of riparian forest, 2,44 hectares of secondary forest, 26,91 hectares of deciduous forest, and 2,16 hectares of pasture.

For its part, the anticipated future benefits of regenerating the pastureland owned by ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. include contributing to the establishment of secondary forest, carbon (CO2) sequestration, soil protection, increased cover, protection of biodiversity and the scenic beauty of the site, and protection of water sources, while also helping to increase its ecological, economic, and social value. In other words, the new area placed under the protection regime will tend to improve upon its current condition, both in habitat quality and in the diversity and composition of communities.

According to Quesada, R (2008), in his Manual for Promoting Natural Regeneration (regeneración natural) in Degraded Pastures (pastos degradados) in Costa Rica’s Central and Northern Pacific Region, “to restore pasture areas to forests through natural regeneration methods, they must be strategically located in relation to seed sources (fuentes semilleras) and near forest patches (parches boscosos),” conditions present in the proposed area on the properties of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. and Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. These conditions support the prediction that, although the 91,7 4 hectares (a pasture area of 73,23 hectares and a non-forest area of 18,51 hectares) on ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., 18,18 hectares of pasture on Brindis de Amor, and 2.16 hectares on Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. are not currently forested, within a few years, under a protection regime (régimen de protección) such as that of the RBLB and controlled fire management (manejo controlado de fuegos), these areas may be incorporated into the various stages of secondary forest succession (sucesión de bosques secundarios).

Accordingly, based on the findings presented in the study conducted by the OET and the proposal made by the PIAAG High-Level Commission (Comisión de Alto nivel del PIAAG), the final compensation proposal (propuesta definitiva de compensación) is as follows: 1- A total of 444,04 hectares from the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property, in accordance with the map of the proposed area. 2-The entire Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. property, with a registered area of 86,96 hectares, in accordance with the map. 3-An area of 40,00 hectares from the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property. In total, the purchase of 571 hectares, representing five times the area that will be affected within the RBLB, with direct equivalence among forest types (tipos de bosques), as shown in Table 6. Table 6. Comparison by forest type between the affected area of the RBLB and the area proposed for compensation.

Land-cover type (tipo de cobertura) Affected area within the RBLB (Ha)¹ Area of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. (Ha) Area of Brindis de Amor S.A. (Ha) Area of the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property Total area proposed for compensation (Ha) Mature forest (riparian) 24,71 6,14 16,41 8,49 31,04 Secondary forest 9,13 59,5 6,63 2,44 68,57 Deciduous forest 96,05 286,67 45,74 26,91 359,32 Pastures 0,79 73,23 18,18 2,16 93,57 Non-forest areas 0,39 18,5 - - 18,5 TOTALS 131,07 444,04 86,96 40 571 ¹Although the required area of the RBLB is 113 hectares, the OET conducted the study over 130,64 hectares, which is why this value is used for the comparison. SOURCE: Biodiversity Baseline Study for the RBLB conducted by OET. The proposed compensation measures achieve the conservation objective, and therefore it can be affirmed that there is clear compliance with the regulations applicable when areas that have been placed under a specific management category are exchanged and must have that designation revoked.

Accordingly, on this issue we may conclude: 1.- That the conservation targets (objetos de conservación) underlying the creation of the “protected area” are not being affected. 2.- That the area is compensated for by another of equal size that fulfills the same purposes and has similar ecosystem conditions, according to the Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) and Adjacent Property, prepared by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET). The Project entails an economic and social transformation of the area. It represents an improvement in how things are done, and a different way of doing them from the way they have been done until now. The general public, farmers, and the hotel sector must be educated regarding the proper and efficient management of water, which forms part of the efforts undertaken by this Administration from the very moment the first Mesa de Trabajo para Guanacaste began.

Thus, the allegation made from the outset by the petitioning party that the communities have not participated is untrue. As stated above, the present Administration is implementing the Programa Integral de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste-Pacífico Norte (PIAAG), incorporated into the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2015-2018 and included in the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo y de Inversión del Bicentenario 2019-2022, which seeks to ensure the optimal use of water resources in the province of Guanacaste to meet demand for the resource from the various activities. As stated above, this program includes implementation of the project challenged by the petitioners, which is strategic and is intended to provide irrigation to an area of approximately 18.8000 hectares, benefiting more than 1000 producers, and to provide the communities of the cantons of Santa Cruz and Nicoya with long-term access to water.

It also includes the supply of water to support irrigation at coastal tourism developments and the generation of electricity. An important aspect of the PIAAG has been the citizen participation that has occurred during its development and implementation. This program has been validated by various organizations in the province and by members of the public in several forums, such as the Mesa de Trabajo para Guanacaste. Therefore, it is not only those 7 companies that will benefit from the project. In particular, and in fulfillment of the requirement established in Article 25, subsection 3, of Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788, a consultation process was conducted with local communities regarding both the PAACUME project and the proposal to revoke the designation of and compensate for part of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. This documentation is attached to the bill and must be included in the corresponding legislative record.” • Economy and efficiency.

It asserts that the petitioners have stated that other MINAE-owned lands adjacent to Lomas Barbudal could have been added to the Reserva Biológica (the existence of those lands being acknowledged); however, in its view, it is not feasible to compensate for a portion of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal with State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) land that is already subject to a conservation scheme, in which case it could be questioned whether any compensation actually exists. It maintains that this was the reason for conducting the studies by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales, which were based on scientific facts and determined which properties were suitable for compensating the protected area. • Principle of legality (principio de legalidad). It partially cites judgment No. 16202-2010 of the Sala, dated 28 de setiembre de 2010. It states that this principle has not been violated because there is no obligation to provide notice to the Convención Ramsar, since the country is currently at the data-collection stage.

Regarding noncompliance with the procedure established in the regulations implementing the Ley de Biodiversidad. It states that the content of the studies conducted by the OET complies with the regulations. It states that its records contain a document systematizing a “mandatory consultation with local communities” regarding the compensation proposal for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, and therefore it is untrue that the consultation was not conducted. It adds that the aforementioned studies were coordinated with SINAC because, as demonstrated by numerous documents, SINAC and SENARA had been coordinating effectively long before the studies began. It states that the technical considerations underlying the creation of the Reserva Biológica Lomas del Barbudal included: “• That the site preserves highly valuable examples of the flora and fauna of lowland wooded dry savanna, lowland riparian forest, and lowland deciduous forest, which formerly covered extensive areas of the province of Guanacaste. • That the site contains at least 10 springs (nacientes) and part of the Río Cabuyo watershed, which are important to the region’s agricultural and livestock production. • That the soil type does not provide suitable conditions for sustained agricultural development, but that, from the standpoint of research and tourism, the area is important because it contains unique insect fauna and dry savannas that are not protected within any other conservation unit.” It states that the legal advisory office of the Asamblea Legislativa had indicated, in connection with a similar initiative involving compensation, that because the area was a protected zone, authorization could not be granted under the applicable regulations until the technical study required by law had been completed.

It argues that Article 71 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad provides: “For the declaration, modification, or change in the management category of protected wildlife areas (áreas silvestres protegidas, ASP), a technical report shall be prepared under the coordination of the corresponding SINAC body.” It states that, for those purposes, SENARA retained the Organización para Estudios Tropicales to conduct the study entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) and Adjacent Property,” which began in January 2016 and concluded in December of that same year. It explains that one of the options explored, and the one that gave rise to the study, was to compensate for the impact by replacing the affected area with an area having similar characteristics that would allow the RBLB’s biodiversity to remain continuous. It adds that the area initially identified as potentially suitable for compensation was located within the ASETREK property owned by Tres Azul S.A. It further states that some of the conditions defined before the studies were undertaken were: “• To ensure that the area to be acquired contains a sufficient quantity of forest, based on the types of land cover (cobertura) existing in the RBLB. • That the area can be properly integrated into the rest of the Reserva. • To standardize and adjust the boundary of the property to be acquired so that the compensation area allows the administration to manage the Reserva properly.” It explains that “The study was thus conducted at both sites (the area potentially subject to flooding and the potential replacement area), and, in very general terms, the results concerning the types of land cover at both sites establish the presence of the following: a) Deciduous forest; b) Mature forest, referred to in the Report as ‘riparian forest’; c) Secondary forest; d) Non-forest use; e) Pasture.

However, three habitats can be distinguished at the site within the RBLB that may potentially be flooded: deciduous forest, secondary forest, and mature or riparian forest; in the case of mature or riparian forest, however, it is found almost exclusively at the potential flooding site and not at the compensation site. Another fact that merits emphasis and is included in the OET Final Report is that riparian forest accounts for only 8.0% of the RBLB’s total area. The Final Report also states: ‘The riparian forest within the flooding site in the Reserva accounts for 11.4% of the total area of that land-cover type in the region, a far from negligible percentage considering that this land cover constitutes a single continuous fragment within the site.’ Regarding this same riparian-forest land cover or plant association, the Report states: ‘The other fragments of riparian forest are located toward the north of the Reserva, bordering the Río Cabuyo, and therefore the fragment within our study site is practically isolated.’ According to the report, the distance-based connectivity factor differs among land-cover types, because the deciduous forest at both sites (the area potentially subject to flooding and the potential compensation area) is contiguous with similar land cover in the RBLB that would not be flooded.

The secondary-forest land cover at the compensation site is located very close (Regarding approval of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental). It explains that the biodiversity baseline study conducted by the OET is neither the Environmental Impact Study nor a substitute for it; the latter does determine the impacts of the entire project and the measures that must be undertaken to prevent, mitigate, or compensate for those impacts. It argues that the study is also directly within SETENA’s jurisdiction and is currently being processed. It clarifies that, under Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) applies to activities, works, and projects. It argues that the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (decreto ejecutivo n.º 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC) defines Environmental Impact Assessment as a “Scientific and technical administrative procedure that makes it possible to identify and predict the effects that an activity, work, or project will have on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to guide decision-making.

In general, Environmental Impact Assessment encompasses three phases: a) Initial Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental Inicial), b) preparation of the Environmental Impact Study or any other applicable environmental-assessment instruments, and c) environmental monitoring and follow-up (Control y Seguimiento ambiental) of the activity, work, or project through the established environmental commitments.” It maintains that the assessment applies to an activity, work, or project, not to a bill. It asserts that, on 7 de diciembre del 2017, SENARA submitted to SETENA the D1 Assessment Document for the project entitled “Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (PAACUME),” with a final Environmental Impact Significance (Significancia de Impacto Ambiental) score of 1052, which, according to the decision pathway, requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study as part of the procedure.

It states that the Coordinator of the Departamento de Auditoría y Seguimiento Ambiental, by official letter SETENA-DT-ASA-0148-2018 dated 7 de marzo del 2018, indicated that 24 properties had been identified that had to be acquired for execution of the project, as well as one 113 ha property within the reservoir area belonging to the reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, part of the State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), which had to be subdivided off (segregada) and incorporated into the Río Piedras reservoir. This was intended to be accomplished through bill n.°20465, and it therefore requested an internal opinion on postponing the assessment review process until the Asamblea Legislativa approved the bill. It indicates that, on 12 de julio de 2018, SETENA made the following inquiries regarding the project: “ • Área de Conservación Tempisque of SINAC, official letter SG-DEA-1 197-2018-SETENA; response on 10 de octubre del 2018 from Mr.

Celso Alvarado Murillo, Director Áreas Silvestres Protegidas ACAT and Coordinator of the Comisión Temporal EsIA, PAACUME, by official letter ACAT-DASP-060, which submitted the Technical Report on the Analysis of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) for the project. On 25 de octubre del 2018, Eng. Alexander León Campos, Director of the Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, submitted an opinion on the Environmental Impact Study; and on 2 0 de diciembre del 2018, official letter SINAC-SE-IRT-304 from the Secretaría Ejecutiva of SINAC, Área de información y Regularización Territorial, reported participation in the field visit conducted from 12 al 15 de noviembre del 2018 and attached the official letter dated 19 de diciembre de l 2018 from Mr. Nelson Marín Mora, Regional Director of the Área de Conservación Tempisque, official letter ACT-OR-DR-1764-18, which in turn forwarded the opinion of the Coordinator of the Programa de Humedales, ACT-RNVS-MR-016-2018, and added that the reservoir and the modification to be made at the Ramsar site (sito Ramsar) must be reported to the Convención de Ramsar by the country’s administrative authority. • Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, official letter SG-DEA-1 191-2018-SETENA. • Programa Nacional de Humedales, official letter SG-DEA-1 190-2018-SETENA. • Colegio de Biólogos, official letter SG-DEA-1 187-2018-SETENA. • Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, official letter SG-DEA-1188-2018-SETENA. • Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas Universidad Nacional, official letter SG-DEA-1189-2018- SETENA, response by email dated 17-9-2019 and UNA-ECB-ofi-1456-2018. • Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia en Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), official letter SG-DEA-1 196-2018-SETENA (folios 2685-2686), response in DSTINT A-574-2018”.

It adds that the Departamento de Auditoría y Seguimiento Ambiental, by official letter SETENA-DT-ASA-0016-2019 dated 14 de enero de 2019, forwarded the Forestry Technical Opinion (Criterio Técnico Forestal) PAACUME-IT-DT-ASA-008-2019. It mentions that, on 22 de enero del 2019, the Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental issued Technical Report DEA-0 1 33-2019, recommending that an Annex to the Environmental Impact Study (Anexo del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) be requested, a matter that remains pending consideration by the Comisión Plenaria. It states that, under those circumstances, the case file (expediente) in question remains under review and that, in view of the effects of the action, SETENA will not issue the final decision in the proceeding—namely, a ruling on the project’s application for environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental)—until the Sala rules on this action, unless it orders otherwise in this case on grounds of public interest. It requests that an oral hearing be held. It asks that the action be dismissed.

1. 10In a written submission received by the Secretariat of the Chamber at 9:40 hours on 6 de marzo de 2019, Mario Andrés Boza enters an appearance. He states that he seeks active intervention as an interested third party (coadyuvancia activa), based on and with standing under Article 50 of the Political Constitution. He asserts that the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) must be granted for the following reasons. 1. Law enacted without environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental). He notes that Law No. 9610 was published in November 2018 without an approved environmental feasibility study. He questions how a law concerning such a large project could have been enacted without knowing whether it was environmentally feasible. He states that the foregoing was addressed by a conservation group known as Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas. He states that it was not until February 2019 that SETENA issued a report identifying 91 deficiencies in the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) submitted by SENARA. 2.An ecologically balanced environment. He notes that Article 50 of the Political Constitution refers to an ecologically balanced environment, which must be understood as one in which there is a dynamic state of perfect harmony between living beings and their surroundings. He states that this balance may be disrupted by natural or artificial causes, such as climate change, a forest fire, illegal hunting and fishing, or the extraction of water needed by wildlife. He contends that the Constitutional Chamber, in Decision No. 2014-12887, clearly stated that a protected area could be reduced only if, among other requirements, the removed area was offset by another area of equal size. He believes that when part of a national park or equivalent reserve is excised (segrega) for other uses, the least that can be expected is that compensation on a hectare-for-hectare basis will take into account the ecological condition of the lands being exchanged; that is, compensation consisting of one hectare of completely deforested pastureland—a biological desert—cannot have the same ecological value as one hectare of primary forest (bosque primario).He argues that, according to the petitioners’ assertions, such compensation is not being provided from an ecological standpoint. 3.- There will be no compensation for the removed area. He asserts that Article 71 of the Regulations under the Ley de Biodiversidad establishes that, for the declaration, modification, or change in the management category (categoría de manejo) of a protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida), a technical report must be prepared under the coordination of the relevant SINAC unit. He maintains that subsection g) of Article 71 states that, for such purposes, sufficient financial resources must be available to acquire the lands within the proposed area and ensure their proper long-term protection and management. He notes that neither of these two conditions is included in the challenged law. He observes that Article 1 of Law No. 9610 establishes the new boundaries of the Lomas de Barbudal biological reserve.He states that, as a result, the reserve loses 113 ha of primary forest, which cannot be replaced. He explains that Article 2 establishes the boundaries of the excised area and that Article 4 assigns SENARA responsibility for conducting the environmental study for the PAACUME project, which must include, among other things, measures to compensate for the de-designated area (área desafectada); in other words, the compensation measures are deferred to a study. He poses the following question: Why does this law not contain an article clearly stating, on the basis of the recommendation in the study conducted by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales, that the 113 ha must be offset through the purchase of 571 ha of neighboring land? He states that if no such article exists, it is because that compensation will never occur. He notes that nowhere does it state, for example, that SENARA, MINAE, or ICAA will be the institutions responsible for acquiring, through purchase or expropriation, the lands that would compensate for those excised.He states that this issue was also raised by the “Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas” in its press release. He contends that the law’s sole transitory provision does not remedy this problem, but merely states that regulations will be issued to restore the forest in the compensation areas. He points out that many years may pass before those areas are acquired because, once again, no institution is responsible for purchasing those lands. He emphasizes that the 571 ha would partially compensate, from an ecological standpoint, for the 113 ha to be excised. 4. Neither protection nor development for the reserve. He argues that the Constitutional Chamber, in Vote No. 2017-014907, held: “the State has been unable to provide effective protection to the country’s conservation areas.” He explains that, in July 2018, the Director of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque addressed the protection of Lomas de Barbudal when he appeared before the special committee of the Legislative Assembly that was considering File 20.465 (which gave rise to Law 9610); at that time, he stated that the bill “must include a financial mechanism that guarantees its sustainability and the management and care of the reserve.There must be a financial mechanism to ensure the sustainability, management, and care not only of the reservoir that will be created there, but also of the Lomas Barbudal biological reserve itself. [...] Those resources are important for addressing problems involving hunting or forest fires, since substantial investment is required to deal with any such problem.” He asserts that the law perpetuates the regrettable trend of providing no benefit whatsoever to one of the few protected areas that preserve the tropical dry forests still existing in the country, which has great scenic beauty, has a river excellent for swimming (the Cabuyo), and is exceptionally rich in insect species such as bees, wasps, and diurnal and nocturnal butterflies. He maintains that the reserve is being forced to surrender its most valuable forest and, in return, not only is it not compensated for that area, but it will also receive no funding to improve its protection or develop facilities for the benefit of its visitors.He states that Lomas de Barbudal has only three park rangers, which in practice means that only one or two of them protect it from poaching, forest fires, and timber theft. He notes that the law does not provide, for example, for a specified portion of the proceeds from water sales—5% of net revenues—to be placed in a trust fund devoted solely and exclusively to improving the reserve’s protection and development. He observes that Article 5 of the law merely states that SINAC will use 50% of a fee (canon) to implement the management plan (plan de manejo). He poses the following question: What guarantee is there that the management plan will give high priority to the protection and development of the Reserve? He considers that the foregoing remains unresolved. He states that SONAC has been characterized by using funds generated by parks and reserves to meet needs unrelated to them, as indicated in the amparo proceeding (recurso de amparo) processed under File No. 08-011453-0007-CO.He considers that the challenged law not only harms the Lomas de Barbudal biological reserve territorially, but also provides it with no share of the profits from water sales that SENARA and ICAA—but not MINAE—will receive. He states that the law violates Article 50 of the Political Constitution.
2. 11By written submission received by the Secretariat of the Chamber at 13:14 on 8 de marzo de 2019, Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura entered an appearance. He states that he is intervening as a supporting party (coadyuvancia). He asserts that he has standing (legitimación) by virtue of diffuse or collective interests in environmental matters. He states that Law n.º 9610 violates Articles 7 and 50 of the Political Constitution and the principles of environmental non-regression, objectification of environmental protection, precaution, prevention, and irreducibility of protected wildlife areas (irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas), based on the following arguments: “I- VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION AND OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL NON-REGRESSION, OBJECTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, PRECAUTION, PREVENTION, AND IRREDUCIBILITY OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE AREAS.As the Procuraduría General de la República has very aptly explained in its response to the constitutional challenge in support of which I am submitting this intervention, the Sala Constitucional has held in numerous judgments that reducing the area of a protected wildlife area is not unconstitutional, provided that three essential requirements are met: 1- That it be done by means of a law; 2- That, prior to the enactment of the law, sufficient technical studies are available to justify the measure; and 3- That the removed area be offset by another area of equal size and characteristics. See, to that effect, the following judgments: # 2003-11397 of 8 de octubre de 2003; #1999-2988 of 23 de abril de 1999, #7294-98 of 13 de octubre de 1998, #1056-2009 at 14 hours 59 minutes on 28 de enero de 2009, #12887 -2014 at 14 hours 30 minutes on 8 de agosto de 2014, as well as decisions #11155-2 007, #14772-2010, #2012-13367, #2009-1056 and #2375-2017.VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR REDUCING THE AREA OF A PROTECTED WILDLIFE AREA. Upon reviewing compliance with those 3 requirements to determine whether the area of Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal may be reduced by removing 113 hectares from protected status (desafectación) with the intention of flooding them, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1- IT DOES COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENT 1, which is that it be done by means of a law. The reduction in area was duly approved by Law #9610, thereby complying with the first requirement established by the Sala Constitucional. 2- IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENT 2, which requires that, prior to the enactment of the law, sufficient technical studies be available to justify the measure, as will be demonstrated below: Regarding the technical study that must justify reducing the area of a protected wildlife area, the Sala Constitucional has stated: “In this regard, the requirement for technical studies justifying the approval of bills intended to reduce or remove protected status from an environmentally protected area must be satisfied before or during the legislative procedure.Furthermore, the requirement for technical studies is not a mere formality, but rather a substantive requirement; that is, it must be substantively demonstrated, through a scientific and individualized analysis, what degree of environmental impact the corresponding measure will have, recommendations must be proposed to mitigate its adverse environmental impact, and it must be demonstrated how that measure entails development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Voto # 13367-2012 at 11 hours 33 minutes on 21 de setiembre de 2012; and #10158-2013). (Emphasis added) I agree with the Procuraduría General de la República, which states that the jurisprudential development described above establishes the principle of irreducibility of protected wildlife areas, under which such protected spaces may not be reduced or modified unless the requirements established for that purpose are met.This is clearly related to the principles of environmental non-regression, objectification of environmental protection, prevention, and precaution. Regarding the study in question, it should be noted that the legislative record for the bill that culminated in the enactment of Law #9610 contains a study entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property,” which was conducted by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET) in accordance with the terms of reference established by SENARA, the contracting entity (see Folios 268-504 of the record). Its objective was to determine the biological and geophysical characteristics of the area of Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) that would be replaced by the reservoir area and to assess the biodiversity components of an adjacent property owned by ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., in order to evaluate its potential to offset the affected area of the RBLB.In other words, that study was intended to determine whether the area of the RBLB that would be removed from protected status could be offset. The study determined that, to offset the area, 444 hectares of the ASETREK property would have to be incorporated into the Reserve. It also stated, very superficially, because no detailed studies were conducted, that the 86 hectares of the Brindis de Amor property should be incorporated, in addition to using the Río Piedras reservoir as part of the offset. The questions that must be asked regarding that study are as follows: Does the study prepared by the OET in accordance with the terms of reference established by SENARA satisfy the criteria established by the Sala Constitucional? Does that study demonstrate, through a scientific and individualized analysis, the degree of environmental impact of the corresponding measure—the removal of 113 hectares of that Biological Reserve from protected status?Does it propose recommendations intended to mitigate the adverse environmental impact? Does it demonstrate how that measure—the removal of the 113 hectares from protected status—entails development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs? THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO. I explain why below: 1- Observations on the OET Study concerning the offset for the area to be flooded by the reservoir. 1.1 Theoretical framework. As its methodology for calculating the offset area, the study adopts the quantification of the relative value of different aspects of the ecosystems by assigning numerical values to different ecosystem variables. This exercise is performed for the area of Lomas de Barbudal to be flooded and its corresponding comparable ecosystem on the ASETREK property, the property selected by SENARA. It should be noted that the purpose of the study was not to search the lands adjoining Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) for an offset area with environmental characteristics as similar as possible to those of the area to be flooded.SENARA determined that the study had to be conducted on part of the ASETHEK property. To make a numerical comparison of habitat quality between the area of the HBLB to be flooded and a portion of the ASETREK property, the study divides each site into three principal ecosystems: mature riparian forest, deciduous forest, and secondary forest. Scores are assigned according to the number of species in different taxonomic groups, or according to forest cover (cobertura de bosque), number of strata, etc. The scores for each area are tallied and then totaled. In many cases, the ASETREK property has a lower score than the corresponding ecosystem in the area of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal to be flooded, so the required size of the offset property is calculated to equal the score of the affected area. This is how they reach the final calculation that 252 has (later 330 has are mentioned; there is some confusion about this at the end of the study) of a property such as ASETREK would be required to offset the 113 has of Lomas de Barbudal that would be flooded.In my opinion, based on my technical knowledge, this theoretical framework is a numerical exercise that leads to a dangerous accounting method with little biological basis. The scoring categories, the aspects of the ecosystem that were compared, and the numerical values assigned to each category are largely arbitrary, overvaluing some aspects and undervaluing others, as several examples below will show. The main problem is the establishment of a supposedly quantitative offset principle under which changing the size of an offset area can make it equivalent to the area lost within a protected area. This is mistaken, because the populations or species affected by the loss of a protected area will not necessarily appear at their original abundance within an offset area, regardless of how many times its size is increased, if that offset area lacks the habitats and resources required by those species, or the population nuclei or sources of migrating populations needed to ensure their repopulation.Drastic differences in habitat quality, particularly in the degree to which ecosystems have been altered by humans, such as those detected between Lomas de Barbudal and the ASETR EK property, are not balanced by increasing the size of the latter. Inflating the area to offset lower biodiversity will not cause the affected species to be restored in the offset area, particularly when the offset area contains habitats that differ greatly from those of the affected area within the National Park or Biological Reserve. The area of Lomas de Barbudal that will be flooded contains riparian forests and possibly other habitats not quantified by the study that are not represented in ASETREK. It would set a troubling precedent if the Asamblea Legislativa, SETEN A, and the Sala Constitucional considered this study valid, because this practice could encourage changes to the boundaries of additional protected areas based on offsets using larger private properties whose ecosystems are much more heavily altered than those under protection.Ecosystem accounting and the Habitat/Hectare method (section 1.1.3 of the OET Study) would endorse this type of offset. 1.2 Accounting for ecosystem services. One aspect of the environmental accounting in the OET study that raises doubts is its accounting for ecosystem services and its comparison of the two areas in relation to those services. Ecosystem services were accounted for by selecting services that: “(1) are clearly distinguishable and quantifiable products or benefits on metric scales, (2) have no direct relationship to one another, in order to avoid duplication of criteria, (page 99),” among other criteria. This criterion excludes extremely important services that natural ecosystems provide to human and wildlife environments but that are difficult to quantify and are interrelated because, ultimately, forest cover, soil quality, and biodiversity are elements shared by all ecosystem services.There will always be “duplication of criteria.” Because of these selection criteria, ecosystem services as important as pollination, soil protection, aquifer protection, pest control, and others were not included in the comparative accounting of Lomas de Barbudal and ASETREK. It should be emphasized that the pollination services provided by the area of Lomas de Barbudal to be flooded must be substantial, given the great diversity of bees that was a major reason for its creation in the year 1986. 1.3 Limitations of field sampling.

For a study intended to assess the ecosystem and biological diversity of two moderately extensive areas (on the scale of hundreds of hectares), 10 months of work seems insufficient to conduct a true assessment of a site’s biological diversity, despite the highly intensive effort. In some cases, such as vegetation sampling (muestreos de vegetación), although it was based on a substantial number of plots (parcelas), the species accumulation curve (curva de acumulación de especies) (page 125 of the Study) shows that further sampling is still needed to stabilize the species-diversity counts. Here I must express my doubts regarding the tables of plant species presented in this chapter, in which apparently all samples were identified to the species level, something that, in my opinion, requires extensive work in the national herbaria. No information is provided on this point. Regarding the sampling of bird species, the number of counts performed is not stated, although it is acknowledged that “Because of the short duration of this study, it was not possible to complete the information with sampling during the arrival season of migratory species from the Northern Hemisphere, which occurs in the region during the months of August-May” (page 145 of the Study).

It should be noted that long-term studies of bird populations conducted by Dr. Gary Stiles in Costa Rica and Colombia show very substantial annual and supra-annual temporal changes, with the result that new species continue to appear even during inventories conducted over many years, while others disappear. Similar criticism could be applied to the sampling of insect fauna (entomofauna), since it was limited to the placement of two permanent Malaise traps (traps made with curtains and jars) at each site, from which insects were collected over a year. Limiting this sampling to this technique is insufficient; many insects of major ecosystem importance are not efficiently collected by this method, including much of the soil insect fauna, bees, ants, etc. One example is the limited number of individuals captured from the family Apidae (bees) (Table 56, page 195 of the Study). This table shows that no individuals from this family were collected within Lomas de Barbudal and only 11 bees were collected in ASETREK.

This result is entirely incorrect. Detailed studies in the region show that 30-70 bee species and thousands of individuals can be collected from a single tree while it is flowering. 1.4 Limitations of the scoring system The fragmentation of ecosystems into individual habitats and elements, and the somewhat arbitrary allocation of each element and level of similarity between the affected area and the compensation area (área de compensación), causes, from my perspective, the overall view of each site to be lost, creating an accounting system that fails to capture important differences between Lomas de Barbudal and ASETREK. One example of this problem is the difference in slopes between the two sites. On page 52 of the Study, it is acknowledged that the area within Lomas de Barbudal lies between 10-80 meters above sea level, with slopes of less than 5%, whereas ASETREK has elevations greater than 85 meters above sea level, including a plateau with an average elevation of 140 meters above sea level (page 53 of the Study).

ASETREK’s average slope is not reported. This difference is highlighted again on page 214 of the OET report, where the possibility of including another property (Brindis de Amor) as part of the compensation is discussed, since “in contrast to ASETREK, the Brindis de Amor property has a gentle slope...” Differences in slope are very important and, under the approach adopted by the consultants, should have affected the final score. Nevertheless, on page 58 of the Study, the consultants assign 4 points (out of a maximum of 5) to ASETREK’s geophysical attributes. The substantial difference in slope and elevation amounted to only one fewer point in the Study’s accounting. Another example of how the Study’s accounting failed to capture important elements was the quantification of the importance of water sources. On page 105 of the Study, in the section entitled “Water Sources,” it is stated that two water sources were identified at the study sites: Quebrada Viscoyol and Quebrada sin nombre.

Later, on the same page, they conclude: “From our field observations, it is concluded that, in terms of water sources, access to them, and production, both sites are similar. Therefore, following the criteria set forth in Table 16, ASETREK receives a score of 3 points for this indicator.” However, on page 183 of the report, when attempting to explain the lower number of fish species in ASETREK, those responsible for the analysis of the fish fauna (ictiofauna) acknowledge: “This notable difference in composition possibly reflects the differences in elevation and in the characteristics of the aquatic microenvironments between the sites compared: the HBLB site has a greater number of pools and backwaters, as well as deeper ones, whereas in the stream system at the ASETREK compensation site the water flows at a shallower depth. This type of observation is repeated at the end of the Study (page 214 of the Study), where it is stated: “The ASETREK compensation site does not have permanent streams...” Although these differences were not quantified, it is clear that surface water remains present for a longer period in RBLB, an effect that is especially noticeable during the dry-season months.

The presence of a water source that persists longer during the dry season is an extremely important element in dry-forest ecology and should have affected the score to a greater extent. However, apart from the differences in fish fauna, the effect of this variable was indirect and was not accounted for directly. One further example of this problem: Chapter 4.2. of the Study, “Other compensation alternatives,” acknowledges that ASETREK has been subject to recurrent logging and fires, an observation that had neither appeared nor been quantified elsewhere in the Study. Finally, no consideration was given to variables related to the landscape importance of Lomas de Barbudal, such as which ecosystems are protected and how much of those ecosystems remains in the province of Guanacaste. It might be possible to conclude that Lomas de Barbudal protects “ecosystems facing extinction,” based on the following statement in the Study’s conclusions: “The reserve is located within the Río Tempisque Watershed and protects remnants of natural environments that have practically disappeared from the surrounding area, namely riparian forests and mature lowland dry forest.” This categorization does not appear anywhere else in the Study.

It would have been useful to know how much “mature lowland dry forest” and how many “riparian forests” remain in the province of Guanacaste in order to assess the site within its landscape context. 1.5 The initial theoretical framework is abandoned in order to make final adjustments in the Study’s conclusions. Ultimately, the authors warn that the ASETREK property is insufficient to compensate for the habitat losses in Lomas de Barbudal, a fact that could have been corroborated through more comprehensive analyses rather than necessarily through accounting. The authors do not appear satisfied with the Habitat/Hectare equation, despite its being the theoretical framework of the Study. This calculation gives rise to the recommendation to purchase 252 hectares (the figure of 330 hectares is mentioned later, on page 208 of the Study) of the ASETREK property in order to equalize the final scores.

However, the authors acknowledge that ASETREK has no riparian forests and therefore propose, without detailed studies, an additional compensation area that does contain this habitat. This raises the question of how the recommendation of 252 or 330 hectares of ASE THEK is justified, given that the proposal now contemplates adding another property whose score was not calculated, much less deducted from the balance of hectares originally proposed. It should be emphasized that, despite these doubts, the authors maintain a categorical conclusion regarding the feasibility of the compensation: “7. Despite the differences in environmental quality, it is possible to compensate for the losses at the potential inundation site in RBLB by incorporating the habitats assessed in ASETREK (and other sites, as indicated below).” There is no justification for this conclusion, especially when the authors’ own assessments cast doubt on the equivalence of the areas.

At the end of the Study, the possibility is presented of adding the “Brindis de Amor” property, with a total area of 86 Has, because it contains 15.8 has of riparian forest (without any reliable documentation of how that number of hectares was reached, since no study was conducted on that property), in the northern sector of Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal. This area would be added to the 252 has of ASETREK as an additional area that would compensate for the loss of Lomas de Barbudal’s riparian forest through inundation. This would add a strip of forest, like an isolated peninsula, in the northern portion of the Reserve (Figure 51 of the Study). The authors acknowledge that the analysis of this additional fragment was superficial (page 213) and that the extensive physical and biological inventories carried out in ASETREK were not conducted there. It may be observed that “Brindis de Amor” would remain as an island isolated from the rest of the Reserve, creating a more elongated and narrow geometry in the northern sector of Barbudal, which is undesirable because of the substantial edge effect (efecto de borde) that this section of the Reserve would experience. 1.6 The Río Piedras Reservoir as part of the compensation At the end of the Study, a new idea is added: considering the Río Piedras Reservoir as part of the compensation for the inundated area of Lomas de Barbudal, since it could be declared a wetland under the Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre) category, thereby constituting a new protected area that could be counted as part of the compensation.

NO FURTHER DETAILS ARE PROVIDED REGARDING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESERVOIR OR ITS EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. This would involve an exchange between two entirely different ecosystems (a forest ecosystem for a wetland). The idea is not well developed in the Study. Moreover, this proposal disregards the reservoir’s environmental impacts, including those on Río Piedras itself. 1.7 Biological compensation or transfer of land to the State? The information provided by the OET compensation study shows that most of the area of the ASETREK, Brindis de Amor, and Ciruelas properties is covered by different types of forest ecosystems (mature, secondary, or deciduous forests). These are existing forest areas representing forest remnants or forest regeneration following the intense historical period of deforestation in the province of Guanacaste during the years from the 1950s through the 1990s, a process that has shifted toward secondary regeneration over the past 10-20 years (see, for example: Calvo-Alvarado et. al..2009.

“Deforestation and forest restoration in Guanacaste, Costa Rica: Putting conservation policies in context”. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 931-940). The owners of the ASETREK property have expressed an interest in selling their properties to the State or in keeping them under forest cover (cobertura forestal) for tourism-related use or protection (as in the case of the Brindis de Amor property). It appears highly likely that, under a protection-incentive program (payment for environmental services (pago por servicios ambientales)—PSA—) and current forestry legislation, these forests are not subject to imminent or immediate land-use change (cambio de uso de suelo) processes.

On the other hand, if the forest cover (cobertura forestal) in the portion of the río Piedras watershed that will be affected by the PAACUME project is examined before and after implementation of the project, it could be determined that there will be a drastic net reduction in forest cover (loss of 450 hectares of forest cover, transformed into a reservoir). No increase in forest cover is foreseeable in the coming years. Although 459 hectares of forest on private properties would be transferred to the State through the compensation program, this does not alter the overall net loss of forest cover. No genuine biological compensation is taking place, only a transfer of land between different owners. This transfer would be acceptable as compensation if the private lands were under threat of losing their forest cover, a situation that does not appear likely. Ultimately, the result for the species within the future reservoir is a drastic loss of habitat, with no possibility for their present and future populations to occupy new areas comparable in size to those lost through the flooding of the reservoir.

It would seem more logical for a compensation program to add NEW forest areas to the RBLB or to private properties, thereby establishing a balance between habitat loss and habitat gain. Compensating for forest areas within a protected area (área protegida) with other forest areas outside the protected area does not appear to be an exchange resulting in genuine ecological compensation for wildlife species, but merely territorial compensation for a protected area—a commendable but insufficient objective.

1.8 General conclusions regarding the OET study The report submitted by the OET is insufficient to establish the modification of the boundaries of Lomas de Barbudal and does not demonstrate that this modification will be fully offset by additional areas in other parts of the Reserve. The ASETREK property, studied in greater detail by the consultants, is ultimately acknowledged to be insufficient to justify the land exchange, and other nearby properties are hastily brought in to balance the compensation—an exercise that, in our view, lacks seriousness because it is not properly substantiated. Furthermore, the environmental impacts of the Río Piedras reservoir on the Biological Reserve and on all the wetland ecosystems of the Bajo Tempisque must be understood before the flooding of a portion of the Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal, and of the ecosystems that will generally be affected by the future PAACUME reservoir, can be accepted.

2. The PAACUME Environmental Impact Assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) and environmental impacts not addressed by that EIA Law #9610, “Modification of the boundaries of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal for development of the water-supply project for the middle río Tempisque watershed and coastal communities,” published in Supplement #199 of La Gaceta dated 23 de noviembre del 2018, and the OET Study submitted to justify removing 113 hectares of the Biological Reserve that would be flooded from protected status (desafectación), and to determine the area of the ASETREK property that should be used to compensate for that loss of land, cannot be viewed in isolation from the PAACUME project. In fact, SENARA’s response to the hearing granted by the Sala Constitucional in the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) in which I am participating as an intervenor states that the Río Piedras Reservoir is vital to the PAACUME project and that this reservoir requires the flooding of the 113 hectares of the RBLB.

This requires removing them from the absolute level of protection they currently enjoy as part of that Reserva Biológica. This is why the bill that culminated in the enactment of law #9610, which is the subject of this constitutional challenge, was processed. For that reason, analysis of the OET Study cannot be separated from that of the other study submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) concerning the PAACUME project. In fact, that EIA mentions the Río Piedras Reservoir and the impact on the RBLB.

2.1 The EIA does not address general compensation for the forest areas flooded by the reservoir As stated in the Biological Environment Chapter of the PAACUME project EIA, the project’s future reservoir would cover areas that currently have varying degrees of forest cover. It states that 292 hectares of pastureland, 170 hectares of secondary forest, 10 hectares of scrubland (charrales), and 289 hectares of mature riparian forest would be flooded. Flooding these areas constitutes a significant impact on the biodiversity of the protected and unprotected areas of the río Piedras watershed. According to the land-use map for the project area, the natural ecosystems of the río Piedras watershed, particularly its less-disturbed forests, consist of linear fragments of riparian forest surrounded by secondary forests and isolated by cropland and areas of pastureland or scrubland, especially in the southern portion.

Although the EIA and the OET Compensation Study use somewhat different forest categories, it may be concluded that the reservoir area will flood 459 hectares of land with forest cover, possibly with half of the area consisting of riparian forests, whereas the OET compensation study considers only the 113 hectares that will be flooded within the RBLB. There is no apparent interest in compensating for the loss of forest cover caused by the flooding of forests OUTSIDE the RBLB. In this regard, the PAACUME EIA, like the entire environmental approval process for the project, has been directed more toward resolving the legal problems arising from impacts on a protected area than toward genuinely compensating for the environmental impacts on local biodiversity. It should be emphasized that significant areas of riparian forest outside the RBLB will be flooded, including those in the Quebrada Viscoyol watershed and the río Piedras watershed near the site of the future dam.

Individuals of endangered tree species have been found at these sites, including Dalbergia retusa, Swietenia macrophylla, Dalbergia retusa, Astronium graveolens, and Agonandra macrocarpa (Fig 20, Annexes, Volume II of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the PAACUME project).

2.2 Environmental effects of the reservoir on deciduous forest ecosystems The PAACUME reservoir will be a large, permanent body of water that will alter the hydrological regime of soils near the reservoir (raising the water table), thereby creating a new ecosystem very different from the riparian forests, deciduous forests, secondary forests, and scrublands that occupy most of the flooded area and the Reserva Biológica de Lomas de Barbudal. The forested area of the RBLB will then have approximately 1 to 2 kilometers of reservoir shoreline, while the remaining forest areas on private properties within the río Piedras watershed will be in contact with the reservoir over an even greater distance. It is foreseeable that, because the reservoir will occupy the lowest-lying regions, it will create a shoreline bordering what are now deciduous or secondary forests (also comprising many deciduous species), located in areas adjoining the riparian forests of the río Piedras watershed.

It would be important to know what the width of the band of soil surrounding the reservoir would be in which the water table would be altered by the presence of the reservoir. This information is not available in the EIA. The problem with the reservoir’s hydrological effect is that it replaces the soil conditions of a dry deciduous forest with those of a wet ecosystem, without a water deficit or seasonality in that variable. Many plant and animal species have adapted to the water deficit during the dry-season months and have evolved various strategies for surviving the seasonality characteristic of tropical dry forest. This characteristic makes tropical dry forest a distinct ecosystem, different from other tropical ecosystems, warranting particular conservation attention because of the extent to which it has been altered and diminished worldwide. It may be predicted that the area around the reservoir will be colonized by new plant and animal species, many of them more closely associated with wetter and less seasonal ecosystems than the original ecosystem.

Another component of biodiversity that may be favored by the reservoir’s existence is invasive species, which have found artificial reservoirs to be highly suitable environments for dispersal and the establishment of new populations (see, for example, Richardson, David M., et al. “Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects.” Diversity and distributions 13.1 (2007): 126-139, or Havel, J. E. et al. 2005. “Do reservoirs facilitate invasions into landscapes?.” AIBS Bulletin 55.62 518-525.). This phenomenon may include terrestrial or aquatic plant species. What would be the impact of such a drastic change in plant communities on the seasonal deciduous forest, both within and outside the Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal? This question is not addressed in the PAACUME Environmental Impact Significance Matrix (PAACUME Environmental Impact Declaration). In this matrix, the only environmental impacts considered in relation to reservoir operation are modifications to the aquatic ecosystems of the río Piedras watershed, not impacts on the remaining terrestrial ecosystems of the Biological Reserve or on deciduous forest areas generally.

2.3 Effect of irrigation on soils and hydrology in the irrigated area Irrigation activities have made it possible to expand the agricultural frontier into dry, arid, or semi-arid areas worldwide, providing a substantial increase in food production and in the production levels of agricultural exports. However, the environmental impacts of irrigation systems on soils and aquifers are an increasingly well-understood problem, accompanied by stronger warnings to countries seeking to expand their irrigated areas. There are many examples of major irrigation projects experiencing problems involving the loss of soil nutrients, rising water tables, and salinization. Salinization results from the rapid evaporation of irrigation water and the accumulation of salts through capillary action, or from irrigation with water containing some degree of salinity. See, for example: Hillel, D., Braimoh, A. K., & Vlek, P. L. (2008).

Soil degradation under irrigation. In Land Use and Soil Resources (pp. 101-119). Springer, Dordrecht. Nunes, J. M., López-Piñeiro, A., Albarrán, A., Muñoz, A., & Coelho, J. (2007). Changes in selected soil properties caused by 30 years of continuous irrigation under Mediterranean conditions. Geoderma, 139(3-4), 321-328. http://www.icid.org/resirri_envimp.html Although the PAACUME project proposes constructing 350 kilometers of irrigation canals that will provide irrigation to an area of approximately 58.000 hectares, the EIA contains no mention of the potential environmental impacts arising from soil degradation caused by irrigation. The study makes no apparent effort to examine a project that constitutes an important precedent for an irrigation megaproject: the Distrito de riego Arenal-Tempisque, which could provide a useful precedent for understanding the long-term effects of irrigation.

Some studies indicate potential problems with the water table: Campos-Chaves, E. Graduation Project Report, Licentiate Degree in Agricultural Engineering, Universidad de Costa Rica, Escuela de Ingeniería Agrícola, San José (Costa Rica).

Impact of irrigation on subsurface drainage (drenaje subterráneo) and water-table levels (niveles freáticos) in the San Luis demonstration area of the Distrito de Riego Arenal-Tempisque. As well as the results of land-distribution projects (proyectos de distribución de tierras) based on the Arenal-Tempisque irrigation project for poor farming families. Ramos González, W. (2005). Economic Impact Assessment of the Proyecto de Parcelación Bagatzí: The Case of Ten Families 20 Years Later. Master’s Thesis, Evaluation of Development Programs and Projects. UCR. In addition to some isolated studies on the project’s effect on mosquito populations, a problem that could potentially increase with the irrigated area: Vargas, V., Vargas, C., & Jorge, v. (2003). Male and mosquito larvae survey at the Arenal-Tempisque irrigation project, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Revista de biología tropical, 51 (3-4), 759-762. 2.4 Environmental impact on the río Piedras.

The document entitled “Environmental Impact Statement (Declaración de Impacto Ambiental)” states that the 40-meter dam to be built to form the reservoir will affect both the río Piedras and the quebrada Viscoyol. The río Piedras will experience a 75% reduction in its average flow (1.5 m3/s), a flow that will increase considerably during the rainy season. In the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), the consultants acknowledge that a more detailed study would be necessary to determine the impacts on the río Piedras under various reservoir operating schemes. A profound impact on the río Piedras downstream is to be expected, as the water level and the biochemical characteristics of the water will be drastically altered, along with the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that depend on this flow downstream from the reservoir. SETENA should not accept the absence of this analysis from the EIA for the PAACUME project.

3-IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENT 3, that the removed area be compensated for with another area of equal size and characteristics. As noted above, the main problem is the establishment of a supposedly quantitative compensation principle under which changing the size of a compensation area can make it equivalent to the area lost within a protected area (área protegida). This is incorrect, because the populations or species affected by the loss of a protected area will not necessarily appear in their original abundance in a compensation area, even if its size is increased many times over, when the compensation area does not contain the habitats and resources required by those species, or the population nuclei or sources for population migration that would guarantee their repopulation. Drastic differences in habitat quality, especially in the degree of human alteration of ecosystems, such as those identified between Lomas de Barbudal and the ASETREK property, are not offset by increasing the size of the latter.

Inflating the area to compensate for lower biodiversity will not result in the affected species being restored in the compensation area, particularly if the compensation area contains habitats that are very different from the affected area within the Parque Nacional or Reserva Biológica. The area of Lomas de Barbudal that will be flooded contains riparian forests (bosques riparios), and possibly other habitats not quantified by the study, that are not represented in ASETREK. It would set a troubling precedent if the Asamblea Legislativa, SETENA, and Sala Constitucional deemed this study valid, because this practice could lead to encouraging changes affecting the boundaries of additional protected areas on the basis of compensation with larger privately owned properties whose ecosystems are much more altered than those under protection. Ecosystem accounting (contabilidad ecosistémica) and the Habitat/Hectare method (método Hábitat/Hectárea) (section 1.1.3 of the OET Study) would endorse this type of compensation.

OTHER COMMENTS ON THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA AND OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES OF NON-REGRESSION IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS (NO REGRESIVIDAD EN MATERIA AMBIENTAL), OBJECTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (OBJETIVACIÓN DE LA TUTELA AMBIENTAL), PRECAUTION (PRECAUTORIO), PREVENTION (PREVENTIVO), AND THE IRREDUCIBILITY OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE AREAS (IRREDUCTIBILIDAD DE ÁREAS SILVESTRES PROTEGIDAS).

Since the OET Study found that there was insufficient riparian forest area to compensate for the area of that type of ecosystem that would be affected, the Comité Técnico and the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque recommended: “Identify a riparian forest area that would make it possible to compensate for the shortfall in hectares of this type of ecosystem.” On that same subject, the Consejo Regional stated: “There are several official communications sent by SENARA, for example, SENARA-GG 0374-2012 SENARA-GG-0257-2017 Y SENARA-INDEP-172-2017, indicating that the ASETREK property contains 6, 14 ha of riparian forest. However, this figure is not mentioned in the study conducted by OET, nor is it supported by any study on the matter having the same characteristics as the initial study. With respect to the Brindis de Amor property, this Consejo also considers that the studies were not conducted with the same depth of analysis as the initial study, or over sufficient time to provide technical support for the quality of the components addressed from the beginning of the research.

More in-depth studies must be conducted on this property or any other property considered as a compensation proposal so that this Consejo may issue a well-founded opinion.” (Emphasis not in the original.) (See notes of the Comité Técnico del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, Minutes No. 5 of 30 de junio de 2017, folios 1478-1491 of the legislative record, and Official Communication No. SINACCOHACAT-SE-041 of 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497).

Considering the shortfall in riparian forest area identified by the Comité Técnico and the Consejo Regional, the final compensation proposal was defined in Official Communication No. SENARA-INDEP-441-2017 of 17 de julio de 2017 (folios 141-149), indicating that, to compensate for the area removed from protected status (área desafectada) and cover the riparian forest shortfall, it would include 444,04 hectares of the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property, the entirety of the Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., covering 86,96 hectares, and a 40-hectare area of the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property. Note that this compensation proposal was defined by SENARA and was not the product of an objective, comprehensive technical study.

Finally, after the bill had been approved in its second debate, the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque stated that what SENARA had proposed was essentially compensation at a ratio of 5 to 1; that is, compensation with an area 5 times larger than the area to be removed from protected status. (Official Communication No. SINAC-COHACAT-049-2018 of 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644).

The Procuraduría states that it cannot technically assess the OET study or the manner in which the final proposal for compensating the area removed from the RBLB’s protected status was defined. Therefore, as an intervening party (coadyuvante), I submit my observations based on my technical knowledge of biology. Specifically to substantiate that knowledge, I attach my curriculum vitae as an Annex to this intervention (coadyuvancia).

As the Procuraduría correctly notes, if the OET study and the final proposal for compensating the protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) are found to be technically insufficient, the challenged law would be unconstitutional for violating the principle of objectification of environmental protection. That is precisely what I have detailed in this intervention.

The OET report or Study is insufficient and partial, and it incorporates a supposedly quantitative compensation principle under which changing the size of a compensation area can make it equivalent to the area lost within a protected area. This is incorrect, because the populations or species affected by the loss of a protected area will not necessarily appear in their original abundance in a compensation area, even if its size is increased many times over, when the compensation area does not contain the habitats and resources required by those species, or the population nuclei or sources for population migration that would guarantee their repopulation. Drastic differences in habitat quality, especially in the degree of human alteration of ecosystems, such as those identified between Lomas de Barbudal and the ASETREK property, are not offset by increasing the size of the latter. Inflating the area to compensate for lower biodiversity will not result in the affected species being restored in the compensation area, particularly if the compensation area contains habitats that are very different from the affected area within the Parque Nacional or Reserva Biológica. The area of Lomas de Barbudal that will be flooded contains riparian forests, and possibly other habitats not quantified by the study, that are not represented in ASETREK.

That is why I stated above that it would set a troubling precedent if the Asamblea Legislativa, SETENA, and Sala Constitucional deemed this study valid, because this practice could lead to encouraging changes affecting the boundaries of additional protected areas on the basis of compensation with larger privately owned properties whose ecosystems are much more altered than those under protection. Ecosystem accounting and the Habitat/Hectare method would endorse this type of compensation.

The report submitted by OET is insufficient to define the change to the boundaries of Lomas de Barbudal and does not demonstrate that this change will be fully compensated for by additional areas in other sectors of the Reserva. The ASETREK property, which the consultants studied in greater detail, is ultimately acknowledged to be insufficient to justify the land exchange (canje de tierra), and other nearby properties are hastily relied upon to balance the compensation, which in my view is an unserious exercise because it is not properly substantiated.

Furthermore, the environmental impacts of the Río Piedras reservoir on the Reserva Biológica and on all wetland ecosystems (ecosistemas de humedales) of Bajo Tempisque must be understood before the flooding of a sector of the Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal and, more generally, of the ecosystems affected by the future PAACUME reservoir is accepted.

In its response to the order admitting the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) in support of which I am intervening, the Procuraduría General de la República states that the explanatory statement (exposición de motivos) accompanying the bill and the legislative record as a whole have justified removing part of the HBLB from protected status (desafectación) by asserting that the proposed compensation guarantees that the conservation targets (objetos de conservación) underlying the creation of the RBLB are not being affected and that the area removed from protected status is compensated for by another area of equal size that fulfills the same purposes and has similar ecosystem conditions.

In other words, the assurance that the protected wildlife area will not be affected and that the impact of removing part of its area from protected status will be mitigated rests directly on the proposed compensation. Accordingly, as I have stated, it is evident that the OET study and the final compensation proposal are insufficient and contain the technical shortcomings identified above. The challenged law would therefore clearly violate the principle of irreducibility of protected wildlife areas, because it would not guarantee that the approved boundary change does not affect the integrity of the RBLB, and the environmental impact caused by removing part of that Reserva Biológica from protected status would not be adequately mitigated. Consequently, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) and preventive principle (principio preventivo) would be violated, and there would be no technical support demonstrating that the adopted legislative measure does not affect the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado).

IS THE STUDY SUBMITTED THE STUDY REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION TO REMOVE PART OF THE RBLB FROM PROTECTED STATUS? IS THAT THE ONLY OPTION FOR DEVELOPING THE PAACUME PROJECT? IS IT NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE RBLB FROM PROTECTED STATUS?

We agree with the Procuraduría that, even if the sufficiency of the OET study—which I have demonstrated is not sufficient—and of the final compensation proposal—which is likewise insufficient, as I have noted—were established, it must be recognized that this technical study (estudio técnico) would justify only the validity of the compensation carried out and, as such, is not a technical study directly supporting the decision to remove protected status (desafectar) from part of the RBLB. The Procuraduría is unequivocal on this issue, and I agree with that entity when it states that … “in light of the constitutional case law on the matter, the study required by Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente to justify reducing a protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) should be a study determining the necessity and advisability of adopting that type of measure.” (Emphasis added). In this case, such a study would be one that provides technical grounds for the need to remove protected status from part of the RBLB.

In other words, a study determining that the only alternative for developing the PAACUME project and the Río Piedras reservoir is to remove protected status from part of the Reserva Biológica. Incidentally, no such study has been conducted. No studies have been submitted in the legislative record examining other options, such as completing construction of the outstanding irrigation canals in order to use the water from the Arenal reservoir, nor are there studies concerning the water capacity of the aquifers available for exploitation in the cantons of Nicoya, Santa Cruz and Carrillo. Incidentally, the Sardinal-El Coco-Ocotal aqueduct was recently inaugurated, with an investment of approximately $3 million to supply drinking water to nearly 30,000 people by drilling to access underground aquifers. This is far less money than the $500 million projected for development of the PAACUME project, which includes construction of a dam to impound water and then channel it through 350 kilometers of canals.

The Procuraduría states—and I concur—that if the necessity and advisability of removing protected status from 113 hectares of the RBLB are not established, Law 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of non-reduction of protected wildlife areas (irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas), objective grounding of environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental), and non-regression (no regresión). The absence of such a study is so evident that, in this regard, the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, referring to the OET study, stated that “this body considers that it has not yet been demonstrated whether other alternatives exist for the PAACUME project that would not necessarily require removing protected status from an area of the current RBLB. If these alternatives are indeed not viable, it will be necessary to assess the third measure, namely compensation.” (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACATSE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo).

That paragraph means that it has not been demonstrated that the ONLY way to carry out the PAACUME project is by removing protected status from the 113 hectares of the RBLB in order to flood them. Other options exist for supplying water to the middle basin of the río Tempisque and coastal communities; these have not been adequately assessed so as to support the conclusion that construction of the Embalse de Río Piedras is the ONLY option. After the bill was approved on second reading, that same Consejo stated that “there must be sufficient environmental, legal and financial technical studies to justify the proper selection both of the area from which protected status is to be removed and of the areas that would serve as compensation. The existence of these studies within the record of this bill must be verified, since to date this Consejo does not possess such information.” (Oficio No. SINACCÓRACAT- 049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 201 8, folios 2641-2644).

Furthermore, in the document entitled “Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal” (Folios 622-726), in response to one of the questions asked by a participant, it was stated that “if the 113 hectares of the RBLB cannot be obtained, the project changes completely, because without these 113 hectares of the RBLB, the dam specifications, the quantity of water to be impounded, the project cost and the design would all have to change completely.” (Folio 661). What does that mean? It means that supplying water to the middle basin of the río Tempisque and to coastal communities is possible, but the design of the PAACUME project would have to change. That is the missing study, which renders Law 9610 unconstitutional for violating the principles of non-reduction of protected wildlife areas, objective grounding of environmental protection, and non-regression in environmental matters.

II—VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA. I consider that Law 9610 also violates Article 7 of the Constitución Política because that law is contrary to the Convención Ramsar with respect to the obligation established in Article 3 to promote the conservation of wetlands (zonas húmedas) included in the list of wetlands of international importance, of which the RBLB forms part through its incorporation into Sitio Ramsar Palo Verde. Although it is true that the Convención does not require States to provide advance notice of a decision to modify the area of sites of international importance, Article 4 makes that possibility contingent upon the existence of an urgent national necessity, which has not been duly substantiated in this particular case. Therefore, this would also constitute unconstitutionality arising from a violation of Article 7 of the Constitución Política. RELIEF SOUGHT.

I request that Law #9610, “Modification of the Boundaries of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal for Development of the Water-Supply Project for the Middle Basin of the río Tempisque and Coastal Communities,” published in Alcance #199 of La Gaceta dated 23 de noviembre del 2018, be declared unconstitutional for violating Articles 7 and 50 of the Constitución Política and the constitutional principles of non-regression in environmental matters, objective grounding of environmental protection, precaution (precautorio), prevention (preventivo), and non-reduction of protected wildlife areas.”

1. 12In a written submission received by the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:57 hours on 11 de marzo de 2019, Juan Carlos Peralta Víquez appears in his capacity as president of the Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José. He states that he is filing an active intervention (coadyuvancia activa). He indicates that his standing (legitimación) arises from the diffuse interests (intereses difusos) at issue, specifically the potential violations of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. He asserts that the purpose of the association is: “the protection and defense of National Fauna,” “faithful compliance with existing laws, or those enacted in the future, for the defense of animals, by reporting any violation of such laws and regulations to the corresponding authorities,” and “All of the foregoing without prejudice to also protecting wild animals in coordination with state and private entities, both national and international.” He explains that the action must be granted for the following reasons: “1.Reserva Lomas de Barbudal is an oasis of aquatic life that protects noteworthy examples of tropical dry forest, with certain evergreen patches of tropical rainforest and riparian forest. It is best known as the ‘insect park’ or the ‘wasp park’ because of the immense variety of insects that can be found there. It is estimated that approximately 250 species of bees and 60 species of diurnal and nocturnal butterflies exist there. It is a highly important protected wilderness area (área silvestre), with abundant water sources, numerous streams, and natural springs (nacientes), even during the summer. It retains water during the invariably difficult dry season that affects all of Guanacaste and the Pacifico Seco, enabling wild animals to survive the severe droughts that occur during El Niño periods. It protects an abundant population of many mammals, such as deer, capuchin or white-faced monkeys, howler monkeys or congos, agoutis, and a large number of reptiles and freshwater fish.As for birds, approximately 130 species have been observed in this area, the most characteristic being curassows, yellow-crested parrots, king vultures, toucans or black currés, quail, chachalacas, trogons and elegant trogons, and owls. Aquatic birds, such as yellow-footed egrets, large herons, piches, and others, are frequently observed in the southern sector of the reserve. 2. Reserva Lomas de Barbudal is part of the wetland system of Parque Nacional Palo Verde, which was declared an ecosystem of global importance in 1991 and was therefore designated as RAMSAR Sites. This wetland is recognized as one of the most important sites in the world because it is a nesting, refuge, and feeding area for resident and migratory aquatic birds. 3. Seven different habitats are found in Reserva Lomas de Barbudal. These include deciduous or tropical dry forest, which occupies 70% of the reserve and contains 240 tree species, including the commonly occurring ron ron, pochote, cristóbal, caoba, carboncillo, cocobolo, and guayacán real—precious woods that are endangered throughout the rest of the country.The riparian or riverbank forest, which forms a strip along rivers and streams, is evergreen, is considered the densest and most diverse in the area, and is especially rich in solitary bees and wasps. The grass-covered savanna is dotted with trees. 4. Through the challenged Ley N° 9610, ‘SENARA is attempting to sever 113 hectares belonging to Reserva Lomas de Barbudal, which would be flooded to create Embalse Río Piedras and perpetuate the same model of inefficiency and water injustice to benefit the usual beneficiaries and continue the “maldevelopment” that increases poverty, dispossession, and the expulsion of the inhabitants of Guanacaste day after day’... ‘Embalse Río Piedras is an old project designed for irrigation that was rejected and shelved in the past because it was unfeasible’… ‘It was designed according to the now-outdated notion that water is “wasted” if it reaches the sea, that it is inexhaustible, and that ecological nutrient or aquatic cycles do not exist.To continue thinking this way is to lack awareness of the changes required in response to the new ecological conditions resulting from climate change.’… ‘The reality of the Embalse Rio Piedras megaproject is that it is being developed to subsidize agribusiness and mega-tourism. It is the very denial of climate change: a refusal to accept what we see year after year in rising temperatures and droughts’... ‘Instead of solving problems, it fosters socio-environmental conflicts and water injustice. It adds to this model of unrestrained plunder for the benefit of agribusiness’… ‘The State’s initial investment in PAACUME is approximately 500 million dollars to provide 80% of the water obtained to large landowners to irrigate their properties, for which they would pay a “water-use fee” (canon de agua) of 3 colones per cubic meter (m3), while residents would see their bills rise to more than 600 colones for the same m3, even though the official narrative and justification state that “the priority is human consumption”’ (Diario Digital El Independiente, 6-9-2016). 5.- In abril 2010, the ‘Agua para Guanacaste’ Project was announced, ‘an initiative that includes Embalse Río Piedras at a cost exceeding 9 billion colones.They claimed that it would resolve drinking-water supply problems (residential-industrial) throughout this area for the next 50 years, even though there is almost no population or coastal real-estate or tourism investment in the stated area of influence, and it will instead benefit large sugarcane- and rice-growing estates.’ (Kioscos Ambientales UCR. 8-4-2010). 6. This ‘Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Cercanas,’ known as PAACUME, is essentially intended for irrigation and would entail 400 kilometers of aqueducts to convey the water to the monocultures for which it is intended, together with pumping and water-treatment plants. Irrigation is the largest consumer of water (more than 80%) and the greatest source of waste, because it primarily uses earthen canals and field-flooding systems. Because of its centralized planning, it would take control and administration of the water away from the communities, which are currently supplied predominantly by community aqueducts (ASADAS). 7.According to information obtained from SENARA’s own promotional videos advocating its PAACUME project, this is how they intend to distribute the water: (…) 16,5 m³/s FOR AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION 82.5% (…) 2 m³/s FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION 10.0% (…) 1.5 m³/s FOR IRRIGATION IN TOURIST AREAS 7.5% (…) 36 GW ANNUAL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION—IS IT NECESSARY? AT WHAT COST? Regarding the Embalse Río Piedras Project (which is actually a new hydroelectric dam), the Government’s promotional campaign is misleading because it states that ‘this reservoir is not the project, but it is the heart of one called PAACUME,’ and that without the reservoir on Río Piedras ‘it will not be possible to store the quantity of water necessary to guarantee secure supply conditions’; however, it provides no details as to how that quantity was determined and also omits the most important fact: the water that will supply this project is already stored in Lago Arenal, classified as the country’s largest drinking-water reservoir. 8.On l de agosto 2018, Yamileth Astorga stated through the local newspaper La Voz de Guanacaste: ‘PAACUME is an alternative for periods of drought in Guanacaste, but large reservoirs generate major impacts,’ and indicated that ‘For now, AyA will not need this water to supply human consumption. AyA will use only two cubic meters per second, 10% of PAACUME’s capacity, but not at this time. With other projects currently underway, it will not need more water for the next 20 years.’ 9. SETENA has just issued resolution N° 459-2019, dated 19 de febrero de 2019, granting ‘potential’ environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to the megaproject, while in a second resolution, N° 460-2019, of the same date, it identified more than 90 inconsistencies that must be corrected in the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) for the PAACUME project, confirming the gravest fears we have been reporting concerning the tremendous harm this enormous dam would cause to the wildlife inhabiting Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (the region’s last remaining tropical dry forest, a World Natural Heritage Site), as well as to the migratory bird species that visit the Palo Verde wetland (a RAMSAR site of international importance) and to freshwater fish.This is without mentioning the large number of insects, especially bees and wasps, that are vital to human survival. This profound contradiction reveals that the Poder Ejecutivo’s interests in carrying out this project at any cost to fulfill a campaign promise take precedence over the technical and scientific judgment of an institution as serious as the Secretaria Técnica Ambiental. 10. Sadly, the situation is much more serious than we believed because, throughout the 91 points concerning legal and technical matters that SENARA must remedy and clarify, the lack of environmental commitment afflicting this mediocre project—from its conception through its planning—becomes more than evident. It is revealed that the project does not consider other viable alternatives for bringing water to Guanacaste, does not assess the flood risks posed by the reservoir, and does not establish environmental-impact mitigation measures (medidas de mitigación del impacto ambiental).Moreover, it does not even account for existing wells and springs that would be submerged, does not include all elements necessary for construction and operation, and does not even clearly establish the boundary lines (derroteros) delimiting the works. 11. Likewise, the budget appears to have fallen far short, omitting much of the investment that will be required to construct the hydroelectric plant, acquire replacement land, mitigate environmental damage, prevent disaster risks, etc. 12. Although the flood risk is acknowledged, the seismic risk in an area full of geological faults and under permanent threat of earthquakes is minimized. Magnitudes of 6.7 to 7.9 could rupture the dam, releasing a mass of 85 million tons of water that would sweep away everything in its path until reaching the sea. It is not difficult to imagine the large number of human lives that would be lost and the environmental catastrophe that this would cause in the region.Environmental Impact Study, Proyecto Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Medial río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (PAACUME), Table n° 7. 101 Specific seismic scenarios associated with the dam site and peak horizontal acceleration values for each scenario. (Climent et al., 2016).

Seismic Source Maximum magnitude Depth (km) Distance (Km) Peak Acceleration (cm/s2) Duration of strong motion (s) rEPI rRUP Bagaces Fault Northern segment 6.7 12 12.3 6 603 7.7 Southern segment 6.5 10 4.5 2 855 6 Montenegro Fault Northern segment 6.6 10 9.4 6.7 611 7.2 Chiripa Fault 6.6 10 40 41 128 11.6 Cote Arenal Fault 6.6 10 41 42 122 11.7 Caño Negro Fault 7.1 12 50 52 153 14.2 Subduction Papagayo Zone 7.5 35 62 48 316 17 Nicoya Zone 7.5 35 35 44 548 14 According to (sic) the results obtained in Table No. 7.102, it is determined that the near-field seismic hazard (amenaza sísmica) in the sector where the project’s dam site is located is controlled by the occurrence of a magnitude 6.5 event on the Bagaces fault (southern segment), for which the maximum peak horizontal acceleration (aceleración horizontal pico) has been estimated at 855 cm/s2 (0.84g), a value obtained by averaging the values estimated for each of the prediction models used.

Another important scenario is the one proposed for the subduction zone (zona de subducción), since if a magnitude 7.9 event occurs in this seismic zone of Nicoya, there would be a peak acceleration of 548 cm/s2 (0.56 g), which is a fairly significant intensity level (Climent et al., 2016). 13. The recommendation of the Japanese experts to reject this project because of the impact it may have on the environment and its low return on investment due to its high cost is being ignored. PAACUME’s environmental impact is due to its effect on Parque Nacional Palo Verde by altering the Río Piedras watershed (cuenca) and diverting 40% of its flow: JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA) STUDY OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE MIDDLE RÍO TEMPISQUE WATERSHED (…) SEPTEMBER 2002 PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL NAIGAI ENGINEERING CO.LTD. B. Presa Piedras Project Profile: It consists of constructing a dam in the upper Río Piedras watershed, with a dam height of 35 m and an effective storage capacity of 83 million cubic meters.

This dam would make it possible to irrigate approximately 6.500 ha with an additional flow of 6,5 m³/s. It could be used to irrigate the left bank of Río Tempisque, so the beneficiary population includes approximately 100 families of small- and medium-scale producers. Limitations: Presa Piedras will have a significant impact on the environment, including Parque Nacional Palo Verde in the lower watershed, by altering the watershed through the diversion of 40% of the total flow available in the Río Piedras watershed to the Río Tempisque watershed. The local geography and geology are likewise unfavorable to implementation of the project, and it is necessary to widen one section and construct another section of a 40 km conveyance canal (canal de conducción), which makes the project more expensive. The cost of distributing water on the right bank is high. Evaluation: This option will not be recommended in the present Project because of the impact it may have on the environment and because of the Project’s low economic index.

Although it is not mentioned here, the widening and construction of a 40 km section to extend the Canal Oeste through the biological corridors (corredores biológicos) will interrupt the movement and interchange of wildlife. 14. The IICA-BID study, which also notes the project’s vulnerability to natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanic activity, and flooding) and emphasizes the importance of protecting Palo Verde, is being ignored. The mistakes of the past are being perpetuated, since no solutions are proposed for the overuse of water resources (sobreuso del recurso hídrico). Although it does not assess the impact of irrigation on vegetation and wildlife, it reports that the overexploitation and contamination of the aquifers (acuíferos), which so severely affect marine life in the Golfo de Nicoya, are continuing. ARENAL-TEMPISQUE IRRIGATION PROJECT SMALL-AREA IRRIGATION PROGRAM DECEMBER 1993 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (BID) IICA/BID AGREEMENT ATH/3185-RE.

With regard to water resources, the waters of Río Tempisque are being overused in the irrigation area, causing serious problems for marine life in the Golfo de Nicoya. Both in the water catchment area (zona de captación de aguas) and in the irrigated area, cases are reported of organochlorine contamination (contaminación con órganoclorados) from the aerial spraying of agrochemicals, affecting fish and shrimp that colonize the irrigation canals. Although the effect of irrigation on vegetation and wildlife is not being assessed, oral reports indicate that piches (birds from Palo Verde) and other birds of prey affect rice planting and consume fish from ponds designed for fish farming. A decline in populations of melon-pollinating insects is also reported, apparently due to the misuse of agrochemicals. As for the windbreaks (barreras rompevientos), of the 25 km planted, approximately 6 km remain in good condition.

At present, coordination among the state-owned enterprises responsible for reforestation and the conservation of natural resources is very weak, and attitudes will have to change in order to achieve more effective results. With respect to the impact of the environment on the project, there are two matters of keen interest: one is the vulnerability of the project itself to natural disasters—earthquakes, volcanic activity, and flooding (ICE, 1980)—and the other is the risk of aquifer overexploitation. 2.40 Integrate Parque Nacional de Palo Verde, the protected areas within the project’s area of influence, the protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) in Área de Conservación Arenal, and the reforestation plans into the Arenal-Tempisque Integrated Irrigation Management Plan. There is experience in this regard that must not be overlooked, especially when integrating vegetation into the windbreak system. 15.

This leaves a very bitter taste in our mouths and leads us to the conviction that the latest Governments have rushed headlong, without warning and without sufficient study, to hastily approve a poorly planned project that uses public-domain property (bienes de dominio público). The Executive Branch is forgetting its duty to safeguard the natural heritage of all citizens and guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It expects Costa Ricans, in addition to losing part of future generations’ inheritance, to pay for this folly out of our own pockets.”

1. 13In a written submission incorporated at 15:47 hours on 11 de marzo de 2019, Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera appeared in his capacity as Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería. He states that he is filing an “adverse intervention (coadyuvancia negativa).” He requests recognition as an intervenor (coadyuvante) in support of SENARA, since he serves as minister of the agricultural sector to which that entity belongs. He states that PAACUME will affect 500,000 people, most of them small- and medium-scale farmers, by bringing water to the coastal areas of Carrillo and Santa Cruz, thereby enabling the replenishment of aquifers and the irrigation of 18.800 hectares of agricultural production land as a climate-change adaptation measure, so that agricultural production may remain sustainable and constant through the irrigation systems that will be developed. They consider that the petitioners have standing (legitimación), pursuant to the second paragraph of article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, solely with respect to the claims relating to the violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the principle of budgetary balance.They add that there is no diffuse interest (interés difuso) concerning the alleged violation of the right to private property, nor has it been established that any prior proceeding exists in which the alleged unconstitutionality was invoked. They consider that the action is admissible only as to the allegations relating to the violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the principle of budgetary balance, and that the objections concerning the violation of the right to private property are inadmissible. They set forth the following background: “The Proyecto de Abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras, PAACUME, is a project intended to supplement, with water from Laguna Arenal, the water resources available for various uses that are currently supplied by natural sources on the right bank of Río Tempisque (the cantons of Carrillo, Santa Cruz and Nicoya) and that are ultimately insufficient to meet the growing demand for water resources, both for human use (drinking water) and agricultural use (irrigation), thereby ensuring a sustainable water supply throughout the year.The Chorotega region as a whole has a natural precipitation regime involving more than 5 months of water deficit per year, without taking into account extreme natural effects such as the more prolonged droughts caused by the El Niño phenomenon or climate change, which are increasingly frequent and recurrent (e.g., the drought from 2014 to 2016), severely affecting communities and productive and economic activity in general and which, for the first time in Costa Rica, required a declaration of a drought emergency pursuant to Decreto Ejecutivo N° 38642-MP-MAG of 30 de noviembre de 2014. The Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) is the institution responsible for implementing PAACUME. It is an autonomous institution created by Ley 6877 of julio de 1983 and entrusted with the following objectives under article 2: • ‘To promote agricultural development in the country through the establishment and operation of irrigation, drainage, and flood-protection systems. • To contribute preferably to the development of agricultural projects founded upon a fair distribution of land. • To seek a rational and democratic modification of land ownership within the territory benefiting from the creation of irrigation and drainage districts (Ley 6877).’ PAACUME represents an excellent initiative for using the water stored in Laguna Arenal that supplies the Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal DengoSandillal (ARDESA), operated by ICE, for value-generating activities such as irrigation for agricultural production and irrigation in coastal tourism developments, as well as for drinking water and hydroelectric generation.This inherently represents a major opportunity for growth and development in the province of Guanacaste, with nationwide impact. This Project would use the existing water-intake and conveyance infrastructure in the Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque, operated by SENARA (presa Miguel Pablo Dengo and Canal Oeste Tramo I), and would involve constructing works such as the storage dam on río Piedras, expanding and improving Canal Oeste from río Piedras to río Tempisque (55 kms in length), and building water conveyance and distribution networks on the right bank of río Tempisque (approximately 300 kms of gravity-fed and pumped conveyance lines). Through storage in the río Piedras reservoir, PAACUME will supply water to a historically dry area whose drought conditions have intensified because of climate variability and climate change, in many cases reaching extreme drought, thereby limiting sustainability and discouraging the socioeconomic growth of the region and the country as a whole.This project consists of four components, namely: the río Piedras reservoir (including system automation, the powerhouse, and the dam and reservoir themselves); the expansion of Canal Oeste from río Piedras to río Tempisque over a length of approximately 55 kms; the construction of the distribution network on the right bank of río Tempisque (approximately 300 kms in length); and the proposed implementation of a Plan de Desarrollo Regional for the area directly and indirectly affected by the Project, a process currently at the conceptualization and formulation stage. As a public investment project, PAACUME is linked, under the classification established in Decreto Ejecutivo N° 38536-MP-PLAN of the Reglamento Orgánico del Poder Ejecutivo, published on 25 de julio de 2014, to the agricultural and rural development sector because of its importance and impact on food security and the social development of the area of influence, and to the environment, energy, seas, and land-use planning sector because of its value as a climate-change adaptation measure and its effect on water availability in the affected area.In addition, PAACUME is included in the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo and is one of the principal projects designated as priorities for the country’s economic recovery. The construction of the group of works comprising PAACUME will directly benefit agricultural producers located in the cantons of Carrillo, Santa Cruz and Nicoya, as well as recipients of water for human consumption and irrigation of green spaces at tourism businesses. The direct beneficiaries include large-, medium-, and small-scale producers. The latter category refers primarily to beneficiaries awarded land in rural settlements, who are characterized by a greater need for support from agricultural-sector institutions. The irrigated area for agricultural production is estimated at 18.639 hectares, where 746 producers, including large-, medium-, and small-scale landowners, could benefit. (SENARA, 2018 Estudio de Factibilidad PAACUME).This project is vitally important to the public because 2 cubic meters of water per second will be allocated for human consumption (with treatment and distribution to be handled by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados). Regarding the supply of water for human consumption, it is important to indicate that the flow rate established for this sector is based on a 50-year demand projection. It is estimated that by 2025 the population within the project area will exceed 220.000 inhabitants, who will become users of the area’s principal water-supply systems. Rural water-supply systems currently serve a population of more than 139.000 people. In addition to the population that will be supplied with water for human consumption, estimated at approximately 200.000 inhabitants of the region, the entire population involved in the goods and services sector will benefit indirectly.The same applies to persons hired to work in the new irrigated areas during the various stages of production, as well as new participants who succeed in consolidating production and marketing activities. Another beneficiary is the tourism sector, for which PAACUME will seek to provide irrigation water for an estimated area of 1.213 hectares distributed among the 171 tourism businesses duly identified in the coastal area that express their willingness to join the Project. This will also seek to reduce the pressure caused by groundwater extraction from coastal aquifers (SENARA, 2018 Estudio de Factibilidad PAACUME). PAACUME will also be able to generate electricity at the Río Piedras dam (7 MW per year), as a Project benefit entailing optimal use of the available water resources. As previously mentioned, the infrastructure proposed under PAACUME includes three principal components: the reservoir on río Piedras, comprising the reservoir itself, the dam, the spillway, the intake structure, and the powerhouse for electricity generation; the main conveyance network, running from the río Piedras reservoir to río Tempisque (55 kms in length); and, lastly, the distribution network, consisting of the canal network on the right bank of río Tempisque, through which the 20 m3/seg extracted from the río Piedras reservoir and originating in Laguna Arenal will be distributed.Construction of the río Piedras dam will create a reservoir with a surface area (water surface) of approximately 850 hectares. The site where the dam will be located is on río Piedras, specifically between the coordinates West Longitude 358930, North Latitude 1163180 and West Longitude 359690, North Latitude 1155330, at a maximum water-level elevation of 50.00 m.s.n.m.. Water from Laguna Arenal captured at Presa derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B. is conveyed to río Piedras through Canal Oeste Tramo I, which is 21 km long and has a hydraulic capacity of 55 m3/seg. It is important to emphasize that, before Canal Oeste Tramo I intersects río Piedras, there is a natural drop; it is precisely this drop that makes it possible to establish the storage site forming the reservoir on río Piedras. Accordingly, the location of the dam on Río Piedras is dictated by a unique topographical condition that prevents it from being relocated elsewhere.Therefore, this location and the difference in elevation between the inlet of the canal supplying it and the outlet of the canal that will carry the water to río Tempisque determine the reservoir’s maximum level and its capacity to supply PAACUME with 20 m3/seg for distribution on the Margen Derecha del Río Tempisque. At one point, the possibility of constructing a levee to prevent the flooding of this area of the RBLB and a tunnel more than 2 kilometers long to discharge the water was considered. However, the site where the levee would have to be constructed coincides with a geological fault that would make its construction impossible because of the high risk it poses to the works. In conclusion, there is no possibility of relocating the reservoir or reducing its volume without significantly affecting the scope of PAACUME. This establishes the urgent and indispensable need for the 113 hectares of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal to be flooded, as they are essential to constructing the dam on Río Piedras, and construction of the dam at this location is PAACUME’s only means of storing the available water originating in Laguna Arenal.

Accordingly, Ley N° 9610, “Modification of the Boundaries of the Lomas Barbudal Biological Reserve for the Development of the Water Supply Project for the Tempisque River Basin and Coastal Communities,” is indispensable for carrying out that Project. Therefore, construction of the dam on the Río Piedras is an essential component of PAACUME and requires that Ley N° 9610 remain in force in order to serve the public interest and address various needs, including agricultural, productive, and drinking-water supply needs, in an area where water resources are increasingly scarce.” He states that, in view of the foregoing, the challenged provision is essential to providing solutions for the communities of the Tempisque basin and the Coastal Communities of Guanacaste, such as Sardinal, which have been affected by supply problems and aquifer salinization—circumstances that have led that Constitutional Chamber to hear multiple petitions for amparo (recursos de amparo) seeking protection of water resources.

He asserts that SENARA’s role has enabled the proper protection of water resources and, in this case, will ensure their proper use and development, positively affecting the Tempisque basin and the coastal areas of Guanacaste. He asks the Constitutional Chamber to consider the public interest and the paramount importance of the challenged provision for the coastal communities and the communities of the Tempisque basin that will benefit from the PAACUME project, for which ley n.° 9610 is absolutely necessary. As to the merits of the action, he reiterates arguments previously presented by the Procuraduría General de la República and SENARA.

1. 14By resolution issued at 10:03 on 14 de marzo de 2019, the Presidency of the Chamber ordered Juan Carlos Peralta Víquez, within three days, to submit a certificate of legal representation (certificación de personería jurídica) for the Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José.
2. 15By certification (constancia) dated 21 de marzo de 2019, Vernor Perera León and Karen Cubero Barquero, respectively Acting Secretary and Chamber Officer of the Court, both of the Sala Constitucional, stated: “That, upon reviewing the CONTROL DE DOCUMENTOS RECIBIDOS in the SISTEMA COSTARRICENSE DE GESTIÓN DE DESPACHOS JUDICIALES, and after a thorough review of the case file in which this action of unconstitutionality (ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD) is being processed, there is no indication that, from catorce al veinte de marzo del dos mil diecinueve, the Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José, represented by Juan Carlos Peralta Víquez, filed any submission or document whatsoever to comply with the order contained in the resolution issued at diez horas y tres minutos de catorce de marzo de dos mil diecinueve.”
3. 16By resolution issued at 15:23 on 21 de marzo de 2019, the Presidency of the Chamber ruled: “Having reviewed the submissions filed with the Secretariat of this Chamber on 06, 08 y 11 de marzo de 2019, whereby Mario Andrés Boza Loría, identity card No. 1-0297-0932; Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura, identity card No. 1-0526-0636; Juan Carlos Peralta Víquez, identity card No. 3-0229-0629, who claims to be the president vested with authority to act as legal representative of the Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José, legal-entity identification number No. 3-002-248601; and Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera, identity card No. 1-0561-0205, in his capacity as Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, request to be admitted as intervenors (coadyuvantes) in this action, it is hereby ruled as follows: Article 83 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional provides that, within the fifteen days following the first publication of the notice referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81, the parties appearing in matters pending as of the date on which the action was filed, or those having a legitimate interest (interés legítimo), may enter an appearance therein in order to support the arguments that may justify its admissibility or inadmissibility or, where applicable, to expand upon the grounds relating to the matter in which they have an interest.In this specific case, the applicants Mario Andrés Boza Loría and Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura entered appearances on 06 y 08 de marzo de 2019, respectively, and requested admission as active intervenors (coadyuvantes activos), as both have a legitimate interest insofar as they allege that the challenged provisions violate Article 50 of the Constitution. Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera, in his capacity as Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, entered an appearance on 11 de marzo de 2019 and requested admission as a passive intervenor (coadyuvante pasivo), on the basis that he has a legitimate interest as the minister responsible for the agricultural sector. Consequently, given that the notice was first published on 19 de febrero de 2019, the foregoing applicants shall be admitted as intervenors in this matter. The interested parties are advised that, with respect to the effects of intervention (coadyuvancia), because an intervenor is not a principal party to the proceedings, they will not be directly harmed or benefited by the judgment; that is, the judgment’s effect does not extend directly and immediately to an intervenor, nor does res judicata (cosa juzgada) affect them, and the immediate effects of enforcement of the judgment do not extend to them either, since intervention cannot be used to compel the judicial authority to issue a ruling in their favor because they were not a principal party to the proceedings.What may affect them, though not because of their status as intervenors but in the same manner as anyone else, is the erga omnes effect of the ruling. A judgment in constitutional matters does not confer a particular benefit on anyone, not even the claimant; such a benefit may be recognized in the underlying proceeding. As to the request for intervention submitted by Juan Carlos Peralta, who stated that he was appearing on behalf of the Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José, it must be denied because, despite having been ordered, by resolution issued at 10:03 on 14 de marzo de 2019, to provide the corresponding certificate of legal representation establishing his status as representative of that entity—with the warning that his request would be denied processing in the event of noncompliance—the applicant did not provide the required documentation. The responses to the hearings (audiencias) granted to the Procurador General de la República, the president of the Asamblea Legislativa, the Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, and the general manager of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento in the resolution issued at 11:05 on 23 de enero de 2019 are deemed filed. The record being ready for decision, this action of unconstitutionality is assigned to Justice Paul Rueda Leal, to whom the substantive review thereof corresponds under the rotation system.”
4. 17By written submission entered into the digital case file at 18:52 hours on 3 de mayo de 2019, the petitioners enter an appearance. They state that they submit the following considerations: “OBSERVATIONS ON THE RESPONSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC (PGR) The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic reinforces our argument—which has also been developed at length through the Chamber’s case law—that there is a principle of non-reduction (irreductibilidad) of protected wildlife areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), under which such protected areas may not be reduced or modified unless the requirements established for that purpose are met. The foregoing is clearly related to the principles of environmental non-regression (no regresión en materia ambiental), objective substantiation of environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental), prevention (preventivo), and precaution (precautorio).Those requirements are as follows: 1- That it be done by law; 2- That, prior to enactment of the law, sufficient technical studies be available to justify the measure; and 3- That the removed area be offset by another area of equal size and characteristics. We know that the reduction of the area of the RESERVA BIOLÓGICA Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) was carried out by law, thereby satisfying requirement number 1. That law is precisely the one we are challenging through this constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad). As an aside, we emphasize the words “biological reserve” in uppercase to draw attention to the fact that this is not just any type of protected wildlife area. We are speaking of an area (sic) whose level of protection is comparable to that of a national park, which enjoys absolute protection; moreover, in the case of the RBLB, we are speaking of an area that has international protection because it forms part of the Humedal RAMSAR de Palo Verde.With respect to the other 2 requirements, the following questions must be answered: Are there sufficient technical studies justifying the measure? Does the Study prepared by the OET, whose terms of reference were established by SENARA, satisfy the criteria established by the Constitutional Chamber? Does that Study demonstrate, through a scientific and individualized analysis, the degree of environmental impact caused by removing protected status (desafectación) from those 113 hectares of the RBLB? Does it put forward recommendations aimed at reducing the negative environmental impact? Does it demonstrate how removing protected status from the 113 hectares entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs? Does it satisfy the requirement that the area removed from the RBLB be offset by another area of equal size and characteristics?Regarding those questions, the Office of the Attorney General states that it cannot technically assess the OET study or the manner in which the final proposal to offset the area removed from the RBLB was defined. However, the Office of the Attorney General is clear in stating that, should the OET study and the final proposal to offset the protected wildlife area be found technically insufficient, the challenged law would be unconstitutional for violating the principle of objective substantiation of environmental protection. But the PGR also states that, even if the sufficiency of the OET study and the final offset proposal were established, it must be noted that this technical study would justify only the validity of the offset carried out and, as such, is not a technical study directly justifying the decision to remove protected status from part of the RBLB. The Office of the Attorney General is unequivocal on this issue when it states that …“in light of the constitutional case law on the subject, the study required by Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente to justify the reduction of a protected wildlife area should be a study determining the necessity and advisability of adopting that type of measure.” (underlining and emphasis not in the original). In this case, such a study would be one that provides a technical basis for the necessity and advisability of removing protected status from part of the RBLB. That is, a study determining that the only alternative for developing the PAACUME project and the Río Piedras reservoir is to remove protected status from part of the Reserva Biológica. Incidentally, no such study has been conducted. The Office of the Attorney General states that, if the necessity and advisability of removing protected status from 113 hectares of the RBLB are not established, Ley 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of non-reduction of protected wildlife areas, objective substantiation of environmental protection, and non-regression.In that regard, the PGR’s reference to the statement made by the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque (CORACAT) is highly relevant; referring to the OET study, it stated that “this body considers that it has not yet been demonstrated that there are other alternatives for the PAACUME project that would not necessarily require removing protected status from an area of the current RBLB. If those alternatives are indeed not viable, it will be necessary to assess the third measure, which is offsetting.” (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo). And that same Council, after the bill was approved in the second debate, stated that “there must be sufficient technical, environmental, legal, and financial studies to justify the proper selection both of the area from which protected status is to be removed and of the areas that would serve as offsets.The existence of these studies in the legislative record for this bill must be verified, since, as of this date, this Council does not have such information.” (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644). (Emphasis not in the original) On the other hand, the PGR states that some of the officials who appeared at the sessions of the Legislative Committee that processed the bill (through the expedited process applied to that bill under a procedure established by a motion pursuant to article 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa) stated that, from a technical standpoint, the PAACUME project could not be developed without removing protected status from and flooding part of the RBLB. Yet, in the document entitled “Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal” (Folios 622-726), in response to one of the questions asked by a participant, it was stated that “if the 113 hectares of the RBLB cannot be obtained, the project changes completely, because without those 113 hectares of the RBLB, the dam specifications, the amount of water to be impounded, the cost of the project, and the design would have to change completely.” (Folio 661).(Emphasis not in the original). The maxim that an admission by a party dispenses with the need for evidence applies here. It may therefore be concluded from the statements made by SENARA officials that the PAACUME project, as currently conceived, could not be carried out unless 113 hectares of the RBLB are flooded, because the project would have to change. “Without those 113 hectares of the RBLB, the dam specifications, the amount of water to be impounded, the cost of the project, and the design would have to change completely.” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS! For example, A SMALLER RESERVOIR could be built, prioritizing access to DRINKING WATER (which, incidentally, under the PAACUME project accounts for 10% of the water flow expected to be diverted toward the right bank of the río Tempisque), combined with CERTAIN DRILLING INTO AQUIFERS (such as that of the Acueducto de NIMBOYORES, which is about to begin operations and will supply 188 liters per second to more than 50.000 people in the cantón de Santa Cruz, or the Acueducto de SARDINAL-EL COCO-OCOTAL, which recently began operating in the cantón de Carrillo to supply drinking water to 30.000 people); AND EVEN ALLOWING THE DESALINATION OF SEAWATER FOR IRRIGATION IN TOURISM PROJECTS (as is already being done at the Playa Conchal tourism development with the approval of the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), which is purportedly one of the intended uses of water from the PAACUME project.The PGR is very clear in its conclusions. It states as follows: “Should the OET study and the final proposal to offset the RBLB be found technically insufficient, the challenged law would be unconstitutional for violating the principles of objective substantiation of environmental protection, precaution, prevention, and non-reduction of protected wildlife areas, because it would not ensure that the approved modification of the boundaries does not affect the integrity of the RBLB, and the environmental impact caused by removing protected status from part of that Reserva Biológica would not be adequately mitigated. This would also be contrary to the obligation established in Article 3 of the Convención RAMSAR to promote the conservation of wetlands included on the list of wetlands of international importance.” The PGR also states that it is necessary to “… assess whether there is a sufficient technical basis to justify the need to remove protected status from part of the RBLB so that it may be used in implementing the PAACUME project.If that basis is not established, Ley 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of non-reduction of protected wildlife areas, objective substantiation of environmental protection, and non-regression, and because the grounds of urgent national interest to which the Convención RAMSAR subjects the possibility of modifying the area of sites of international importance have not been established.” On the other hand, the PGR also recommends requesting an opinion from the Instituto Geográfico Nacional as to whether the challenged Law took into account the inaccuracies concerning the coordinates and geographic location and whether those inaccuracies have any consequences for the proper delimitation of the area from which protected status was removed and the areas included in the Reserva that must be expropriated, since this could prevent the proposed offset from being implemented.We wish, however, to place particular emphasis on the PGR’s observation regarding the possibility that the PAACUME project is not developed, at least not under the terms in which it is currently proposed. If, for any reason, the project is not developed and the expropriations required to implement the proposed offset are not carried out either, Ley 9610 would have removed the RBLB’s protected status in vain, without valid justification and without offsetting and mitigating the effects caused by that reduction. This would constitute a violation of the principles of non-reduction of protected wildlife areas, precaution, prevention, and non-regression, and even a violation of the Convención RAMSAR, because there would be no grounds of urgent necessity justifying the reduction of the area of one of the sites of international importance. The foregoing would apply unless the authorization to remove protected status is interpreted as taking effect only when the project is implemented and the land required for the proposed offset is expropriated. However, that interpretation cannot be inferred from the text of the enacted law or from the statement of reasons for the bill that culminated in that law.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE INTERVENTION IN SUPPORT (COADYUVANCIA) OF JORGE LOBO SEGURA Although it is true that the PGR stated that it cannot technically assess the OET study or the manner in which the final proposal for compensating for the area removed from the protected status (desafectada) of the RBLB was defined, the supporting intervenor (coadyuvante), Jorge Lobo Segura, who is a biologist with extensive experience in his professional field and a professor at the Facultad de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, did conduct a technical assessment of the study and concluded that the answer is NO to all the questions mentioned in the preceding section regarding whether sufficient technical studies exist to justify the removal of those 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status. The study contained in the legislative record (expediente legislativo), entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property,” which was conducted by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET), was intended to determine the biological and geophysical characteristics of the area of the RBLB that would be replaced by the reservoir area and to evaluate the biodiversity components on ONE adjacent PROPERTY belonging to ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., selected by SENARA without any technical criteria, in order to assess its potential to compensate for the affected area of the RBLB.

The study was not intended to search the lands adjoining the RBLB for an area whose environmental characteristics were as similar as possible to those of the area to be flooded. In other words, that study was intended to determine whether the area of the RBLB that would be removed from protected status could be compensated for with one particular property, which was the property studied; moreover, the studies were conducted on an area of 114 hectares of that property, which comprises more than 700 hectares. SENARA was the entity that determined that the study had to be conducted on that portion of the ASETREK property. The OET study did NOT conduct a scientific and individualized analysis of the degree of environmental impact caused by removing the 113 hectares of that Biological Reserve from protected status. The OET study did NOT examine the lands adjacent to the RBLB to determine which property offered the best conditions to compensate for the 113 hectares that would be removed from the Biological Reserve’s protected status.

The OET study does NOT set forth recommendations aimed at mitigating the adverse environmental impact. The OET study does NOT demonstrate how removing the 113 hectares from protected status entails development that meets present needs without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That OET study ultimately determined that, to compensate for the 113-hectare area removed from the RBLB’s protected status, 444 hectares of the ASETREK property had to be incorporated into the Biological Reserve, without studying more than 300 hectares of that property, since the study focused on 114 hectares. The OET study also states that, as compensation, the 86 hectares of the Brindis de Amor property should likewise be incorporated, without conducting the appropriate study of that property’s characteristics, and that the Río Piedras reservoir should also be used as part of the compensation, again without any study.

A portion of the SP Hacienda Ciruelas property, regarding which NO study was conducted, is also incorporated as compensation for the RBLB area. That study also fails to satisfy the requirement that the area removed from the RBLB be compensated for by another area of equal size and characteristics. Regarding this issue, the supporting intervenor Jorge Lobo Segura, a biologist with expertise in the subject, makes clear that: “the OET report or study is insufficient and partial, and incorporates a supposedly quantitative compensation principle under which changing the size of a compensation area can make it equivalent to the area lost within a protected area. This is incorrect, because the populations or species affected by the loss of a protected area will not necessarily appear at their original abundance within a compensation area, even if its size is increased many times over, when the habitats and resources required by those species, or the population nuclei or sources for population migration that would ensure their repopulation, do not exist in the compensation area.

Drastic differences in habitat quality, particularly in the degree of human alteration of ecosystems, such as those identified between Lomas de Barbudal and the ASETREK property, are not offset by increasing the area of the latter. This inflation of the area to compensate for reduced biodiversity will not result in the restoration of the affected species within the compensation area, especially if the habitats in the compensation area are very different from those in the affected area within the National Park or Biological Reserve. The area of Lomas de Barbudal that will be flooded contains riparian forests, and possibly other habitats not quantified by the study, that are not represented in ASETREK.” After all the reasons presented demonstrating that the technical study used to justify removing the 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status did NOT conduct a scientific and individualized analysis of the degree of environmental impact caused by removing the 113 hectares of that Biological Reserve from protected status; did NOT examine the lands adjacent to the RBLB to determine which property offered the best conditions to compensate for the 113 hectares that would be removed from the Biological Reserve’s protected status; does NOT set forth recommendations aimed at mitigating the adverse environmental impact; does NOT demonstrate how removing the 113 hectares from protected status entails development that meets present needs without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and does NOT satisfy the requirement that the area removed from the RBLB be compensated for by another area of equal size and characteristics, it would set a troubling precedent for the Asamblea Legislativa, SETENA, and Sala Constitucional to deem this study valid.

Were that to occur, it could create a loophole—indeed, a wide-open gate—that would encourage alterations to the boundaries of additional protected areas, based on compensation with larger private properties whose ecosystems are far more altered than those under protection. Ecosystem accounting and the Habitat-Hectare Method would endorse this type of compensation. In conclusion, it is evident that the OET study and the final compensation proposal are insufficient and technically deficient; therefore, the challenged law would clearly violate the principle of the lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) of protected wild areas, because it would not guarantee that the approved boundary modification does not affect the integrity of the RBLB, nor would it adequately mitigate the environmental impact generated by removing part of that Biological Reserve from protected status. Consequently, the precautionary principle and the preventive principle would be violated, and there would be no technical support demonstrating that the legislative measure adopted does not impair the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

As the supporting intervenor Jorge Lobo Segura aptly states, “…no studies have been submitted in the legislative record addressing other options, such as completing the construction of the outstanding irrigation canals to use water from the Arenal reservoir, nor are there studies concerning the water capacity of the aquifers available for exploitation in the cantons of Nicoya, Santa Cruz, and Carrillo. Moreover, the Sardinal-El Coco-Ocotal aqueduct has just been inaugurated, with an investment of approximately $3 million to supply drinking water to almost 30.000 people by drilling to access underground aquifers. This is far less money than the $500 million dollars projected for development of the PAACUME project, which includes construction of a dam to impound water and then channel it through 350 kilometers of canals.” While that aqueduct was recently brought online in the canton of Carrillo, another aqueduct, the Nimboyores aqueduct in the canton of Santa Cruz, is about to begin operating, with a capacity of 188 liters per second to supply drinking water to 50.000 people.

This means that the two aqueducts together are supplying drinking water to 80.000 people, which is almost half the number of people who, within 50 years, would have access to drinking water through the PAACUME megaproject, and they have already been constructed for a fraction of the $500 million dollars that the PAACUME project would theoretically cost.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE INTERVENTION IN SUPPORT OF MARIO ANDRÉS BOZA LORÍA In his intervention, Mario Andrés Boza Loría includes as an annex to his arguments a summary of the press release issued by the Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de Costa Rica, which states that guaranteeing water for the communities of Guanacaste has been promoted as the project’s principal objective. According to the project itself, however, only 10% of the water produced will serve that purpose. This point is highly relevant because the arguments advanced by SENARA, and particularly those advanced by SINAC of MINAE, refer to two public purposes of equal importance: the conservation and environmental protection of the RBLB, on the one hand, and access to drinking water, on the other. An analysis of all the documentation supporting the PAACUME project leads to the conclusion that, of the 20 cubic meters per second that would be conveyed to the right bank of the río Tempisque to deliver water to the cantons of Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya, ONLY 10%, THAT IS, 2 CUBIC METERS PER SECOND, IS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AS DRINKING WATER.

The press release also indicates that PAACUME has been widely promoted as benefiting tourism; however, only 7.5% of the volume of water is allocated to that purpose. The use of that water must be clarified, however, because it is intended for IRRIGATION of tourism-related properties, not for human consumption, which would fall within the 10% mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This means that 82.5% of the water produced by the PAACUME project will be allocated to agricultural irrigation, particularly monocultures operated by large-scale producers. The Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de Costa Rica states that the PAACUME project is “sold” as a project that will save Guanacaste because of the reservoir that would be constructed within the Biological Reserve, but it is not disclosed that the water is already impounded in Lago Arenal, the country’s largest reservoir, one of whose purposes is precisely this; that it already supplies water to the left bank of the Río Tempisque basin; and that nothing prevents it from supplying water to the rest of the province of Guanacaste.

Why is it not used directly? Doing so would require changing the design of the PAACUME project, as SENARA’s own officials acknowledge, in the sense that if they cannot use the 113 hectares of the RBLB for flooding, they would then have to modify the project to impound a smaller volume of water and supplement it with other measures. As we can see, it is indeed possible to bring drinking water to the right bank of the Tempisque without carving 113 hectares of great ecological value out of the RBLB. These reasons, shared by the supporting intervenor Mario Boza, further reinforce the grounds we have asserted for declaring law #9610 unconstitutional.

OBSERVATIONS ON SENARA’S RESPONSE To understand the scope of SENARA’s response to our constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad), it is essential to understand that the PAACUME project has been conceptually developed by that autonomous institution for many years.

It is like “a child” of SENAR A, a dearly beloved one, and, as sometimes happens with parents when their children are criticized or questioned, they defend their children fanatically and without objectivity. Let us take this step by step: SENARA seeks to make it appear that without the PAACUME project, as they conceived it, there will be no drinking water for the cantons of Nicoya, Santa Cruz, and Carrillo. This is false and divorced from reality. When SENARA conceived the PAACUME project, there were drinking-water supply problems in Carrillo and Santa Cruz, BUT those problems have already been resolved through aqueducts that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA) took many years to build. We are referring to the SARDINAL- EL COCO- OCOTAL aqueducts in the canton of Carrillo and the NIMBOYORES aqueduct in the canton of Santa Cruz. Together, the two aqueducts will supply drinking water to 80.000 people, in addition to the 140.000 people who already receive drinking water through ASADAS.

That covers the entire population of those cantons. On the other hand, SENARA states on page 8 of its response that there is no possibility of relocating or reducing the volume of the reservoir without significantly affecting the scope of PAACUME. What does this mean? It means that other ways do exist to bring water to the right bank of the Tempisque River, but the project would have to be redesigned. In fact, one of the most compelling justifications for PAACUME was the issue of access to drinking water for the inhabitants of the cantons of Santa Cruz, Nicoya, and Carrillo. On page 9 of their response, they even dramatically state that PAACUME will serve to bring water to SARDINAL de Carrillo, thereby demonstrating that SENARA officials are out of date on this issue because, as we noted in the preceding paragraph, that water shortage was resolved by ICAA. The other justification—water to irrigate coastal tourism projects—is also already being addressed by IC AA, which authorized one of those tourism projects to use desalinated seawater.

As can be seen, the needs have changed. It is therefore improper to lead the Constitutional Chamber and public opinion to believe that two public purposes of equal standing are at issue here: access to drinking water and environmental protection through a Biological Reserve that is unique in the country and even enjoys international protection. PAACUME, then, is not about drinking water. That issue—which in any event represents 10% of PAACUME’s total water—was resolved by ICAA. Thus, it all comes down to affecting the RBLB in order to carry out this project to irrigate land belonging to tourism developments—which could be irrigated through seawater desalination—and to use water for agricultural projects. SENARA maintains that the challenged law does not violate Article 7 of the Political Constitution or the RAMSAR Convention. It states that, far from reducing the area of the Palo Verde wetland (humedal), it expands it through the enlarged boundaries of the RBLB and the 850 hectares of the Reservoir.

But what would happen if the PAACUME project were not carried out because of different circumstances, such as the legislators failing to approve the $500 million loan or SETENA failing to approve the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), regarding which, incidentally, that entity made nearly 100 very serious observations? If the PAACUME project were not carried out and the expropriation of the compensation lands did not materialize, the area of the RBLB would be reduced by 1 13 hectares, clearly violating Article 7 of the Constitution and the RAMSAR Convention, as the PGR rightly points out, in addition to the other violations of Article 50 of the Constitution and the principles of lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) of protected wildlife areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), precaution, prevention, and non-regression in environmental matters. On page 12 of its response, SENARA states that the study to Establish the Biodiversity Baseline for the RBLB and adjacent property was indeed conducted, contrary to what we stated in our constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad).

SENARA IS AGAIN MISTAKEN, because a substantial part of our argument in the constitutional challenge concerns precisely that study and its shortcomings. With respect to consultation with the communities, pursuant to Article 72 of the Regulations to the Biodiversity Law, ONLY 51 people were consulted. Taking into account the number of people who live in those communities, that consultation was derisory. On page 20 of SENARA’s response, the entity admits that there were no technical criteria for determining the number of hectares ultimately incorporated from the ASETREK property. The OET study recommended incorporating 332 hectares, and SENARA decided, without technical criteria, to incorporate 444 hectares from ASETREK. It is additionally stated that the inclusion of the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties in the compensation proposal was carried out on the recommendation of Mr.

Manrique Montes Obando, Administrator of Lomas de Barbudal—that is, without technical criteria. On the other hand, page 21 states that the 850 hectares of the Reservoir’s water surface are incorporated as a wetland, again without technical criteria. If there were no technical criteria in those cases, neither was there a study to determine whether there was any other option for bringing water to the right bank of the Tempisque River. The absence of that type of study is such that, in this regard, the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, referring to the OET study, stated that “this body considers that it has not yet been demonstrated whether other alternatives to the PAACUME project exist that would not necessarily require removing an area from the current RBLB’s protected status (desafectarse). If these alternatives are in fact not viable, it will be necessary to assess the third measure, which is compensation.” (Official Letter No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 of 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 of the legislative record).

What that paragraph means is that it has not been demonstrated that the ONLY way to carry out the PAACUME project is by removing 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status in order to flood them. Other options exist for bringing water to the middle basin of the Tempisque River and to coastal communities, but they have not been adequately assessed so as to reach the conclusion that construction of the Río Piedras Reservoir is the ONLY option. And that same Council, after the bill was passed on second reading, stated that “sufficient environmental, legal, and financial technical studies must exist to justify the appropriate selection both of the area to be removed from protected status and of the areas that would serve as compensation. The existence of these studies in the record of this bill must be verified, since to date this Council does not have such information.” (Official Letter No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 of 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644).

(Emphasis not in the original). On the other hand, in the document entitled “Mandatory Consultation with Local Communities. Compensation Proposal for the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal” (Folios 622-726), in response to one of the questions asked by one of the participants, it was stated that “if the 113 hectares of the RBLB cannot be obtained, the project changes completely, because without these 113 hectares of the RBLB, the conditions of the dam, the quantity of water to be impounded, the cost of the project, and the design would have to change completely.” (Folio 661). What does that mean? It means that it is possible to bring water to the middle basin of the Tempisque River and to coastal communities, but the design of the PAACUME project would have to change. That is the missing study, which renders Law 9610 unconstitutional for violating the principles of lifetime tenure of protected wildlife areas, objective substantiation of environmental protection (objetivación a la tutela ambiental), and non-regression in environmental matters.

On the other hand, with respect to the money required to pay for the private lands intended to compensate for the 113 hectares removed from the RBLB’s protected status, SENARA once again proves us right by acknowledging on page 30 of its response that, as of today, the respective appraisals needed to determine the exact amount to be paid are not available. SENARA made an overall estimate, without technical criteria, and on the basis of that estimate prepared extraordinary budget number 3, approved by the Contraloría General de la República through Official Letter DFOE-AE-0602 dated 20 de diciembre del 2018, and incorporated into SENARA’s budget for this year. It should be noted that this amount (2.851 million colones) is based on an estimate made by SENARA without any technical criteria and that this budget allocation did not exist when the bill was passed. With respect to the incorporation of the properties known as BRINDIS DE AMOR and HACIENDA CIRUELAS, as well as the selection of the ASETREK property to compensate for the 113 hectares removed from the RBLB’s protected status, SENARA repeatedly misrepresents the truth in its response.

On page 31, it states that a study was conducted on the BRINDIS DE AMOR AND HACIENDA CIRUELAS properties, which is false. As was demonstrated in the challenge we filed and later emphasized by the supporting intervenor (coadyuvante), Jorge Lobo Segura, the Brindis property received only a superficial mention in the OET study—in that study of nearly 300 pages, only 6 pages, including photographs, are devoted to that property—and both that study and CORACAT acknowledged that an in-depth study of that property would have to be conducted. Official Letter SINAC-CORACAT- SE-041, submitted as evidence by SENARA on page 58 of its response to this constitutional challenge, clearly states: “With respect to the Brindis de Amor property, this Council also considers that the studies were not conducted with the same depth of analysis as the initial study, nor within sufficient time to provide technical support for the quality of the components addressed from the beginning of the investigation.

The studies of this property, or of any other property considered as a compensation proposal, must be conducted in greater depth so that this Council may issue a well-founded opinion.” CORACAT’s statement confirms our argument that no serious and objective study was conducted regarding the Brindis de Amor property. Moreover, SENARA’s selection of that property, without technical criteria, also fails to meet several of the requirements among the parameters to be considered in defining the compensation areas, which are mentioned on page 67 of its response. One of them is flagrantly violated: number 7, which states that a fundamental parameter is to “Regularize the property boundary so that the compensation area can be properly managed by the SINAC administration in the RBLB.” The justices can see in the sketch appearing on page 71 of its response that the Brindis de Amor property DOES NOT MEET THAT PARAMETER.

That property is shown in the upper part of the sketch, with one portion even completely isolated from the RBLB, thereby elongating that reserve instead of helping to give it a more circular shape, as stated in the document they submitted as evidence. Moreover, the final paragraph on page 69 of SENARA’s response appears to contain part of the answer as to why SENARA selected that property.

It states as follows: “… it must also be considered that this property has a series of infrastructure facilities that may be used by the administration of the RBLB (SINAC) as a control site for the Reserve.” The case of the incorporation of the HACIENDA CIRUELAS property is even more striking. The OET study mentions that property in three lines. Moreover, on page 32 of its response, SENARA states that a field assessment of that property was conducted, which is entirely false. SENARA reiterates this on page 70. Were there other properties adjacent to the RBLB that could have been considered for compensation? The answer is yes. SENARA should have begun by conducting a technical study to identify the properties whose biological characteristics were most similar to those of the 113 hectares that would be removed from protected status (desafectación) within the RBLB. In our constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad), we provided information about several such properties.

SENARA itself acknowledges this by submitting official letter SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 with its response brief. On page 47 of SENARA’s brief, the statements made by Mr. Wilfrán Murillo are recorded; he indicated that “the redefinition of the boundaries of Lomas could be used to incorporate other land that is neither ASETREK nor Brindis de Amor. This would be an opportunity to add the land that INDER has transferred to SINAC.” This issue is relevant because, as we stated in our constitutional challenge, consideration could have been given to compensating for the area to be flooded by changing the classification of land belonging to public entities adjacent to the RBLB and incorporating it within the boundaries of the Biological Reserve. It is highly likely that such land would have been in better ecological condition than the private properties that proponents have insisted on incorporating into the RBLB, without the need to expend funds on the intended expropriations.

In view of everything stated concerning the properties being incorporated as compensation for the removal from protected status of the 113 hectares of the RBLB, the following must be made clear: 1- The ASETREK property was selected in advance by SENARA. There was no technical criterion indicating that it was the most suitable property. This constitutes a serious flaw in the genesis of the study subsequently prepared by the OET. 2- The OET study covered a portion of slightly more than 100 hectares of the ASETREK property. It did not cover the 332 hectares that the OET recommended acquiring, at a minimum, as compensation. 3- The Brindis de Amor property was incorporated without any study having been conducted; instead, SENARA appears to have been motivated by the desire to make use of the infrastructure located on that property. 4- The Hacienda Ciruelas property was likewise incorporated without any study or site visit having been conducted. 5- No study was conducted to determine which properties adjacent to the RBLB were most suitable for compensation based on their ecosystem characteristics.

It is also worth recalling what the PGR has stated concerning the OET study. According to the PGR, even if the adequacy of the OET study and the final compensation proposal were established, it must be noted that this technical study would justify only the validity of the compensation provided and, as such, is not a technical study directly justifying the decision to remove part of the RBLB from protected status. The Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría) is unequivocal on this issue when it states that … “in accordance with constitutional case law on the matter, the study required by article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente to justify the reduction of a protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) should be a study determining the necessity and advisability of adopting such a measure.” (underlining and emphasis not in the original). In this case, a study of that nature would provide technical grounds for the necessity and advisability of removing part of the RBLB from protected status.

In other words, it would be a study determining that the only alternative for developing the PAACUME project and the Río Piedras reservoir is to remove part of the Biological Reserve from protected status. Incidentally, no such study has been conducted. The Office of the Attorney General states that, unless the necessity and advisability of removing 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status are established, Ley 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) of protected wildlife areas, the requirement that environmental protection be based on objective criteria (objetivación a la tutela ambiental), and non-regression.

COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY (MINAE) The MINAE minister devotes the opening pages of his response to describing the PAACUME project and, on page 6, makes his first untrue assertion. He states that SENARA, “through multiple studies, has demonstrated that this reservoir expansion, including the area within Reserva Lomas de Barbudal (113 hectares), is the only means of sustainably meeting water demand within the project area.” THIS IS NOT TRUE. The Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque (CORACAT), affiliated with the Sistema de Áreas de Conservación of MINAE, itself disproves the minister’s assertion. No such multiple studies exist. Their nonexistence is demonstrated by the fact that, in addressing the OET study, CORACAT stated that “this body considers that it has not yet been demonstrated whether other alternatives exist for the PAACUME project that would not necessarily require removing an area of the current RBLB from protected status.

If such alternatives are in fact not viable, it will be necessary to assess the third measure, namely compensation.” (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo). That paragraph means that it has not been demonstrated that the ONLY way to implement the PAACUME project is by removing the 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status in order to flood them. Other options exist for conveying water to the middle basin of the río Tempisque and to coastal communities; these have not been adequately assessed so as to support the conclusion that construction of the Embalse de Río Piedras is the ONLY option. Moreover, in the document entitled “Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal” (Folios 622-726), in response to a question asked by one of the participants, it was stated that “if the 113 hectares of the RBLB cannot be obtained, the project changes entirely, because without these 113 hectares of the RBLB, the characteristics of the dam, the volume of water to be impounded, the project cost, and the design would all have to change completely.” (Folio 661).

What does that mean? It means that it is indeed possible to convey water to the middle basin of the río Tempisque and to coastal communities, but the design of the PAACUME project would have to change. That is the missing study, and its absence renders Ley 9610 unconstitutional for violating the principles of lifetime tenure of protected wildlife areas, the requirement that environmental protection be based on objective criteria, and environmental non-regression (no regresión en materia ambiental). Concerning the unconstitutionality we alleged in connection with the violation of article 7 of the Constitución Política and the Convención RAMSAR, MINAE states that no such violation exists because, in part, the 850 hectares of the Río Piedras reservoir’s water surface will be added to the globally recognized and protected Palo Verde wetland (humedal). We are surprised that such an assertion would come from MINAE, which clearly understands the characteristics of a wetland.

A reservoir whose water will be conveyed through 350 kilometers of canals to the right bank of the río Tempisque and onward to the cantones of Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya can never be considered a wetland. That would be like seeking wetland status for lago del Arenal or lago de Cachí. Quite simply, because of their depths and the use and discharge velocity of the water they store, such reservoirs can never be considered wetlands. That said, there should be no doubt that removing the 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status—if the PAACUME project is not implemented to the extent currently contemplated and if the expropriations of the private properties incorporated as compensation under the law challenged in these proceedings do not materialize—would clearly violate our international commitments arising from our country’s registration of the Palo Verde wetland as a RAMSAR site.

Furthermore, with respect to the purported studies supporting the challenged law, MINAE states that the institutions involved in this project have conducted the relevant studies and undertaken actions to compensate for the areas where the project will be developed. MINAE IS WRONG AGAIN. The PGR itself warns that, even if the adequacy of the OET study and the final compensation proposal were established, it must be noted that this technical study would justify only the validity of the compensation provided and, as such, is not a technical study directly justifying the decision to remove part of the RBLB from protected status. The Office of the Attorney General is unequivocal on this issue when it states that … “in accordance with constitutional case law on the matter, the study required by article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente to justify the reduction of a protected wildlife area should be a study determining the necessity and advisability of adopting such a measure.” (underlining and emphasis not in the original).

The technical study used to justify removing the 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status DID NOT conduct a scientific and individualized assessment of the degree of environmental impact caused by removing those 113 hectares of the Biological Reserve from protected status; DID NOT study the land adjacent to the RBLB to determine which property offered the best conditions for compensating for the 113 hectares that would be removed from protected status within the Biological Reserve; DOES NOT set forth recommendations aimed at mitigating the adverse environmental impact; DOES NOT demonstrate how removing the 113 hectares from protected status constitutes development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and DOES NOT satisfy the requirement that the area removed from the RBLB be compensated for with another area of equal size and characteristics.

It would set a troubling precedent if the Asamblea Legislativa, MINAE, SETENA, and the Sala Constitucional were to regard this study as valid. If that were to occur, it could open a loophole—indeed, a floodgate—that would facilitate changes to the boundaries of additional protected areas based on compensation involving larger private properties whose ecosystems are, however, far more degraded than those under protection. Ecosystem accounting (contabilidad ecosistémica) and the Habitat Hectares method (método Hábitat por Hectárea) would endorse such compensation arrangements. We have demonstrated, as has the supporting intervenor (coadyuvante) Jorge Lobo Segura, that the OET study and the final compensation proposal are inadequate and technically flawed. The challenged law would therefore clearly violate the principle of lifetime tenure of protected wildlife areas because it would not guarantee that the approved boundary modification does not impair the integrity of the RBLB, nor would it adequately mitigate the environmental impact caused by removing part of that Biological Reserve from protected status.

Consequently, it would violate the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) and the preventive principle (principio preventivo), and there would be no technical basis for concluding that the adopted legislative measure does not impair the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado).

Nor are there any studies determining that the only alternative for developing the PAACUME project and the Río Piedras reservoir is to remove part of the Biological Reserve from protected status (desafectación). OBSERVATIONS ON THE RESPONSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY In the first 20 pages of her response to the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad), the President of the Legislative Assembly reviews the nature of the PAACUME project and makes the same errors as the Ministers of MINAE and MAG, as well as SENARA, by stating that the Study for Establishing the Biodiversity Baseline for the RBLB and Adjacent Property is the study that environmental legislation and the case law of the Constitutional Chamber have established as a requirement for reducing the boundaries of a Protected Wildlife Area (Área Silvestre Protegida). All the explanations we have provided in the preceding sections are applicable here and demonstrate that this study is not the study referred to in the constitutional case law, as the PGR correctly noted.

The technical study used to justify removing the 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status DID NOT conduct a scientific and individualized analysis of the degree of environmental impact caused by removing the 113 hectares of that Biological Reserve from protected status; DID NOT conduct a study of the land adjacent to the RBLB to determine which property had the best conditions for compensating for the 113 hectares that would be removed from the Biological Reserve; DOES NOT offer recommendations aimed at mitigating the negative environmental impact; DOES NOT demonstrate how removing the 113 hectares from protected status entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and DOES NOT satisfy the requirement that the area removed from the RBLB be offset by another area of equal size and characteristics. Where she does make observations related to matters within her jurisdiction, such as the parliamentary procedure followed to approve the bill that culminated in the law we are challenging, the President of the Legislative Assembly states as follows: “In their submission, the petitioners allege that Ley Número 9610, ‘Modification of the Boundaries of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for the Development of the Water-Supply Project for the Middle Basin of Río Tempisque and Coastal Communities,’ is affected by an essential defect in the legislative procedure because it was considered and voted upon under a special procedure adopted pursuant to Article 208 bis of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly.

According to the petitioners, the defect is that this type of expedited procedure cannot be applied to initiatives requiring a qualified majority for approval. In support of this assertion, they rely on report AL-DEST-DJU-068-2018 of 30 de julio del año 2018 issued by the Technical Services Department of the Legislative Assembly.” On that subject, what we argued in the constitutional challenge was that a substantial portion of the legislative procedure culminating in the approval of the bill that gave rise to Ley 9610 was conducted through the expedited special procedure under Article 208 bis, approved by the legislative plenary at ordinary session number 28 of 20 de junio del año 2018. At no time did we state that the final vote had been conducted in accordance with the procedure approved under Article 208 bis. The President of the Legislative Assembly continues: “Under those rules, legislative expediente number 20.465 was assigned to special committee number 20.869, ‘Special Committee Responsible for Analyzing, Studying, and Reporting on Expediente No. 20.465, “Law Modifying the Boundaries of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for the Development of the Water-Supply Project for the Middle Basin of Río Tempisque and Coastal Communities,”’ the body that issued a favorable report on the initiative.

In view of these facts and the legal arguments of several members of the Legislative Assembly, at ordinary plenary session number 46 of martes 7 de agosto del año 2018, the members agreed to approve a procedural motion that stated verbatim: ‘That the special procedure approved pursuant to Article 208 bis for legislative expediente No. 20.465, “LAW MODIFYING THE BOUNDARIES OF RESERVA BIOLÓGICA LOMAS DE BARBUDAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER-SUPPLY PROJECTS FOR THE MIDDLE BASIN OF RÍO TEMPISQUE AND COASTAL COMMUNITIES,” be rendered ineffective because constitutional conflicts have been identified in its processing that make it incompatible with the application of a special procedure, and that henceforth its ordinary legislative processing shall continue.’ (emphasis not in the original). What does that mean? It means that, after meeting for an entire month, with many sessions each week for that purpose, hearing a large number of people in order to better inform the members’ judgment in the decision-making process, and placing the bill first among the matters for first debate on the agenda of the legislative plenary, as required by the motion adopting the special procedure under Article 208 bis, the members realized that what they had done on 20 de junio violated the provisions of Article 208 bis of the Rules of Procedure because they had applied that article to a bill requiring a qualified majority for approval by the legislative plenary.

That is why, on MARTES 7 DE AGOSTO, they approved the motion providing that, HENCEFORTH, processing would continue under the ordinary procedure. According to the President of the Legislative Assembly, this means that the Assembly ‘set aside all agreements adopted pursuant to the aforementioned special procedure and proceeded to consider the bill under the rules governing the ordinary lawmaking procedure.’ THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSEMBLY IS COMPLETELY MISTAKEN. The motion is clear that, from martes 7 de agosto onward, the ordinary procedure for processing bills would be followed. At no point does the motion state that the proceedings conducted under the expedited procedure were rendered ineffective. Nor does the motion provide that the processing of the bill would be returned to the stage of the legislative proceedings at which it stood before the approval of the motion of 20 de junio del 2018.

Nor does it provide that the establishment of the Special Committee created under the expedited procedure to report on that bill would be rendered ineffective (Special Committee #20.869, Special Committee Responsible for Analyzing, Studying, and Reporting on Expediente No. 20.465, “Law Modifying the Boundaries of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for the Development of the Water-Supply Project for the Middle Basin of Río Tempisque and Coastal Communities”). At the next session of the Legislative Assembly considering bills, the session of jueves 9 de agosto, the bill received an affirmative vote in first debate, a circumstance that leads the President of the Legislative Assembly to assert that there was no violation of parliamentary procedure and therefore no constitutional violation resulting from that course of action. We argue, to the contrary, that there was such a violation and that, unless the Constitutional Chamber so declares, a loophole would be created for violating the democratic principle in the lawmaking process, since a temporary majority in the Legislative Assembly could approve the processing of bills through the expedited procedure established in Article 208 bis, in clear violation of the prohibitions set forth in that article.

Bills could then be sent to a Special Committee constituted according to the preferences of that temporary majority for expedited processing, with hearings granted to whomever is deemed necessary and consultations conducted, and motions processed under the filing and argument periods established by the expedited procedure, without allowing members from minority caucuses to participate in those sessions because of the number of sessions scheduled each week, until a committee report is finally issued. Then, in the plenary, they could continue until the period for submitting motions pursuant to Article 137 had expired and, when the plenary was about to vote on the substance of the bill, approve a motion to “continue” under the ordinary procedure for the final substantive debate on the bill (20 minutes of argument per member) before the first-debate vote, followed by 10 minutes of argument for the second-debate vote.

That type of maneuver, through which a temporary majority in the Legislative Assembly could impose its position over those of members who disagree, would constitute a form of EVASION OF THE LAW (FRAUDE DE LEY). It is precisely for that reason that we have identified this evident unconstitutionality in the processing of the bill. What they should have done, in any event, was return the processing of the bill to 7 de junio de 2018, to the point before the approval of the motion that clearly violated Article 208 bis of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly, which constitutes a constitutional standard of review. OBSERVATIONS ON THE PASSIVE OR NEGATIVE INTERVENTION (COADYUVANCIA PASIVA O NEGATIVA) OF THE MINISTERIO DE AGRICULTURA Y GANADERÍA (MAG) In appearing as a passive supporting intervenor (coadyuvante pasivo), the Minister of MAG stated, as the grounds for his intervention, the same arguments presented by SENARA. Accordingly, our comments on that intervention are the same as those we made regarding SENARA’s observations.”

1. 18By a written submission added to the digital case file at 10:02 hours on 2 de noviembre de 2019, Henry José Picado Cerdas enters an appearance. He states his interest in entering an appearance in the proceeding.
2. 19By order issued at 12:28 hours on 28 de mayo de 2020, as evidence to assist the Court in reaching a decision (prueba para mejor resolver), Mahmood Sasa Marín was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made by the petitioner, the Office of the President of the Legislative Assembly, the Minister of Environment and Energy, the National Groundwater Service, and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, in connection with the study he coordinated entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve (RBLB) and Adjacent Property.”
3. 20By order issued at 16:04 hours on 28 de mayo de 2020, the President of the Constitutional Chamber scheduled an oral hearing (vista oral) for 9:00 hours on 11 de junio de 2020 and summoned María del Milagro Gamboa Miranda, Gary Douglas Stewart Postel, the Attorney General of the Republic, the President of the Legislative Assembly, the Minister of Environment and Energy, the General Manager of the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service, Mario Andrés Boza, Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura, the Minister of Agriculture and Livestock, and Mahmood Sasa Marín. In that regard, he ordered that the hearing be held virtually through the Microsoft Teams application and, for that purpose, directed them to provide an email address both for the corresponding registration and so that they could be sent the information necessary to connect. Finally, he explained how the hearing would be conducted.
4. 21By a written submission added to the digital case file at 12:49 hours on 1o de junio de 2020, Julio Jurado Fernández enters an appearance in his capacity as Attorney General of the Republic. He states that he will participate in the hearing with government attorney (procuradora) Elizabeth León Rodríguez. He indicates that the email addresses for registration on the platform are [email protected] and [email protected].
5. 22By a written submission added to the digital case file at 10:56 hours on 2 de junio de 2020, Gary Douglas Stewart Postel enters an appearance. He provides the email address [email protected] for his registration on the platform. 2 3.- By a written submission added to the digital case file at 16:00 hours on 2 de junio de 2020, María del Milagro Gamboa Miranda enters an appearance. She provides the email address [email protected] for her registration on the platform. She states that she will be accompanied by Jorge Lobo Segura, holder of identity card No. 105260636, and Otto Guevara Guth, holder of identity card number 105440893, whose email addresses are, respectively, [email protected] and [email protected].
6. 24By a written submission added to the digital case file at 12:02 hours on 3 de junio de 2020, Patricia Quirós Quirós enters an appearance in her capacity as General Manager of SENARA. She states that she will participate in the hearing and that the email address for registration on the platform is [email protected]. She indicates that she will be accompanied by Giovanni López Jiménez, whose email address is [email protected].
7. 25By a written submission added to the digital case file at 17:45 hours on 5 de junio de 2020, Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera enters an appearance in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture and Livestock. He states that he will participate in the scheduled hearing with Yadira Vega Blanco, the institution’s attorney. He indicates that the email addresses for registration on the platform are [email protected] and [email protected].
8. 26By written submission added to the case file at 18:37 hours on 8 de junio de 2020, Mahmood Sasa Marín, in his capacity as a researcher with the Organización de Estudios Tropicales and a professor at the Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, and Fabián Bonilla Murillo, in his capacity as a researcher with the Instituto Clodomiro Picado de la Universidad de Costa Rica, enter appearances. They set forth the following considerations in response to the decision issued at 12:28 hours on 28 de mayo de 2020: “1. Environmental compensation (compensación ambiental) for an environmental impact is a measure of last resort, to be undertaken only when that impact cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated. Consequently, when the impacts of a project require compensation, the situation is one in which redress for a potential impact is unavoidable. Under those circumstances, the discussion should not focus on whether compensation is possible, but on how to achieve it in a manner that produces environmental gains.The fundamental principle underlying environmental compensation is that, in environmental terms, the redress cannot be less than the cost of the impact. Indeed, it is desirable for the compensation to produce a net environmental gain. This last point is not trivial: the compensation must ensure an environment better than the one that existed before the impact. 2. There is no single methodology for compensating for environmental impacts. Nor is there a simple methodology that makes it possible to determine the compensation precisely. If the objective is to ensure that the redress is fair and—to the extent possible—to maximize environmental gain, different strategies must be used. This is a very important point, because the critics of our study seem to expect an infallible and universally applicable methodology for this purpose, although no such methodology exists. To maximize environmental gains, the approach must be dynamic, and there must be a willingness to apply several criteria when establishing a compensation plan.Various countries have used different procedures, most of which provide compensation through the substitution of surface area. Thus, redress is achieved by replacing the impacted area with an area that will be environmentally equivalent (or better). This equivalence means that the biotic elements (species and communities) and abiotic elements (soil, geomorphology, etc.), habitat structure, and ecological processes are similar in terms of area and landscape context. Equivalence does NOT mean that exactly the same elements and their respective abundances must be identical at both sites, a situation that would plainly be impossible in complex systems such as tropical environments. The procedure will seek to maximize the environmental gain from the compensation. 3. Some procedures used by countries for environmental compensation are merely substitutions based on surface area, without quantifying other factors.Others are based on quantifying a series of indicators (biotic or abiotic) and estimating the ‘ecological equivalence’ (equivalencia ecológica) between the site to be impacted and the potential site to be used for compensation. Among the latter, the approaches known as standardized scoring methods (métodos estandarizados de puntuación) are the most widely used. Under these schemes, each indicator is assigned a weight in the final score, and specialists assign scores based on the measurements taken at the compensation site and the site to be impacted. These methods have the advantage of streamlining the assessment process and providing more predictable and reproducible valuations (aspects that should be important from a legal standpoint). 4. In Costa Rica, the subject of environmental compensation has not been sufficiently discussed, and there are no clear guidelines regarding when and how it should be carried out, which methodologies should be used, or how it should be assessed.Although it is true that we have certain laws and regulations that touch tangentially on the subject of compensation and refer to compensation measures, the references to environmental redress in our legislation are very general, and the legal framework lacks specificity concerning compensation. We explain this in our report (pp. 32–37). As a consequence of this situation, there is little experience with environmental compensation, particularly compensation involving protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas). In that regard, our study should be considered pioneering work on this subject. 5. The study conducted by our team from the Organización para Estudios Tropicales, the results and recommendations of which are presented in the report ‘Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property,’ was intended to determine the biological and geophysical characteristics of an area within the protected area Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) that could potentially be flooded if the reservoir on the Río Piedras were constructed as part of SENARA’s PAACUME irrigation project.In addition to this characterization, we were asked to assess the compensation potential of an adjacent property, identified in the report as ASETREK, if this impact were to occur. To conduct this assessment, our group selected a methodology based on a scoring approach known as Habitat/Hectare (Hábitat/Hectárea). However, criteria other than those derived from this methodology were also used in proposing a compensation plan. 6. Our study seeks to answer three specific questions: (1) What biotic and abiotic characteristics are present at the potential impact site in RBLB and at the site selected as potential compensation; (2) whether they are environmentally equivalent; and (3) if they are, how compensation should be carried out so as to produce an environmental gain if the impact occurs. Ours is a baseline and compensation study. Suggestions, observations, or criticisms regarding the study should focus on its scope and dimensions.Our study does not include, nor does it purport to include, an environmental impact assessment (valoración del impacto ambiental) of the Río Piedras reservoir project or the PAACUME Project. Nor does it constitute an assessment of the social approval of that project or its impacts. The study’s objectives followed the guidelines requested by SENARA in its ‘terms of reference’ (términos de referencia). These objectives and the methodology proposed by our team were approved by the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque (ACAT) of SINAC. 7. Scoring methods are algorithms for assessing and calculating compensation as objectively as possible. However, like any other methodology, they are not free from limitations. The limitations of the Habitat/Hectare method are explained in our report. Among the most significant are: (1) the method requires each indicator to be assigned a weight in the final score, which makes that step open to criticism.(2) The method requires similarity among the types of land cover (coberturas) being compared. (3) The method is premised on the environmental deficiencies of one site being offset by increasing its area. There are several ways to address the first drawback: assigning equal weights to all indicators or assigning weights by consensus. The reasoning is that, if the weights of the indicators are assigned a priori, the environment is scored in a relatively objective and reproducible manner. In our case, the weights of the indicators were selected by consensus among the professionals comprising the research team and were presented to and endorsed by SETENA and SINAC, through ACAT. Regarding the second limitation, the environments being compared in the RBLB impact area and ASETREK are sufficiently similar (both sites are covered primarily by disturbed deciduous forest with open areas in early stages of succession in the Tropical Dry Forest life zone) for us to consider the algorithm applicable.Although more than 73% of the surface area at both sites is covered by this deciduous vegetation, we deliberately distinguished three types of land cover, based on our field observations and the land-cover layer from the national forest inventory (SIREFOR, 2012-2013). The resulting land-cover types were designated deciduous forest, secondary forest, and riparian forest, and each indicator was scored separately for each of them. In this manner, we maximized the contrast between the environment at the impact site and that at the compensation site. The third drawback rests on the idea that the environments to be compared must be sufficiently similar for the balance to be achieved through area. This is undoubtedly one of the methodology’s weakest aspects, because similarity between environments is a matter of debate. Nevertheless, we considered other proposed methodologies to be even more subjective when estimating the area for which redress must be provided, and therefore decided to use Habitat/Hectare because of the relative similarity and proximity of the sites being compared. 8.The original Habitat/Hectare methodology focuses on comparing habitat structure (number of trees, fallen trunks, etc.); we also implemented a comparison of diversity across different taxonomic groups. In other words, in our study we assessed not only habitat structure but also species composition (plants, vertebrates, and understory insects), following a similar algorithm but keeping the analyses separate. In our report, these analyses appear in Chapter II (pp. 47–111) and Chapter III (112–206). From these assessments, we obtained an estimate of between 220 and 332 hectares for the habitat-structure analysis and 290 hectares for the analysis of diversity components. Given the principle that compensation must maximize environmental gain, the figure we use is 332 hectares of an environment similar to that found in ASETREK to compensate for what would be lost at the impact site in RBLB. That is the reason for the 3:1 ratio stated in the report. 9.One recommendation in our report that has generated considerable criticism and confusion, and that appears to be the reason for the constitutional challenge (recurso de inconstitucionalidad), is the incorporation of the Brindis de Amor and Ciruelas properties into the compensation plan. As previously mentioned, application of the proposed methodology leads to the conclusion that three hectares of ASETREK must be provided as redress for every hectare lost in RBLB. However, on page 209 of our report, we note the advisability of also using other properties containing important elements for conservation, in addition to the area in ASETREK. The report even states (p. 217) the reasons why we consider that the reservoir that would be formed in the flood zone should be part of the compensation. Although these areas were not analyzed as thoroughly as ASETREK, we emphasize that using these properties improves the compensation proposal.Once again, our reasoning is based on maximizing environmental gains to the extent possible. The selection of Brindis de Amor is neither coincidental nor arbitrary, as the submitted documents attempt to suggest. This property, located at the northwestern end of RBLB, is crossed by one of the few permanent streams in the area (río Cabuyo) and retains a narrow strip of riparian cover. The vegetation at this site was assessed, as indicated on pages 210–216 of our report. Furthermore, as we also state in the report, the uninterrupted studies conducted for more than 25 years in the area by Dr.

Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Ángeles) point out that troops of white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capuccinus) from Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal use the forests within Brindis de Amor as feeding and resting sites. In other words, there is evidence of a constant flow of animals to and from the Reserve. The use of Brindis de Amor as a foraging site demonstrates the biological importance of this property and the wisdom of protecting it. The inclusion of a portion of Hacienda Ciruelas is intended to avoid leaving a peninsula along the boundary of the RBLB if Brindis de Amor is incorporated, which would contravene basic principles of reserve design aimed at minimizing edge effects (efecto de borde) and their impact on the species intended to be protected. In addition, that portion also contains a fragment of riparian cover (cobertura riparia). In our own report, we stated that, if it were necessary to choose between one of those two properties, we suggested acquiring Brindis de Amor because Ciruelas is already maintaining some protection in that area of its property.

Our critics state that the study did not assess those properties. That is not entirely correct because, as noted above, a vegetation assessment was conducted on the Brindis de Amor property. The reason other taxonomic groups (fauna) were not assessed is that: (1) there is already evidence of the importance of that location to the fauna of the RBLB; (2) including this property complements the ASETREK property; and (3) Brindis de Amor was in fact identified after the decision had been made to provide compensation through ASETREK. The fragment in Hacienda Ciruelas (mistakenly called Rancho Wilson in our report) was indeed not assessed. Nevertheless, I reiterate that securing the protection of both this property and Brindis de Amor would provide a better service to the environment that the RBLB seeks to conserve.

10. Like other environmental studies conducted as assessment and analysis tools on which to base management decisions, compensation studies (estudios de compensación) must be completed within a reasonable period and on a limited budget. This means that such studies have limitations regarding both the monitoring period and the taxonomic groups and variables to be considered. It will always be possible to incorporate more information by extending the study period or adding variables when conducting an environmental study, but in practice it is clear that a study cannot be extended indefinitely in either time or budget. For this reason, we consider that raising objections concerning these aspects contributes little additional information when assessing this type of work.

11. In some paragraphs of the documents reviewed, particularly in the opinions of Dr. Jorge Lobo, direct questions are raised regarding the ability of the OET working team to identify certain groups, particularly plants. This criticism is unacceptable. For one thing, the Organización para Estudios Tropicales has maintained a scientific presence in the area since 1970, when Estación Biológica Palo Verde was established in what is now Parque Nacional Palo Verde. That station has contributed to generating the bulk of the knowledge concerning the Cuenca Baja del Tempisque, and its scientific directors, including me, have provided important support for SINAC’s management efforts in the region. Among other important scientific resources, the weather station and Herbario Ulises Chavarría provide the repositories of climate and flora information for both Lomas de Barbudal and Palo Verde. Moreover, the team assembled by the OET to conduct this study includes two professors from the Escuela de Biología, both holding doctoral degrees and having extensive experience in their respective fields of specialization, as well as the collaboration of a third full professor from the same school for the identification of Hymenoptera, which include pollinators.

The team also includes three specialists holding master’s degrees, one of whom is also an employee of the Universidad de Costa Rica, as well as three independent professionals. Our project was registered with the Vicerrectoría de Investigación of the Universidad de Costa Rica (Proyecto 741-B6-A02), and the final report was approved by the Consejo de Investigación del Instituto Clodomiro Picado. At no time did we receive a copy of the statements by Dr. Lobo or by the Dirección de la Escuela de Biología opposing the study conducted. To assume that the study is weak merely because someone from an academic unit raises poorly substantiated objections is to refuse to acknowledge that other units of the same institution do support it.

12. Finally, to understand our position in this debate, it is important to distinguish between opinion-based judgments and evidence-based judgments. An opinion is an assessment or concept based on experience that may or may not correspond to reality and therefore does not provide complete confidence in the truth of the knowledge. Evidence-based judgments are made on the basis of facts or tangible foundations and should therefore be understood as more closely reflecting reality. We consider that the effort devoted to the baseline study (estudio de línea base) and compensation estimate far exceeds that of similar studies conducted for other projects, as demonstrated by our databases and museum and herbarium specimens. The judgments expressed in our report are based on evidence.

13. In our study, we maximized the contrast between the environment to be affected in Reserva Lomas de Barbudal and potential compensation areas. Our position is that, if the reservoir is constructed on Rio Piedras, resulting in the flooding of 113 hectares of the reserve, that impact should be compensated for through the ASETREK, Brindis de Amor, and Ciruelas properties, and that the artificial wetland (humedal artificial) that will form in the affected area should be managed from the outset. This represents a real and substantive gain. Raising minor objections to undermine the study means losing sight of exactly what is being proposed. Likewise, attempting to argue against the methodology out of fear of establishing a precedent that would allow the boundaries of other protected areas to be redrawn causes us to lose sight of the issue at hand: if necessary, positive environmental compensation can indeed be achieved in Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal.

We will now respond to the observations concerning our study in the submitted Documento 0001-01-09-2019 (Acción de Inconstitucionalidad contra la ley #9610). Because the other 7 documents repeat much of this same information and relate more to the responses of different institutions and organizations to the same constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad), without raising doubts or new questions concerning our report, we consider that these responses to verbatim excerpts from the constitutional challenge address all possible questions raised:

Documento 0001-01-09-2019. ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD Contra la ley #9610, “MODIFICATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF RESERVA BIOLÓGICA LOMAS BARBUDAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER-SUPPLY PROJECT FOR THE MIDDLE BASIN OF RÍO TEMPISQUE AND COASTAL COMMUNITIES,” published in Alcance #199 of La Gaceta dated 23 de noviembre del 2018.

• “Page 9. R/ An unsupported opinion is expressed that the study is superficial and biased because the study’s terms of reference were defined by SENARA. It is also stated that the selection of compensation in ASETREK was arbitrary. This is incorrect. The terms of reference are based on SINAC’s observations. Moreover, the selection of the ASETREK property is based on SINAC’s recommendation, because it is the property closest to the affected site with vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal) and habitat structure (estructura de hábitat) warranting assessment.” • “Pages 9 and 10. R/ It is stated that not all properties adjacent to the RBLB were reviewed to identify those that could potentially compensate for losses resulting from the impact on the reserve. Our team conducted a review through image analysis to confirm the selection of ASETREK as a potential compensation area. In addition, SINAC personnel had previously conducted a similar exercise before selecting ASETREK.

The methodology followed (Habitat/Hectare) was approved by SINAC and SENARA. Using this methodology, we concluded that: (1) it is possible to establish ecological equivalence (equivalencia ecológica) between the two sites (RBLB and ASETREK); and (2) the area-compensation ratio is 3:1. Nevertheless, as we specified in our report, our recommendation was to request even more in order to remedy the losses in the reserve and improve the environmental remedy. The inclusion of these two properties in our final recommendation did not require further assessment because they constitute a complementary rather than essential addition under the established methodology. Although it is true that the Ciruelas property was not assessed, it is important to clarify that we conducted a survey of vegetation structure and composition on the Brindis de Amor property, as specified in our report.” • “Page 10. It is stated that ‘Neither the OET Study nor the process of debating the bill in the Asamblea Legislativa contains evidence that the communities adjacent to the RBLB were consulted regarding the effects that this change to the boundaries of the biological reserve might have on them.’” R/ This comment demonstrates a lack of clarity concerning the dimensions and scope of the OET study, as noted in recital (considerando) # 6 above.

• “Pages 10 and 11. The OET Study used to justify the removal of protected status (desafectación) from the 113 hectares is a study that does not meet the requirements established by the Sala Constitucional for those purposes. It contains numerous technical and scientific shortcomings, as stated by the Facultad de Biología of the Universidad de Costa Rica.” R/ It is unclear what is meant by “requirements established by the Sala Constitucional.” Regarding the technical and scientific shortcomings identified by the Escuela de Biología, one would assume that the Escuela would communicate directly with the OET or with any of the researchers who conducted this study and who are themselves members of the Escuela’s teaching staff. If there are observations, the proper course would be to convey them to the appropriate bodies, but that did not occur here: what we have instead is the expression of opinion-based judgments. The project was in fact registered with the Vicerrectoría de Investigación of the Universidad de Costa Rica and approved by the Consejo de Investigación of the Instituto Clodomiro Picado, also part of the same Universidad. If the Escuela de Biología has reservations concerning technical aspects of this project, other bodies do not appear to share them.

• “Pages 12 and 13. It states: ‘One consequence of the enactment of that law, as well as of the dam, the reservoir with a water-surface area of 850 hectares, and the more than 300 kilometers of canals intended to be built pursuant to that law, is the impact on the Palo Verde wetland, which enjoys international protection under the Convenio RAMSAR. For the removal of protected status from 113 hectares of the RBLB, which forms part of the Humedal de Palo Verde, the procedure established in that international instrument for removing protected status from the area to be flooded was not followed.’” The same was stated by the Regional Council of the Arenal Tempisque Conservation Area (CORACAT) in official letter SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018: “…As stated in agreement 3 of the minutes of extraordinary session 04-2017 of the National Council of Conservation Areas (CONAC), it is necessary to notify the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, known as the Ramsar Convention, of the intention to carry out this project and to initiate any other procedure required to comply with the country’s commitments.

Furthermore, it is important to take into consideration that, under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, known as the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, the Área de Conservación Guanacaste World Heritage Site is being monitored by UNESCO. At the most recent session of the World Heritage Committee, that body decided to request that the country conduct a strategic environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental estratégica) of the area, so that the possible direct or indirect impacts of projects on the World Heritage Site may be anticipated, even when those projects are located outside its boundaries. Although this bill does not directly affect the World Heritage Site, Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal borders Corredor Biológico Morocochas, which in turn borders Parque Nacional Rincón de la Vieja, included within the World Heritage Site. It is therefore necessary to analyze whether the Proyecto de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras may have any indirect impact on the World Heritage Site and to consider initiating the appropriate mechanisms to notify the World Heritage Centre of this initiative.” This, too, was not considered in the OET study, which says nothing about the procedure for removing protected status (desafectar) from an area that forms part of a wetland (humedal) under international protection, as is apparent from official RAMSAR documents.

In Article 4, paragraph 2, that convention provides that when a Contracting Party, because of urgent national interests, deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the list, it must, as far as possible, compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same area or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of the original habitat. Incidentally, the modification of the RBLB boundaries has not been declared a matter of urgent national interest.” R/ Once again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scope of the project undertaken by OET. Assessing the impact on the surroundings adjacent to the project site, including potential effects on the wetlands protected by Palo Verde, must be conducted through another instrument: the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental).

OET was not responsible for that assessment, and this issue must therefore be addressed by whoever was responsible. Moreover, a quick look at a map of the area would make clear that the purported connection between Lomas de Barbudal and Parque Nacional Rincón de la Vieja as a single protected area (área protegida) is patently false. • “Pages 25 and 26. That study conducts an analysis and concludes that the area proposed as compensation is in a more degraded ecological condition than the area whose protected status is to be removed (currently protected and part of Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal). Based on this, the study itself proposed compensation at a ratio of 3 to 1 in order to ensure the ecosystem’s ecological functions. Even so, the studies determined that riparian forest (bosque ripario), one of the conservation targets (objetos de conservación) defined when the protected area was created, was absent from the areas proposed as compensation; therefore, ACAT’s position from the outset has been that this conservation target must be compensated for, and consequently SENARA ultimately recommends, in essence, compensation at a ratio of 5 to 1, that is, compensation with an area five times larger than the area whose protected status might eventually be removed.” R/ As indicated above, the suggestion that other properties be annexed was intended to improve the environmental remediation (resarcimiento ambiental), supplementing the results obtained through the methodology followed in the study. • “Page 32.

It states: ‘The study conducted by OET regarding compensation for the area whose protected status was removed does not mention the Palo Verde wetland, of which RBLB forms part, or provide details concerning how the affected wetland area is to be compensated for. Nor does it mention the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, which affords special protection to the entire Área de Conservación Guanacaste. That study also says nothing about all the properties intended to be used as compensation for the area whose protected status was removed, since it was conducted solely on the property belonging to ASETREK and not on the other properties that were ultimately incorporated into the law we are challenging.’” R/ This paragraph reflects either ignorance or an intention to mislead the reader. The impact area in the southeastern portion of Reserva Lomas de Barbudal is not a wetland and is not connected to the wetlands of Parque Nacional Palo Verde.

Moreover, neither Lomas de Barbudal nor Parque Nacional Palo Verde is located within Área de Conservación Guanacaste (ACG, a UNESCO World Heritage Site), but rather within Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque (ACAT). The properties identified and assessed as potential compensation sites are not located there either. The OET study is limited to identifying which elements and structures are present in the environments at the impact site and assessing whether compensation is feasible and the ratio at which it could be carried out. • “Pages 37 and 38: It states: ‘Thus, law #9610, which is challenged through this constitutional action (acción de inconstitucionalidad), clearly violates Article 50 of the Political Constitution because it does not include a serious, comprehensive, and objective study of the consequences of removing protected status (desafectación) from 113 hectares of RBLB and replacing or compensating for them with approximately 500 hectares of privately owned properties intended to be incorporated into the biological reserve.’” R/ Unsupported opinion.

The argument that the study is incomplete is inadmissible, since the critics do not even indicate why it is incomplete. The rationale for annexing the Brindis de Amor and Ciruelas properties to the recommendations set forth in our report has already been discussed. • “Pages 44–72: Having stated all the foregoing, it is necessary to determine whether the OET Study fully satisfies the technical and scientific standard established by the Constitutional Chamber as a requirement for reducing the size of a protected area. That requirement for technical studies is not a mere formality; rather, it is a substantive requirement, meaning that an individualized scientific analysis must substantively demonstrate the extent of the environmental impact of the corresponding measure, make recommendations aimed at mitigating its adverse environmental impact, and demonstrate how that measure entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” R/ Once again, the scope of the study conducted by OET is being confused with the project’s environmental impact study.

Conflating the scope of these studies appears to be a strategy deliberately devised to reach predetermined conclusions. • “Thus, in this specific case, volume two of the legislative record (expediente legislativo) that gave rise to the law challenged here contains a study conducted by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET), which is a biological baseline study (estudio de línea base de biología) intended to justify the acquisition of the property known as ASETREK to replace the 113 hectares of forest whose protected status is removed by the law challenged through this constitutional action. (See Anexo 6 to this constitutional action).” R/ It is correct that the study conducted by OET is the baseline study. If the results of that study supported it, the acquisition of the ASETREK property could then be proposed. That was the case. • “That study is neither complete nor objective, scientific, or technical, because it suffers from numerous omissions and weaknesses.

To begin with, the scope of the study was determined by SENARA, the entity that retained OET to prepare it. In official letter SENARA-INDEP-172-2017 of 28 de marzo de 2017, signed by Engineer Marvin Coto, SENARA’s Director of Engineering and Project Development, he provides that institution’s general manager, Patricia Quirós, with an account of the process for selecting the compensation property and of the tender process for commissioning the Baseline Study, as may be read in the following passage: ‘…In 2015, a tender was issued on two occasions for the technical study that would enable the processing of compensation for and removal of protected status from the required area of RBLB. However, those tenders were declared unsuccessful for lack of bidders; therefore, after several meetings, an agreement was reached, and in January 2016 the “Agreement between the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET) and SENARA to conduct the Study for establishing the biodiversity baseline for RBLB and the adjacent property” was executed within the framework of the Proyecto Sistema de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (PAACuMe).

The purpose of the study is to prepare and define the baseline needed to determine the ecological integrity, significance, and vulnerability of the ecosystems present, as well as the existing biodiversity, in the RBLB area that will be directly affected by Embalse Río Piedras. At the same time, a comparative analysis is conducted between an area of RBLB and previously selected neighboring lands (the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property) to ascertain the degree of similarity and the feasibility of using them as an ecologically equivalent replacement area. It is important to note that the property was selected because of its connectivity with RBLB, since this is essential for management and administration by the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC). This property is registered in the name of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., corporate identification number N° 3-101-370259, with Ramón Aguilar Facio as general attorney-in-fact with full powers (apoderado generalísimo), identity card number N° 9-0001-0541, registered survey map N° 5- 666-1976, real-property folio N° 034932-000, located in distrito primero Bagaces, cantón cuarto Bagaces, provincia de Guanacaste, with a registered area of 751 hectares….’” R/ Once again, unsupported opinions are offered regarding the study’s alleged incompleteness, and weaknesses and deficiencies are mentioned without being identified.

These paragraphs seek to discredit from the outset the study conducted by OET because it responded to SENARA’s request. The study was indeed commissioned by SENARA from OET, and there is nothing improper about that. From the outset, Engineer Marvin Coto, then responsible for the project on behalf of SENARA, was informed that OET would conduct the most objective study possible, in accordance with its technical expertise, and that the results would be presented as they were. In addition, one of the requirements established by OET for participating was that the data and information generated by the study be made transparent. Our Organization has honored this from the very beginning. • “Toward the end of the 237-page study, OET mentions two additional properties: Brindis de Amor (the property belonging to the corporation 3-101-734726 S.A., known as Brindis de Amor, or Brindis de Amor en Liberia), and Hacienda Ciruelas.

No baseline biological survey (estudio de línea base de biología) was conducted on any of them that would make it possible to determine scientifically that these properties do in fact possess environmental characteristics capable of replacing the ecosystem functions of the area to be removed from protected status (desafectación). The case of the property belonging to Hacienda Ciruelas is even more dramatic, since it is mentioned in only 8 lines of the 237-page study.” Response/ The reasoning used to include these two properties in the final compensation recommendation has already been explained. I would note here that there continues to be an attempt to render invisible the effort we made to characterize the vegetation and structure at Brindis de Amor. • “Specifically, on page 215 of the OET Study, the property belonging to Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. is referred to as Rancho Wilson. In conclusion, that OET Study did not include studies of the biological conditions of two of the three properties intended to compensate for the 113 hectares removed from protected status by the law.” Response/ It was indeed my drafting error, in a 267-page text, to use the property’s former name instead of its current name, Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. They continue to disregard the reasoning set out in our final report regarding the compelling reason why the Ciruelas and Brindis de Amor properties were added to the proposal. • “Accordingly, it is materially impossible to have scientific certainty regarding the suitability of the lands added to Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal; therefore, the legislative decision to replace the hectares removed from Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal cannot withstand constitutional review because it lacks sufficient technical support to justify its adoption and clearly violates the principle of non-regression (principio de no regresividad) in environmental matters.” Response/ I believe that, before reaching those conclusions and recommendations, the person who drafted this paragraph should read the final report of our study and try to understand it. • “A few years ago, Sala Constitucional found that the bill entitled ‘Ley de reconocimiento de los derechos de los habitantes del caribe sur,’ legislative expediente number 18.207, was unconstitutional for violating Article 50 of the Constitución Política, since it was based on an incomplete study that did not technically and scientifically determine what the actual environmental impact would be, a defect that was essential to the legislative procedure.

(Exp: 12-011721-0007-CO, Res. Nº 2012013367, SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, at eleven thirty-three a.m. on the twenty-first of September of two thousand twelve.) That is exactly what is happening with this law, because the study included in the legislative expediente to justify the removal from protected status of 113 hectares of a BIOLOGICAL RESERVE is clearly incomplete and does not technically or scientifically determine the environmental impact of removing that area from protected status and subsequently flooding that amount of land. Not only was the study not conducted on 2 of the 3 properties intended to be used as compensation, but it also failed to analyze the effects that this could have on Parque Nacional de Palo Verde, which is a wetland (humedal) afforded international protection under the Convención de RAMSAR and of which RBLB forms a part, as explained in section A) above concerning the Legal Grounds for this constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad).” Response/ Once again, the author of these lines is attempting to conflate the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental, EIA) with the compensation study (estudio de compensación).

And once again, reference is made to the two properties (Brindis de Amor and Ciruelas) that were recommended for compensation in addition to the ASETREK lands. • “In the preceding paragraph, the words BIOLOGICAL RESERVE were emphasized to make clear to the honorable justices that we are dealing specifically with a protected area whose category is comparable to that of a National Park and is subject to ABSOLUTE PROTECTION. It is not a protected zone or a wildlife refuge. It is a BIOLOGICAL RESERVE. Therefore, the type of study required to allow the removal from protected status of an area as large as 113 hectares must be technically very sound and complete; it must be comprehensive and encompass all potential environmental impacts, and it must be especially rigorous in studying the area proposed as compensation. That did not occur with the OET study commissioned by SENARA under terms of reference established by that entity.” Response/ They are mistaken on several points.

First, the compensation study and the environmental impact assessment are different instruments. In this case, the former was prepared by us as an OET study, while the latter was prepared by ICE. Second, SENARA had previously consulted SINAC regarding the terms of reference, and they therefore had the approval of the country’s authority on protected areas. • “To confirm the foregoing, it is enough to read a few excerpts from the report by Dr. Jorge Lobo Segura, commissioned by the Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica to respond to a request for information from Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) concerning the PAACUME project, which was designed around a reservoir (other options could have been explored) that requires flooding 113 hectares of RBLB. Dr. Lobo Segura identifies numerous technical and scientific shortcomings in the OET study, as can be seen by reading section ‘1.1 Observations on the OET study regarding compensation for the area to be flooded by the reservoir’ in his report.

Those shortcomings clearly demonstrate that the removal from protected status of the 113 hectares of RBLB does not meet the parameters established by Sala Constitucional for determining whether a protected area may be reduced, particularly where a biological reserve is concerned, since it enjoys a level of absolute protection comparable to that of a national park.” Response/ It is unclear what is meant by “the parameters established by Sala Constitucional for determining whether a protected area may be reduced.” First, the law is clear that a protected area may not be reduced; what it permits is the modification of its boundaries without reducing its surface area. · “The following section of Dr. Lobo’s report is transcribed below, with what is considered most relevant highlighted in bold, as is Dr. Lobo’s statement in the letter transmitting his report to the director of Escuela de Biología, M. Sc.

Daniel Briceño. ‘At your request, I am attaching my observations on the Environmental Impact Assessment for the PAACUME Irrigation Project (D1-21601-2017-SETENA), pursuant to the request made by Setena Secretary General MSc. Sergio Bermúdez Muñoz on July 12 of this year. Although SETENA’s original request was for Escuela de Biología to submit any specific restriction, limitation, or recommendation concerning this project, I preferred to submit my observations as general observations on the Environmental Impact Assessment, particularly regarding its biological impact. The document discusses some of the project’s potential environmental impacts that, in my view, were not considered in the EIA, as well as a critique of the compensation criteria for the flooding of 113 ha of Reserva Biológica de Lomas de Barbudal by the Río Piedras reservoir, a substantial component of the PAACUME irrigation project.’” Response/ Here, reference is again made to the opinion of our colleague, Dr. Jorge Lobo.

It is clear that SETENA’s request to Escuela de Biología concerned the Environmental Impact Assessment. In his response, Dr. Lobo conflates aspects of that study with the compensation study conducted by us. • “‘In my view, it is evident that the most significant objection Escuela de Biología can raise regarding this irrigation project is its effect on this protected area, as well as on the dry forests located on private properties that will be flooded by an 850-ha reservoir. The EIA’s compensation proposal, consisting of adding new areas to RBLB as a replacement for the lands that will be flooded, is, in my view, an inadequate measure in relation to the environmental damage that a reservoir of such dimensions will cause to the ecological integrity of this important protected area of our country’s dry forest. Sincerely, Dr. Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura, Escuela de Biología.’” Response/ Indeed, creating a reservoir would have an adverse impact on the environment that would be flooded.

That is why compensation would be necessary. The question that should be asked is how to provide such compensation in a manner that is fair to the environment and even maximizes the environmental gain. One criticism that could be made here of Dr. Lobo and the response from Escuela de Biología is that they make no effort to propose solutions to the problem. • “‘Biological consequences of the PAACUME reservoir: One of the most significant environmental impacts of the PAACUME irrigation project will be the flooding of approximately 850 ha to create the reservoir. The reservoir area includes 113 ha of Reserva Biológica de Lomas de Barbudal. In various chapters, the EIA cites the study “Establishment of the biodiversity baseline for Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) and the adjacent property,” prepared by Organización de Estudio Tropicales (OET) in January 2017, as the basis for compensating for the environmental damage to this Biological Reserve.

The OET document proposes incorporating new areas belonging to private properties adjacent to the Reserve. This study is a substantial part of the PAACUME EIA and is included as Annex No. 8.2 of Volume II of the EIA. Some observations on the OET study are presented below, followed by a discussion of certain aspects that I believe were not considered for compensating for or mitigating the effects of the reservoir.’” Response/ The Environmental Impact Assessment does indeed refer to the compensation study conducted by us (OET). However, as noted, they are two different studies pursuing different objectives and covering different areas. • “‘Observations on the OET study regarding compensation for the area to be flooded by the reservoir. 1.1.1 Theoretical framework. As its methodology for calculating the compensation area, the study adopts the quantification of the relative value of various aspects of the ecosystems by assigning a numerical value to different ecosystem variables.

This exercise is performed for the area of Lomas de Barbudal to be flooded and for the corresponding comparable ecosystem on the ASETREK property, where the potential compensation areas are located. To conduct the numerical comparison of habitat quality, the area at each site is divided into three principal ecosystems: mature riparian forest (bosque ripario maduro), deciduous forest (bosque deciduo), and secondary forest (bosque secundario). Scores are assigned according to the number of species in different taxonomic groups, or according to forest cover (cobertura de bosque), number of strata, and so forth. The scores for each area are tallied and then totaled. Because the ASETREK property frequently receives a lower score than the corresponding ecosystem at Lomas de Barbudal, the area of the compensation property needed to equal the score of the affected area is calculated. They thus arrive at the final calculation that 252 ha (although 330 ha are later mentioned, creating some confusion at the end of the study) of a property such as ASETREK would be required to compensate for the 113 ha of Lomas de Barbudal that would be flooded. In my opinion, this theoretical framework is a numerical exercise that leads to a dangerous accounting method with little biological foundation.

The categories used to assign scores, the ecosystem attributes compared, and the numerical values assigned to each category are largely arbitrary; they overvalue some attributes and undervalue others, as will be shown below through several examples. The principal problem is the establishment of a supposedly quantitative compensation principle, UNDER WHICH CHANGING THE SIZE OF A COMPENSATION AREA (ÁREA DE COMPENSACIÓN) CAN OFFSET THE AREA LOST WITHIN A PROTECTED AREA (ÁREA PROTEGIDA). This is mistaken, and the authors themselves express doubts about this procedure on the final pages of the report. THE POPULATIONS OR SPECIES AFFECTED BY THE LOSS OF A PROTECTED AREA WILL NOT NECESSARILY APPEAR AT THEIR ORIGINAL ABUNDANCE IN A COMPENSATION AREA, EVEN IF ITS SIZE IS INCREASED MANY TIMES OVER, IF THE COMPENSATION AREA DOES NOT CONTAIN THE HABITATS AND RESOURCES REQUIRED BY THE SPECIES, OR THE POPULATION NUCLEI OR SOURCES FOR POPULATION MIGRATION THAT WOULD ENSURE THEIR REPOPULATION.” Response/ The summary of the methodology is correct, and as properly stated in our report, like any other methodology, it has advantages and limitations.

However, Dr. Lobo confuses the results of our procedure. In the habitat-structure analysis, compensation would cover 330 has (the source of the 3:1 ratio mentioned above). In the analysis of biotic composition (composición biótica), which includes species identity and comparisons between sites, compensation would cover a smaller area. Dr. Lobo clearly states that what follows is his opinion, and he presents no concrete evidence to support it. By contrast, our study contains solid, concrete databases concerning the species present in the areas being compared. Moreover, his comment suggests that Dr. Lobo views compensation as redress in terms of identical species and conditions, when we have already explained that it consists of finding equivalence between them. We do agree with Dr. Lobo that increasing the area does not necessarily ensure the best ecological equivalence and that this issue requires further study.

Nevertheless, as stated in our consideration #7 above, that was the methodology followed in our study because we considered other approaches more subjective. • “Drastic differences in habitat quality, particularly in the degree of human alteration of ecosystems, such as those detected between Lomas de Barbudal and the ASETREK property, cannot be offset by increasing the size of the latter. Inflating the area to compensate for lower biodiversity will not result in the affected species becoming reestablished in the compensation area, particularly if the compensation area contains habitats that are very different from those in the affected area within the National Park or Biological Reserve. The portion of Lomas de Barbudal that will be inundated contains riparian forests and possibly other habitats not quantified by the study that are not represented in ASETREK.” Response/ The first part of this paragraph expresses doubt as to whether the environmental difference between the sites can be offset by increasing the area.

This idea is precisely the rationale underlying the Habitat/Hectare method (método Hábitat/Hectárea) followed in our study. We agree with Dr. Lobo that this idea could be explored more fully through research. However, we remind the Chamber that the procedure followed here was previously approved by SINAC. Dr. Lobo also continues to refer to habitats not quantified by the study, but does not identify them. Asserting that there are environments not covered by our efforts without presenting evidence does not appear to be an evidence-based argument. Dr. Daniel Janzen, a renowned dry-forest ecologist, visited the study site and recommended providing the largest possible area as compensation. This is because a fundamental consideration is that the recorded environments are dynamic rather than static, and positive changes in the ecosystem can therefore be achieved over time. For example, the land cover (cobertura) designated “deciduous forest” in our study represents an earlier stage of succession that, with sufficient protection, would tend to develop into an environment similar to the one designated “secondary forest” in our report. • “It would set a troubling precedent if the Legislative Assembly or SETENA considered this study valid, because this practice could encourage further changes to the boundaries of protected areas based on compensation through larger privately owned properties whose ecosystems are far more degraded than the protected ecosystems.

Ecosystem accounting and the Habitat/Hectare method (section 1.1.3 of the OET Study) would endorse this type of compensation.” Response/ We believe that Dr. Lobo overstates the scope and potential applications of the methodology used. No one has claimed that the Habitat/Hectare method should be used in every situation. We share Dr. Lobo’s concern that this particular case could be used in the future as an example to affect other protected areas. We even have our own questions concerning the PAACUME project. As scientists, however, we must strive to be objective in our judgments. A methodology was selected that we believe can be used to estimate the area to be provided as compensation if the reservoir is constructed and 113 has along the southeastern boundary of Reserva Lomas de Barbudal are affected. We estimated the area and recommended supplementing it with two additional properties, as well as managing the reservoir.

If this recommendation is followed, the reserve would benefit environmentally. We cannot base our judgment on hypothetical future situations in other parts of the country. · “1.1.2 Ecosystem-services accounting (contabilidad de servicios ecosistémicos). One aspect of the OET study’s environmental accounting that raises doubts is its accounting of ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) and its comparison of the two areas in relation to those services. Ecosystem-services accounting was performed by selecting services that: ‘(1) are clearly distinguishable products or benefits that can be quantified using metric scales; (2) have no direct relationship with one another, in order to avoid redundant criteria; …’ (page 99), among other criteria. This criterion excludes critically important services that natural ecosystems provide to human and wildlife environments, but which are difficult to quantify and are interrelated, because forest cover (cobertura boscosa), soil quality, and biodiversity are ultimately elements shared by all ecosystem services.

There will always be ‘redundant criteria.’ Because of these selection criteria, ecosystem services as important as pollination, soil protection, aquifer protection, pest control, and others were not included in the comparative accounting of Lomas de Barbudal and ASETREK. I must emphasize that the pollination services provided by the inundation area of Lomas de Barbudal must be substantial, given the great diversity of bees that was a major reason for its establishment in 1986.” Response/ The baseline study (estudio de línea base) does indeed omit the quantification of many ecosystem services, as well as a great many taxonomic groups. Environmental studies must limit the number of study subjects; otherwise, the undertaking would be endless and would fail to meet one of the basic requirements of a study intended to support management decisions: completion within a reasonable period. The specified services were selected according to a series of criteria listed on page 99 of our report.

Dr. Lobo states that pollinators provide a relevant ecosystem service. It is unclear whether this was an oversight on his part or whether he made this observation for other reasons, but he appears to forget that one of the groups specifically addressed in this study is precisely the pollinators, all of which were identified by Dr. Paul Hanson of the Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Once this point is clarified, the judgment expressed lacks any basis. • “1.1.3 Limitations of field sampling. For a study intended to evaluate the ecosystem and biological diversity of two moderately large areas, on the scale of hundreds of hectares, 10 months of work seems insufficient to conduct a genuine assessment of a site’s biological diversity, despite the highly intensive effort. In some cases, such as vegetation sampling, although the analysis was based on a substantial number of plots, the species-accumulation curve (curva de acumulación de especies) (page 125) shows that further sampling is still needed before the species-diversity counts stabilize.

I can also express my doubts here regarding the plant-species tables presented in this chapter, in which all samples were apparently identified to the species level, something that, in my view, would require extensive work in the national herbaria.” • “Regarding bird-species sampling, the number of counts performed is not stated, although it is acknowledged that ‘Because of the short duration of this study, it was not possible to complete the information by conducting sampling during the arrival season of migratory species from the Northern Hemisphere, which occurs in the region during the months of Agosto-Mayo’ (page 145). It should be noted that long-term studies of bird populations conducted by Dr. Gary Stiles in Costa Rica and Colombia reveal very pronounced annual and multiannual temporal changes, with the result that new species continue to appear even in inventories conducted over many years, while others disappear.” Response/ The observation is correct that this study, like all short-term studies, does not reach the maximum point of the species-saturation curve (curva de saturación de especies) for fauna; consequently, the diversity estimates for each taxonomic group are limited to the methodology and period used.

Nevertheless, this does not preclude comparisons between sites. Dr. Lobo’s suggestion in that regard—that much longer sampling involving more groups should be required—would not necessarily alter the conclusions. We note here that arguments of this kind would prevent these groups from being addressed in short- or medium-term environmental projects. • “A similar criticism could be applied to the sampling of insect fauna (entomofauna), because it was limited to the placement of two permanent Malaise traps (traps made with curtains and jars) at each site, from which insects were collected for one year. Limiting sampling to this technique is insufficient; many insects of great ecological importance are not efficiently collected by this method, including much soil-dwelling insect fauna, bees, ants, etc. One example is the limited number of individuals captured from the family Apidae (bees) (Table 56, page 195).

This table shows that no individual from this family was collected within Lomas de Barbudal and only 11 bees were collected in ASETREK. This result is entirely incorrect. Detailed studies in the region show that 30-70 bee species and thousands of individuals can be collected from a single tree while it is flowering.” Response/ Exactly. Ours is an environmental study. It has neither the level of detail nor the intensity of research studies. Dr. Gordon Frankie’s work with bees, for example, has been conducted since the early 1980s. We cannot compare short studies with the level of detail that can be provided by a series of studies conducted over more than 30 years. Nor can we expect to have long-term studies available before making management decisions. • “1.1.4 Limitations of the scoring system.

The fragmentation of ecosystems into individual habitats and elements, and the somewhat arbitrary assignment to each element of a level of similarity between the affected area and the compensation area, causes the overall perspective of each site to be lost, in my view, creating an accounting system that overlooks important differences between Lomas de Barbudal and ASETREK. One example of this problem is the difference in slopes between the two sites. Page 52 of the report acknowledges that the area within Lomas de Barbudal lies at an elevation of 10-80 meters above sea level, with slopes of less than 5%, whereas ASETREK has elevations greater than 85 meters above sea level, including a plateau with an average elevation of 140 meters above sea level (page 53). ASETREK’s average slope is not reported. This difference is again highlighted on page 214 of the report, where the possibility of including another property (Brindis de Amor) as part of the compensation is discussed, since “in contrast to ASETREK, the Brindis de Amor property has a gentle slope.” Differences in slope are very important and, according to the philosophy adopted by the consultants, should affect the final score.

Nevertheless, on page 58, the consultants assign 4 points (out of a maximum of 5) to ASETREK’s geophysical attributes. The substantial difference in slope and elevation resulted in only one fewer point in the study’s accounting.” A/ As we noted in recital (considerando) #7, the weighting of the indicators may alter the final rating, and this is one of the limitations of the methodology used. Dr. Lobo’s concern is genuine, in the sense that the scoring system could obscure differences between environments. It is precisely for this reason that our study includes actions such as: (1) separating the analyses among the different types of cover; (2) including biodiversity analyses in addition to habitat-structure analyses; and (3) recommending other areas for compensation. To a large extent, obsessing over the methodology used causes one to lose sight of what is intended here: (1) to determine whether the environment of one area can be compensated for by that of another; and (2) to determine how much of the area must be used for compensation. • “Another example of how the study’s accounting overlooked important elements was the quantification of the importance of water sources.

On page 105 of the study, in the section entitled ‘Water Sources,’ it states that two water sources were identified at the study sites: Quebrada Viscoyol and Quebrada sin nombre. Later, on the same page, they conclude: ‘Our field observations lead us to conclude that, in terms of water sources, access to them, and output, the two sites are similar. Therefore, following the criteria set out in Table 16, ASETREK receives a score of 3 points for this indicator.’ Nevertheless, on page 183 of the report, when attempting to explain the smaller number of fish species at ASETREK, those responsible for the ichthyofauna analysis acknowledge: ‘This notable difference in composition possibly reflects differences in elevation and in the characteristics of the aquatic microenvironments between the sites compared: the RBLB site has a larger number of pools and backwaters, as well as deeper ones, whereas in the stream system at the ASETREK compensation site, the water is shallower as it flows.

This type of observation is repeated at the end of the study (page 214), where it states: “The ASETREK compensation site has no permanent streams….” Although these differences were not quantified, it is clear that surface water persists longer in RBLB, an effect that is especially noticeable during the dry-season months.’ The presence of a water source that persists longer during the dry season is an extremely important element in dry-forest ecology and should have affected the score to a greater extent. Nevertheless, apart from the differences in ichthyofauna, the effect of this variable was indirect and was not accounted for directly.” A/ Let us recall that Quebrada Viscoyol forms the boundary between the ASETREK property and Lomas de Barbudal. The stream is not permanent, but rather seasonal or intermittent depending on the year. Dr. Lobo correctly observes that there is a discrepancy between our quantification of surface water and the ichthyofauna results.

Nevertheless, let us recall that, under our methodology, the weighting of the indicators is established before the study is conducted. When we quantified the water, we did not find major differences between the sites. The scores assigned are similar. In the case of ichthyofauna, however, we did observe differences. Here, the scores assigned differ, “penalizing” the less diverse site. Although it is true that, in our judgment, these differences must be attributable to the bodies of water, rescoring the bodies-of-water category would not be appropriate. • “One more example of this problem: Chapter 4.2, ‘Other Compensation Alternatives,’ acknowledges that ASETREK has been subject to recurrent logging and fires, an observation that had not previously appeared or been quantified elsewhere in the study.” A/ This assertion by Dr. Lobo is incorrect and indicates a certain degree of intent. Both the Lomas de Barbudal study site and ASETREK have been subject to recent fires, as stated on pages 67, 81, and 97 of our report.

Figure 23B on page 98 of our report shows a burned tree trunk at the potential inundation site within the reserve. Both environments are highly degraded by fire and hunting, as the report also indicates. • “Finally, variables related to the landscape significance of Lomas de Barbudal were not considered, such as which ecosystems are protected and how much remains of those ecosystems in the province of Guanacaste. It might be possible to conclude that Lomas de Barbudal protects ‘ecosystems at risk of extinction,’ based on the following statement in the study’s conclusions: ‘The reserve is located within the Río Tempisque Watershed and protects remnants of natural environments that have virtually disappeared from their surroundings, such as riparian forests and mature lowland dry forest.’ This categorization does not appear anywhere else in the study. It would have been useful to know how much ‘mature lowland dry forest’ and how many ‘riparian forests’ remain in the province of Guanacaste in order to assess the site within its landscape context.” A/ RBLB does indeed perform an extremely important function in protecting these environments.

It would be useful to quantify the types of cover remaining in Guanacaste, but that is not the purpose of the study. • “1.1.5 The initial theoretical framework is abandoned in order to make final adjustments in the study’s conclusions. Ultimately, the authors warn that the ASETREK property is insufficient to compensate for the loss of habitat at Lomas de Barbudal, a fact that could have been corroborated through more comprehensive analyses and not necessarily through tables. The authors do not appear satisfied with the Habitat/Hectare equation, despite its being the study’s theoretical framework. This calculation gives rise to the recommendation to purchase 252 hectares (the figure of 330 hectares is subsequently mentioned on page 208) of the ASETREK property in order to equalize the final scores. Nevertheless, the authors acknowledge that ASETREK has no riparian forests and therefore propose, without detailed studies, an additional compensation area that does contain this habitat.

This raises the question of how the recommendation of 252 or 330 hectares of ASETREK is justified, given that they now contemplate adding another property whose score was neither calculated nor, much less, deducted from the number of hectares originally proposed.” A/ Indeed, the habitat/hectare method (método de hábitat/hectárea) applied concludes that approximately 330 hectares are required as compensation. The study could have ended there under the approved methodology. Nevertheless, in order to maximize the benefit, we proposed incorporating Brindis de Amor for the reasons stated above. This does not mean that we doubt the selected methodology, but rather that we are aware of its limitations. Let us recall that, if compensation is required, we must maximize the environmental benefit. • “It must be emphasized that, despite those doubts, the authors maintain a categorical conclusion regarding the feasibility of the compensation: ‘7.

Despite differences in environmental quality, it is possible to compensate for the losses at the potential inundation site in RBLB by incorporating the habitats assessed at ASETREK (and other sites, as indicated below).’ There is no justification for this conclusion, particularly when the authors’ own assessments cast doubt on whether the areas are equivalent.” A/ That interpretation of our conclusions is incorrect. Both the inundation site within the reserve and the ASETREK site consist of degraded environments dominated by early-successional deciduous cover, as indicated in Table 12 of our report (page 66). We used the Habitat/Hectare methodology, seeking to maximize the contrast between the sites. It results in compensation of approximately 330 hectares. That is factual and would be fair under the methodology followed. Nevertheless, the principle of maximizing environmental benefits leads us to use other criteria to select areas that could be added to that compensation proposal.

Brindis de Amor and Ciruelas possess characteristics that make them valuable from a conservation standpoint. Their incorporation into the compensation plan is recommended. We should not expect our Habitat/Hectare methodology to resolve this. The criteria are different but equally valid. The fundamental problem with the detractors of our study is that they are obsessed with the methodology followed and lose sight of what is being proposed. In response to the question, “Can the environment in RBLB that would be inundated by the reservoir be compensated for?” the answer is yes. But better compensation would result from adding other areas. • “At the end of the study, the possibility is presented of adding the ‘Brindis de Amor’ property, with a total area of 86 hectares, because it contains 15.8 hectares of riparian forest in the northern sector of Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal. This area would be added to the 252 hectares of ASETREK as an additional area that would compensate for the loss of Lomas de Barbudal’s riparian forest due to inundation.

This would add a strip of forest, like an isolated peninsula, in the northern part of the Reserve (Figure 51 of the study). The authors acknowledge that the analysis of this additional fragment was superficial (page 213) and that the extensive physical and biological inventories conducted at ASETREK were not performed there. It may be observed that ‘Brindis de Amor’ would remain an island isolated from the rest of the Reserve, creating a more elongated and narrow configuration in Barbudal’s northern sector, which would be inadvisable because of the significant edge effect that this section of the reserve would experience.” A/ In fact, the desire to avoid creating that peninsula is what led us, together with SINAC, to request the incorporation of that area of Hacienda Ciruelas. In our report, however, we acknowledge the efforts made on the latter property to preserve the forest fragments, such that, if it cannot be incorporated directly, an arrangement could be considered to ensure the continued preservation of the forest. • “1.1.6 The Río Piedras Reservoir as part of the compensation.

At the end of the study, a new idea is added: considering the Río Piedras Reservoir as part of the compensation for the inundated area of Lomas de Barbudal, since it could be declared a wetland (humedal) under the Wildlife Refuge category (Refugio de Vida Silvestre), thereby creating a new protected area that could be counted as part of the compensation.

NO FURTHER DETAILS ARE PROVIDED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESERVOIR AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. It would involve an exchange between two entirely different ecosystems (a forest ecosystem for a wetland). The idea is underdeveloped in the study. Furthermore, this proposal disregards the environmental impacts of the reservoir, including those on the Piedras River itself (see Section 2. Environmental Impacts Not Addressed by the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EIA)).” A/ No. There is no intention to replace an area containing terrestrial environments with an area containing aquatic environments. What our text clearly suggests is that, just as ASETREK+Brindis+Ciruelas is being considered, the Reservoir could also be added as part of the compensation. • “1.1.7 Biological compensation or transfer of land to the State? The information provided by the OET compensation study shows that most of the area of the ASETREK, Brindis de Amor, and Ciruelas properties is covered by different types of forest ecosystems (mature, secondary, or deciduous forests).

These are existing forest areas representing forest remnants or regeneration following the intense historical period of deforestation in the province of Guanacaste between the 1950s and the 1990s, a process that has shifted toward secondary regeneration over the last 10–20 years (see, for example: Calvo-Alvarado et al. 2009. “Deforestation and forest restoration in Guanacaste, Costa Rica: Putting conservation policies in context.” Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 931–940). The owners of the ASETREK property have expressed an interest in selling their properties to the State or keeping them under forest cover (cobertura forestal) for tourism or conservation purposes (as in the case of the Brindis de Amor property). It seems highly likely that, under a protection-incentive program (PSA, ecotourism projects) and current forestry legislation, these forests are not subject to imminent or immediate land-use change (cambio de uso de suelo).” A/ As Dr. Lobo states, one might assume that Pago de Servicios Ambientales could provide an incentive to maintain the existing cover on those properties.

However, this is an assumption. PSA arrangements are temporary, and it cannot be guaranteed that this funding will always be available. Moreover, we ourselves documented the impact that the owner of ASETREK was having on its forest cover (cobertura boscosa) once the PSA period ended (p. 98, Figure 23A of our report), showing that this strategy is not entirely effective. • “On the other hand, if the forest cover in the part of the Piedras River basin that will be affected by the PAACUME project is viewed before and after the project’s implementation, it can be calculated that there will be a drastic net reduction in forest cover (a loss of 450 hectares of forest cover, transformed into a body of water), with no foreseeable increase in forest cover in the coming years. Although 459 hectares of forest on private properties would be transferred to the State under the compensation program, this does not alter the overall picture of a net loss of forest cover.

No genuine biological compensation is taking place, merely a transfer of land between different owners. This transfer would be acceptable as compensation if the private lands were at risk of losing their cover, which does not appear likely. Ultimately, the outcome for the species within the future reservoir is a drastic loss of habitat, with no possibility for their present and future populations to occupy new areas comparable in size to those lost due to the reservoir’s flooding.” A/ Here we agree with Dr. Lobo. The impact on environments outside the RBLB must be assessed and compensated for. We fully agree on this point. It should be noted, however, that this must form part of the Environmental Impact Study because it concerns environments outside the reserve. • “It would seem more logical for a compensation program to add NEW forest areas to the RBLB or to private properties, thereby establishing a balance between habitat loss and habitat gain.

Compensating for forest areas within a protected area with other forest areas outside the protected area does not appear to be an exchange that results in genuine ecological compensation for wildlife species, but merely territorial compensation for a protected area—a laudable but insufficient objective.” A/ We agree that redress for the losses that the project as a whole would cause must include compensation for losses within Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal as well as losses outside it. This must be included in the project’s compensation plan. · “1.1.8 General conclusions regarding the OET study. The report provided by OET is insufficient to define the change to the boundaries of Lomas de Barbudal and does not demonstrate that this change will be fully compensated for by additional areas in other parts of the Reserve. The ASETREK property, studied in greater detail by the consultants, is ultimately acknowledged to be insufficient to justify the land exchange, and other nearby properties are hastily invoked to balance the compensation—an exercise that, in my opinion, lacks seriousness because it is not properly substantiated.

Furthermore, the environmental impacts of the Piedras River reservoir on the Biological Reserve and on all wetland ecosystems of Bajo Tempisque must be determined before the flooding of a portion of Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal and, more generally, of the ecosystems affected by the future PAACUME reservoir is accepted.” (See Anexos 5 A y 5 B to this constitutional challenge).” A/ The reasoning behind the annexation of the other properties has already been explained. And the compensation study continues to be conflated with the environmental impact study. Perhaps what lacks seriousness is rendering judgments from behind a desk without knowing the sites involved in this debate. We invite Dr. Lobo to visit the southern part of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal so that he may see the actual condition of the environment there. “As may be observed from the discussion in this section, the OET Study of June 2017 fails to demonstrate, through a scientific and individualized analysis, the degree of impact of removing 113 hectares from the RBLB’s protected status (desafectación).” A/ As previously stated and repeatedly explained, the Baseline Study (Estudio de Línea Base) is being confused with the Environmental Impact Study.

SUMMARY AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS. The OET study attempts to determine the losses at the flooding site of the Piedras River reservoir in the southeastern portion of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and the potential environmental value of a property with similar cover adjacent to the site. The criticisms and observations concerning the study conducted by OET are based primarily on objections to the method used to quantify the compensation area and on a poor understanding of why other areas should be annexed to provide redress for the damage. The study’s critics clearly hold a predetermined position and will find objections under that or any other methodology. This judgment is confirmed by the fact that the personnel of the Escuela de Biología who so vehemently criticize our procedures offer no proposal regarding how compensation should be carried out, what methodology should be followed, or even what possible alternatives to the project could be considered.

The procedure followed in our report, which includes applying the habitat/hectare method and weighing criteria concerning the importance of adjoining properties in order to achieve a compensation plan that we consider satisfactory, maximizes the differences between the impact site within the reserve and the potential compensation sites. Nevertheless, merely examining the cover and the information from our fauna and flora analyses is sufficient to show that most of the environment at these sites is relatively similar, which justifies using them to calculate the area to be compensated for. If the reservoir project is carried out, our work will have provided information not only about losses within the reserve but also a potential starting point for compensating for them. The figures presented in our report should not be interpreted as absolute, but rather as the minimum that should be required to compensate for losses caused by the impact of flooding in this protected area.

The discussion of whether the PAACUME project and its resulting reservoir on the Piedras River are beneficial for Guanacaste must address all relevant dimensions and must not be based on the possibility of replacing the boundaries of the biological reserve or on the mechanism used to do so. Likewise, whether the boundaries of protected wildlife areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) should be modified is a matter for analysis and discussion independently of methodological proposals regarding how such modifications should be made. Finally, our study presents scientific and objective work that not only validates a compensation area but also sets out a series of recommendations for consideration by decision-makers.”

1. 27By written submission incorporated into the digital case file at 10:12 hours on 9 de junio de 2020, Mahmood Sasa Marín enters an appearance. He states that the requested email address is [email protected].

2 8.- By written submission incorporated into the digital case file at 6:40 hours on 11 de junio de 2020, Mahmood Sasa Marín enters an appearance. He states that he has not received information for connecting to the oral hearing (vista oral).

1. 29On 11 de junio de 2020, the scheduled hearing was held.
2. 30By written submission received by the Secretaría de la Sala at 15:55 hours on 15 de junio de 2020, Patricia Quirós Quirós enters an appearance in her capacity as general manager of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas. She states that, following the conclusion of the hearing, she must provide the following clarifications: “I. THE SITE KNOWN AS THE RÍO PIEDRAS CROSSING IS THE ONLY LOCATION WHERE THE RESERVOIR CAN TECHNICALLY BE BUILT. Since the 1970s, technical studies have been conducted with the aim of taking advantage of the difference in elevation between the point where the Canal Oeste reaches the Río Piedras and the point where it leaves it in order to build a reservoir; this has been under analysis for approximately forty years and was included as such in the Plan Maestro del Proyecto de Riego de la Cuenca Baja del Río Tempisque in mil novecientos setenta y ocho. In 1984, SENARA expanded the studies of the Embalse Río Piedras through the Consorcio BEL-TAHAL, a study that reinforced the intention to use the reservoir to store and regulate water originating from the Laguna del Arenal. Subsequently, a series of studies have been conducted regarding the availability of water resources (recurso hídrico) in the Río Tempisque basin and the coastal area of Guanacaste, including:1) 2002 Estudio de Desarrollo Rural de la cuenca del Río Tempisque, prepared by the Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA);2) 2008 Convenio entre SENARA y el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, to prepare a pre-feasibility study (estudio de pre factibilidad) entitled "Incremento de la disponibilidad del recurso hídrico en la cuenca del Río Tempisque y zona costera de Guanacaste"; and3) 2010 Estudio de factibilidad y diseño preliminar para la construcción de la presa Embalse Río Piedras. In 2014, Decreto Ejecutivo N° 38665-MP-MIDEPLA-MINAE-MAG of 12 de noviembre del 2014 was issued, creating a commission to lead the Proyecto de Agua para Guanacaste (Pacífico Norte), known as PIAAG, which encompassed four fundamental pillars: water security for communities, food security, water needs for ecosystems, and sustainable-use management. Within the framework of that project, SENARA proposed the creation of the PAACUME project to advance the pre-investment process and subsequent implementation of the project. Within the framework of the study conducted by ICAA in 2006, whose objective was to identify and analyze alternatives that would make it possible to supply drinking and irrigation water to communities, tourism projects, and agricultural areas located in the Río Tempisque basin and the northern coastal areas of the Península de Nicoya, the following potential proposals were identified:1) Orosi Diversion, but it presented problems involving flow rates below 100 l/s during most of the year, and during the dry season the flow of the rivers in that sector is less than 1 m3/s.;2) Dos Ríos Diversion. In this case, there were problems involving contamination by toxic minerals, limiting the use of the water for human consumption and agriculture;3) Santa María Diversion. The maximum contribution from the Río Jalapiedras would be 1 m3/s, entailing a high economic and environmental cost because it would have to cross a park area with unstable soils and steep slopes, resulting in high maintenance costs for the works;4) La Cueva Dam. Implementation of this dam poses problems because it would require flooding a significant environmental protection area, relocating the community of Irigaray and a section of the Inter-American Highway, and would also present environmental problems in its operation;5) PAACUME. In this case, water originating from the Embalse Arenal and the remaining water from the DRAT (Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque) would be conveyed to the reservoir on the Río Piedras, then carried along the right bank of the Río Tempisque and distributed to areas suitable for agricultural and livestock production (18.639 hectáreas), used to irrigate green areas for tourism projects from the Golfo de Papagayo to Pinilla, and supplied to aqueducts in the cantons of Carillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya, providing drinking water for approximately 500.000 people over the next 50 años; it would improve the socioeconomic development of the province of Guanacaste, making PAACUME the best option for sustainably supplying water for multiple uses. (see pages 14 to 27 of the Feasibility Study) Furthermore, according to technical studies conducted by ICE pursuant to inter-administrative contract SENANA-ICE-MINAE 201600011 and its addenda, Río Piedras has ideal conditions for the construction of a large-capacity reservoir, given the area’s topography, the elevation of the first section of the Canal Oeste, and the elevation of the lands that will be irrigated in the second section of the canal. (see pages 141 et seq. of the Feasibility Study) II. THE STUDY OF THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS HACIENDA CIRUELAS AND BRINDIS DE AMOR HAD THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF EXAMINING FORESTRY MATTERS IN ORDER TO OFFSET THE RIPARIAN FOREST AREA. The need to flood 113 hectáreas of the RBLB led to the preparation of a biodiversity baseline study (estudio de línea de Base de Biodiversidad) for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. That study was conducted by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales OET to determine the ecological integrity, significance, and fragility of the ecosystems present, as well as the biodiversity existing within the RBLB area affected by the Embalse Río Piedras, while also conducting studies on the adjoining ASETREK TRES AZUL S.A. property, which was selected because of its connectivity with the reserve. Although the proposed ASETREK area comprised 444.04 hectáreas to offset the 113 hectáreas of the RBLB that would be flooded, the OET study determined that a shortfall in the offsetting riparian forest area needed to be remedied. Accordingly, together with officials from OET and SINAC, a second potential offset property was identified on the northwestern boundary of the reserve, registered to 3-101-734726 S.A. (Brindis de Amor), and that property was determined to contain 15.87 hectáreas of riparian forest. The offset proposal (ASETREK and 3-101-734726 S.A.) was submitted to MINAE for processing under Articles 71 and 72 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad; however, CORAC considered the proposed riparian forest area insufficient and therefore proposed covering the difference with the Hacienda Ciruelas property. Thus, the offset proposal for the RBLB would comprise 444 .04 hectáreas belonging to ASETREK TRES AZUL S.A., 80.20 hectáreas belonging to 3-101-734726 S.A., and 25 hectáreas belonging to Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. (see pages 293 to 300 of the Feasibility Study) III. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE RESERVA BIOLÓGICA LOMAS DE BARBUDAL RESULTING FROM THE LAND-USE CHANGE (CAMBIO DE USO) OF THE 113 HECTÁREAS THAT WOULD BE FLOODED IS ADDRESSED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (ESTUDIO DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL) FOR THE PAACUME PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY SETENA. Between 2016 and 2017, work was undertaken on the Environmental Impact Study, prepared by ICE pursuant to inter-institutional contract SENANA-ICE-MINAE 201600011 and its addenda. The Environmental Impact Study was submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental on 07 de diciembre del 2017, expediente número D1-21601-2017-SETENA. Among other matters, the study contains the definition of the area of influence, the project’s impacts, the methodology for identifying and assessing impacts, corrective or mitigation measures, a management plan, and environmental commitments. The Environmental Impact Study is under review by SETENA, and on 25 febrero del 2020, the SOLE ANNEX (ANEXO UNICO) to the study was submitted in compliance with the SETENA requirements contained in resolución 1338-2019 SETENA. IV. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR REMOVING THE 113 HECTÁREAS OF THE RESERVA BIOLÓGICA LOMAS DE BARBUDAL FROM PROTECTED STATUS AND CHANGING THEIR LAND USE WAS A PREREQUISITE FOR APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR THE PAACUME PROJECT. The Environmental Impact Study for the PAACUME Project submitted to SETENA for approval includes, among the project’s components, the flooding of 113 hectáreas forming part of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. Consequently, for SETENA to approve that study, legislative authorization was required to remove those 113 hectáreas from the protection regime applicable to a biological reserve and change their use to that of a reservoir, which, as provided in Ley No. 9610, would become a reservoir for which SINAC would define the environmental protection measures and which would, in all circumstances, remain under the administration and supervision of SINAC with respect to environmental matters. For that reason, Ley No. 9610, which authorizes the removal from protected status (desafectación), establishes approval of the EsIA as an indispensable prerequisite for its implementation, since that approval is necessary for the comprehensive implementation of the PAACUME Project. The project could not be implemented without approval of the Environmental Impact Study, which requires, as an indispensable condition, legislative authorization for the land-use change of the aforementioned 113 hectáreas. V. OFFER OF EVIDENCE TO ASSIST IN REACHING A DECISION As requested at the hearing held on 11 de junio del 2020, and for the corresponding purposes, the following are hereby submitted as evidence: the Feasibility Study prepared by SENARA in octubre del 2017, the Environmental Impact Study of Octubre 2017, and the SOLE ANNEX of febrero del 2020.”
3. 31By resolution issued at 14:50 hours on 17 de junio de 2020, the President of the Asamblea Legislativa was requested to provide a certified copy of expediente legislativo n.o 20.465, which gave rise to ley n.o 20.465.

3 2.- By written submission received by the Secretaría de la Sala at 14:11 hours on 23 de junio de 2020, Eduardo Newton Cruickshank Smith enters an appearance in his capacity as President of the Asamblea Legislativa. He submits a certified copy of expediente legislativo n.o 20.465, which gave rise to ley n.o 20.465.

3 3.- By written submission added to the digital case file at 12:51 hours on 2 de julio de 2020, the petitioners enter an appearance. They state that, after analyzing the evidence submitted by the OET, the Asamblea Legislativa, and SENARA, as well as the participation of those who attended the oral hearing, they make the following observations: “I- OBSERVATIONS ON THE TECHNICAL STUDY FOR REMOVING THE RBLB’S PROTECTED STATUS The case law of the Sala Constitucional has extensively developed the principle of non-reduction (principio de irreductibilidad) of protected wildlife areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), under which this type of protected space may not be reduced or modified unless the requirements established for that purpose are met. The foregoing is clearly related to the principles of non-regression in environmental matters (no regresión en materia ambiental), evidence-based environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental), prevention (preventivo), and precaution (precautorio).

One of the essential requirements is as follows: Before the law is approved, sufficient technical studies must be available to justify the measure. In its case law, the Sala Constitucional has established that those technical studies must, at a minimum: 1- conduct a scientific and individualized analysis of the degree of environmental impact caused by the proposed removal of protected status (desafectación) from a protected wildlife area; 2- conduct a study of the land adjacent to the protected area whose protected status is to be removed in order to determine which land offers the best conditions for compensating for the hectares that would lose protected status; 3- set forth recommendations aimed at mitigating the adverse environmental impact; 4- demonstrate how removing protected status from the hectares entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and 5- satisfy the requirement that the area removed be compensated for with another area of equal size and characteristics.

The questions we must therefore answer are the following: Are there sufficient technical studies to justify the measure removing protected status from 113 hectares of the RBLB, with the resulting impact on Humedal de Palo Verde, which is internationally protected under the Convención de RAMSAR? Does the Study prepared by the OET, whose terms of reference were established by SENARA, an entity devoted to Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage, satisfy the criteria established by the Sala Constitucional? Does that Study demonstrate, through a scientific and individualized analysis, the degree of environmental impact caused by removing protected status from those 113 hectares of the RBLB? Does it set forth recommendations aimed at mitigating the adverse environmental impact? Does it demonstrate how removing protected status from the 113 hectares entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs?

Does it satisfy the requirement that the area removed from the RBLB be compensated for with another area of equal size and characteristics? • CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OET STUDY The study contained in the legislative case file, entitled “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property,” which was conducted by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF REFERENCE DEFINED BY SENARA (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento), was intended to determine the biological and geophysical characteristics of the RBLB area that would be replaced by the reservoir area and to assess the biodiversity components on ONE adjacent property belonging to ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., selected by SENARA without any technical criteria, in order to evaluate its potential to compensate for the affected RBLB area.

The study was not intended to search the land adjoining the RBLB for a compensatory area with environmental characteristics as similar as possible to those of the area to be flooded. In other words, that study was intended to determine whether the RBLB area whose protected status would be removed could be compensated for with one particular property, which was the property studied; incidentally, the studies were conducted on an area of 114 hectares of that property, which measures more than 700 hectares. SENARA was the entity that determined that the study should be conducted on that portion of the ASETREK property. The OET study did NOT conduct a scientific and individualized analysis of the degree of environmental impact caused by removing protected status from the 113 hectares of that Reserva Biológica. The OET study did NOT examine the land adjacent to the RBLB to determine which property offered the best conditions for compensating for the 113 hectares whose protected status would be removed from the Reserva Biológica.

SENARA should have conducted a technical study to identify the properties whose biological characteristics were most similar to those of the 113 hectares whose protected status would be removed from the RBLB. In our constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad), we provided information on several such properties. SENARA even acknowledges this by submitting official letter SINAC-CORACAT- SE-041 with its response, in which page 47 of SENARA’s submission records the statements made by Mr. Wilfrán Murillo, who stated that “the opportunity could be used to redefine the boundaries of Lomas with respect to other land that is neither ASETREK nor Brindis de Amor. It would be an opportunity to add the land that INDER has transferred to SINAC.” That issue is relevant because, as we stated in our constitutional challenge, compensation for the area to be flooded could have been considered by changing the classification of land belonging to public entities adjacent to the RBLB and incorporating it within the boundaries of the Reserva Biológica.

It is highly likely that such land had better ecological conditions than the privately owned land that there has been persistent insistence on incorporating into the RBLB, without requiring the expenditure of money for the intended expropriations (expropiaciones). The OET study does NOT set forth recommendations aimed at mitigating the adverse environmental impact. The OET study does NOT demonstrate how removing protected status from the 113 hectares entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That OET study ultimately determined that, to compensate for the 113 hectares removed from the RBLB, 332 hectares of the ASETREK property should be included within the Reserva Biológica, without studying that area, since the study focused on 114 hectares. The OET study also mentions that, as compensation, the 86 hectares of the Brindis de Amor property should also be incorporated, without conducting the appropriate study of that property’s characteristics, and that the Río Piedras reservoir should likewise be used as part of the compensation, again without any study.

A portion of the Hacienda Ciruelas SP property, on which NO study was conducted, is also incorporated as compensation for the RBLB area. The OET study recommended incorporating 332 hectares, and SENARA decided, without technical criteria, to incorporate 444 hectares of ASETREK. In addition, SENARA’s representative acknowledges, both at the hearing and in documentation submitted to the case file, that the inclusion of the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties in the compensation proposal was based on the recommendation of Mr. Manrique Montes Obando, Administrator of Lomas de Barbudal—that is, without technical criteria. That Study also fails to satisfy the requirement that the area removed from the RBLB be compensated for with another area of equal size and characteristics. • “ADMISSION BY A PARTY DISPENSES WITH THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE”: OPINION OF MAHMOOD SASA MARÍN, general coordinator of the Study prepared by the OET, through a document submitted as evidence to assist the court in reaching a decision (prueba para mejor proveer), as well as his participation in the hearing The OET representative stated the following at the beginning of his response to the Sala Constitucional: “In Costa Rica, the issue of environmental compensation (compensación ambiental) has not been sufficiently discussed, and there are no clear guidelines regarding when and how it should be carried out, which methodologies should be used, or how it should be evaluated.

Although we do have some laws and regulations that tangentially address the issue of compensation and refer to compensatory measures (medidas de compensación), the references to environmental redress (resarcimiento ambiental) in our legislation are very general, and the legal framework lacks specificity regarding compensation. We explain this in our report (pp. 32-37). As a result of this situation, there is little experience with environmental compensation, particularly compensation involving protected wildlife areas. In that sense, our study should be considered pioneering work in this field.” (underlining not in the original) It should be noted that the representative states that the OET study is the FIRST study of its kind conducted in the country and that it deals solely with ENVIRONMENTAL COMPENSATION. He continues by stating the following in his response to that Constitutional Court: “The study conducted by our team from the Organización para Estudios Tropicales, whose findings and recommendations are presented in the report ‘Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property,’ was intended to determine the biological and geophysical characteristics of an area within the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) protected zone that could potentially be flooded if the reservoir on the Río Piedras were built as part of SENARA’s PAACUME irrigation project.

In addition to this characterization, we were asked to assess the compensatory potential of an adjacent property, referred to in the report as ASETREK, if this impact were to occur. To conduct this assessment, our group selected a scoring-based methodology known as Habitat/Hectare. However, criteria other than those derived from this methodology were also used in proposing a compensation plan. Ours is a baseline and compensation study. Suggestions, observations, or criticisms concerning that study must focus on its scope and dimensions. Our study does not include, nor does it purport to include, an environmental impact assessment (valoración del impacto ambiental) of the Río Piedras reservoir project or the PAACUME Project. Nor does it constitute an assessment of the social approval of that project or its impacts. The objectives of the study followed the guidelines requested by SENARA in its ‘terms of reference’” (underlining not in the original) With regard to (sic) the incorporation of the BRINDIS DE AMOR and HACIENDA CIRUELAS properties, the OET representative clearly states that, in the case of the BRINDIS DE AMOR property, only a vegetation assessment was conducted, which was itself very superficial, and that the parcel in HACIENDA CIRUELAS was indeed not assessed.

He even states that the BRINDIS DE AMOR property was identified only after it had been decided to pursue compensation using ASETREK. In the document that the OET representative submitted to the Sala Constitucional as evidence to assist the court in reaching a decision, he focused on commenting on the observations made by intervenor Lobo regarding the OET study. It is noteworthy that the OET representative even agrees with intervenor Lobo on several of his observations, including the following, which are highly relevant to confirming the limited scope of the technical study prepared by the OET. Let us examine them: Dr.

Lobo stated the following in his intervention as an assisting party (coadyuvancia): “On the other hand, if the forest cover (cobertura forestal) in the portion of the río Piedras watershed that will be affected by the PAACUME project is examined before and after the project’s execution, it can be calculated that there will be a drastic net reduction in forest cover (the loss of 450 has of forest cover, transformed into a body of water), with no foreseeable increase in forest cover in the coming years. Although 459 has of forest within private properties would pass into State ownership through the compensation program, this does not alter the picture of a net loss of forest cover. No actual biological compensation is taking place, merely a transfer of land among different owners. This transfer would be acceptable as compensation if the private lands were under threat of losing their forest cover, a situation that does not appear likely.

Ultimately, the outcome for the species within the future reservoir is a drastic loss of habitat, with no possibility for their present and future populations to occupy new areas comparable in size to those lost (sic) through the flooding of the reservoir.” The OET representative stated that he agreed with that observation by Dr Lobo. In the document he submitted to this constitutional court, he indicated that the impact on environments outside the RBLB must indeed be assessed and compensated for, further emphasizing that this must form part of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), since it concerns environments outside the reserve. In that assertion, the OET representative clearly indicates the scope of the study commissioned by SENARA from the OET and that the environmental impact outside the RBLB should be addressed through another type of study. In another section of his intervention as an assisting party, Dr. Lobo states the following: “1.1.8 General conclusions regarding the OET study.

The report submitted by the OET is insufficient to define the change in the boundaries of Lomas de Barbudal, and it does not demonstrate that this change will be fully compensated for by additional areas in other sectors of the Reserve. The ASETREK property, studied in greater detail by the consultants, is ultimately acknowledged to be insufficient to justify the land exchange, and other nearby properties are hastily invoked to balance the compensation—an exercise that, in my view, lacks seriousness because it is not properly substantiated. Furthermore, the environmental impacts of the Río Piedras reservoir on the Biological Reserve and on all the wetland ecosystems of Bajo Tempisque must be understood before the flooding of a portion of the Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal and, more generally, of the ecosystems affected by the future PAACUME reservoir is accepted.” In response to that observation by the assisting party, the OET representative stated the following: “The rationale for annexing the other properties has already been explained.

And the compensation study continues to be conflated with the environmental impact study.” (underlining not in the original) Another observation made by Dr. Lobo in his intervention as an assisting party is the following: “As may be seen from the matters set out in this section, the OET Study of junio de 2017 fails to demonstrate, through a scientific and individualized analysis, the degree of impact resulting from the removal from protected status (desafectación) of 113 hectares of the RBLB.” In response to that observation, the OET representative again countered that Dr. Lobo was confusing the Baseline Study (Estudio de Línea Base) with the Environmental Impact Study. He thereby indicated that the study conducted by the OET was very limited in scope, since it was solely a study intended to compensate for the area of the RBLB to be flooded. On the other hand, we consider it important to highlight an answer given by the OET representative, in response to questions from the justices during the hearing, concerning the limitations of their study resulting from the time allowed to conduct it.

This was precisely one of the various criticisms raised by Dr. Lobo in his intervention as an assisting party and confirmed by the OET representative at the hearing. He clearly stated that the timeframe set by SENARA for conducting the study was too short to permit an in-depth study of all the biodiversity that would be irreparably affected by the flooding. It is because of what was stated in the preceding paragraphs that we say that an admission by a party dispenses with the need for proof. The OET representative acknowledged that their work was not a study of the environmental impact of the consequences or of the reasons for removing 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status. Their study was intended to compensate for the area to be flooded with other areas. He also indicated that they faced time limitations in conducting the research, that no study of any kind was conducted on the HACIENDA CIRUELAS property, and that only a very superficial vegetation study was conducted on the BRINDIS DE AMOR property (the biodiversity of that property in relation to insects, birds, mammals, fish in bodies of water, etc., was not studied). • PGR OPINION ON THE OET STUDY The Procuraduría stated that it could not technically assess the OET study or the manner in which the final proposal for compensating for the area removed from the RBLB was determined.

Nevertheless, the Procuraduría clearly indicated that, should the OET study and the final proposal for compensating for the protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) be found technically insufficient, the challenged law would be unconstitutional for violating the principle requiring objective substantiation of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental). However, the PGR also states that, even if the sufficiency of the OET study and the final compensation proposal is established, it must be noted that this technical study would justify only the validity of the compensation undertaken and, as such, is not a technical study (estudio técnico) directly justifying the decision to remove part of the RBLB from protected status. In other words, a STUDY TO COMPENSATE FOR AREAS is one thing, and a STUDY TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION TO REMOVE PROTECTED STATUS is another.

The Procuraduría is emphatic on this issue, stating that ... “in accordance with constitutional case law on the matter, the study required by artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente to justify the reduction of a protected wilderness area should be a study determining the necessity and advisability of adopting that type of measure.” (underlining and highlighting not in the original). The Procuraduría states that, if the necessity and advisability of removing 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status are not established, Ley 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of the irreducibility (irreductibilidad) of protected wilderness areas, objective substantiation of environmental protection, and non-regression (no regresión). THAT STUDY TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION TO REMOVE PROTECTED STATUS, AND TO DETERMINE THE NECESSITY AND ADVISABILITY OF ADOPTING THAT MEASURE, WAS NOT CONDUCTED AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD FOR THE LAW WE ARE CHALLENGING.

Additionally, the PGR has been very clear in stating the following: “If the OET study and the final proposal for compensating the RBLB are found technically insufficient, the challenged law would be unconstitutional for violating the principles requiring objective substantiation of environmental protection, precaution (precautorio), prevention (preventivo), and the irreducibility of protected wilderness areas, because there would be no guarantee that the approved alteration of the boundaries does not affect the integrity of the RBLB, and the environmental impact generated by the removal of part of that Biological Reserve from protected status would not be adequately mitigated. This would also be contrary to the obligation established by artículo 3 de la Convención RAMSAR to promote the conservation of wetlands included on the list of wetlands of international importance.” The PGR also states that it is necessary to “... assess whether sufficient technical support exists to justify the need to remove part of the RBLB from protected status so that it may be used in the execution of the PAACUME project.

If that basis is not established, Ley 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of the irreducibility of protected wilderness areas, objective substantiation of environmental protection, and non-regression, and because the reason of urgent national interest to which the Convención RAMSAR subjects the possibility of modifying the area of sites of international importance has not been established.” We wish to place particular emphasis, however, on the PGR’s observation regarding the event that the PAACUME project is not developed, at least not on the terms in which it is currently proposed. If, for any reason, the project is not developed and the expropriations necessary to carry out the proposed compensation are likewise not executed, Ley 9610 would have removed the RBLB from protected status in vain, without valid justification and without compensating for and mitigating the effects generated by that reduction.

This would constitute a violation of the principles of the irreducibility of protected wilderness areas, precaution, prevention, and non-regression, and even a violation of the Convención RAMSAR because there would be no reason of urgent necessity to justify reducing the area of one of the sites of international importance. • REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD REQUESTED AS EVIDENCE TO ASSIST THE COURT (PRUEBA PARA MEJOR PROVEER), IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPES OF STUDIES WERE SUBMITTED TO JUSTIFY REMOVING THE 113 HECTARES OF THE RBLB FROM PROTECTED STATUS, AS WELL AS THE DEPUTIES’ UNWILLINGNESS TO GRANT US A HEARING OR AT LEAST CONSIDER THE OBSERVATIONS WE SUBMITTED TO THEM IN WRITING, WHICH APPEAR IN THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD. A review of the legislative record, comprising more than 2.600 pages, shows that the only studies contained in that voluminous record are precisely the Study prepared by the OET; a PAACUME Project Profile Document prepared by SENARA (appearing from page 505 onward); and another document, also prepared by SENARA, concerning a consultation purportedly conducted in junio de 2017 in the communities near the reservoir that would be built in the Río Piedras area and would flood 850 hectares, of which 113 hectares belong to the RBLB.

It should be noted that 51 people attended the only assembly held to explain that project. In other words, SENARA consulted 51 people regarding the dam and reservoir project and the compensation proposal. (appearing from page 622 of the record onward). It is particularly striking that the residents neighboring the RBLB were not consulted, including us as representatives of HACIENDA CIRUELAS and BRINDIS DE AMOR. The intention is to flood 113 hectares of the RBLB, with which our properties share a boundary, yet we were not consulted. Nor were the other neighboring residents of the RBLB consulted. Moreover, as may be seen on pages 1500 and 1501, we, the undersigned, requested a hearing before the Comisión Especial Legislativa de Guanacaste, which processed the legislative file for the bill that became the law we are challenging. In that letter requesting a hearing, we informed the deputies on the Commission that the coordinates recorded in the bill in relation to the BRINDIS DE AMOR property were incomplete because they disregarded a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) across the 87 hectares providing access to another property enclosed within the geographical area of the BRINDIS DE AMOR property. The letter also informed them (sic) that no study of any kind existed regarding the Hacienda Ciruelas property.

Subsequently, and before the vote on second reading, we sent another letter to all the legislators, the President of the Republic, and the ministers of MINAE, MAG, PRESIDENCIA, and HACIENDA, pointing out to them that approval of the bill would entail expenditures for expropriations that could amount to approximately TEN MILLION DOLLARS and that other far less costly options existed, including State-owned lands whose management category could be changed so as to make them part of the RBLB, where protection of those lands would be absolute, comparable even to the management category of a National Park. Through that letter, which may be found in the legislative record at folios 1936 through 1955, we requested that the matter be returned to first reading so that the corresponding amendments could be made. Unfortunately, both legislators and members of the Executive Branch disregarded our request.

Regarding the requirements of environmental legislation and constitutional case law on the matter, the legislative record DOES NOT CONTAIN THE TECHNICAL STUDY REQUIRED TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT A PROTECTED WILDLIFE AREA SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM PROTECTED STATUS. That required study, which is not in the legislative record, must at least comply with the following guidelines established by that constitutional court and environmental legislation: 1.- conduct a scientific and individualized analysis of the degree of environmental impact resulting from the proposed removal of a protected wildlife area from protected status; 2.- conduct a study of the lands adjacent to the protected area to be removed from protected status in order to determine which land offers the best conditions for compensating for the hectares that would be removed from protected status; 3.- make recommendations aimed at mitigating the negative environmental impact; 4.- demonstrate how removing the hectares from protected status entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and 5.- comply with the requirement that the area eliminated be compensated for with another area of equal size and characteristics.

Not only is it absent from the legislative record, but it was also not provided to the Regional Council of the Tempisque Conservation Area (CORACAT), which, after the bill was approved on second reading and after the Legislative Assembly declined to extend the deadline for it to comment on the final version of the bill, stated, in a letter sent to the Secretariat of the Legislative Directorate for inclusion in the record, that “there must be sufficient environmental, legal, and financial technical studies to justify the proper selection both of the area to be removed from protected status and of the areas that would serve as compensation. The existence of these studies in the record of this bill must be verified, since as of this date this Council does not have such information.” (Official Letter No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 dated 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644 of the legislative record).

(Emphasis and underlining not in the original) II.- OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE RESPONSES OF PATRICIA QUIRÓS, SENARA REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE HEARING, AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY SENARA FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION A review of what the SENARA representative stated at the hearing, as well as the documents submitted as evidence for further consideration, makes it clear that it was SENARA that retained the OET. It was SENARA that established the time limit and terms of reference for the work to be performed by the OET. The Study for removing the 113 hectares from protected status was not conducted. What SENARA did was commission a study to compensate for the 113 hectares intended to be flooded with other lands selected by SENARA. What SENARA has—and what was not submitted in the legislative record—is a FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE PIEDRAS RIVER DAM prepared by ICE, which has nothing to do with the Study required to assess the removal of a protected wildlife area from protected status.

An Environmental Impact Study also exists, likewise prepared by ICE, but for the PAACUME project; it is also absent from the legislative record and, in any event, does not address the type of study required to remove a protected wildlife area from protected status. The Attorney General of the Republic himself, when answering several questions from the justices, clearly stated that such studies prepared by ICE are not the studies required to remove a protected wildlife area from protected status and that, moreover, ICE does not have such authority. Incidentally, there is a PGR opinion from approximately 5 years ago stating that ICE lacks legal authority to conduct activities outside the scope of its enabling law and amendments, as well as the law strengthening ICE. III.- OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF SUPPORTING INTERVENOR JORGE LOBO SEGURA AT THE HEARING Supporting intervenor Jorge Lobo Segura, a biologist and expert in the field, reiterated what he had stated in his supporting-intervention brief: “the OET report or study is insufficient and partial and incorporates an allegedly quantitative compensation principle under which changing the size of a compensation area can make it equivalent to the area lost within a protected area.

This is mistaken because the populations or species affected by the loss of a protected area will not necessarily appear in their original abundance in a compensation area, even if its size is increased many times over, where the compensation area lacks the habitats and resources required by those species or the population centers or sources for population migration that would ensure their repopulation. Drastic differences in habitat quality, particularly in the degree of human alteration of ecosystems, such as those detected between Lomas de Barbudal and the ASETREK property, are not offset by increasing the area of the latter. Inflating the area to compensate for reduced biodiversity will not result in the affected species being restored in the compensation area, especially if the habitats in the compensation area are very different from those in the affected area within the National Park or Biological Reserve.

The area of Lomas de Barbudal that will be flooded contains riparian forests and possibly other habitats not quantified by the study that are not represented in ASETREK.” For supporting intervenor Lobo, after an in-depth analysis of the Study conducted by the OET, it is clear that the study used to justify removing the 113 hectares of the RBLB from protected status DID NOT conduct a scientific and individualized analysis of the degree of environmental impact resulting from the removal of the 113 hectares of that Biological Reserve from protected status; DID NOT conduct a study of the lands adjacent to the RBLB to determine which land offered the best conditions for compensating for the 113 hectares that would be removed from the Biological Reserve; DID NOT make recommendations aimed at mitigating the negative environmental impact; DID NOT demonstrate how removing the 113 hectares from protected status entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; DID NOT comply with the requirement that the area eliminated from the RBLB be compensated for with another area of equal size and characteristics.

The most significant aspect of his participation at the hearing was his assertion that it would set a troubling precedent if the Legislative Assembly, SETENA, and the Constitutional Chamber considered this study valid. If that were so, it could open a loophole—or rather, a floodgate—that would encourage changes to the boundaries of additional protected areas on the basis of compensation with larger privately owned properties whose ecosystems are far more altered than those of the protected areas. Ecosystem accounting and the Habitat-per-Hectare method would endorse this type of compensation. It is therefore evident that the OET study and the final compensation proposal are insufficient and technically deficient, meaning that the challenged law would clearly violate the principle of irreducibility of protected wildlife areas because it would not ensure that the approved change in boundaries does not affect the integrity of the RBLB, and the environmental impact generated by removing part of that Biological Reserve from protected status would not be adequately mitigated.

Consequently, the precautionary principle and the preventive principle would be violated, and there would be no technical support establishing that the adopted legislative measure does not affect the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. IV.- OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, THE MINISTER OF MINAE, AND THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK The President of the Republic and his ministers stated that Guanacaste’s water supply depends on this project, asserting that without the PAACUME project there will be no water for human consumption, nor will there be water for agriculture or for residential, commercial, and tourism-related real-estate developments in the middle Tempisque basin and the coastal communities of Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. We believe that through this assertion they seek to exert psychological and social pressure on the justices hearing this constitutional challenge, attempting to place them in a position where, if they rule in favor of the constitutional challenge, they would be depriving those cantons in the province of Guanacaste of water and seriously harming their development.

Let us examine why their assertions are untrue. First, the PAACUME project itself states that only 10% of the water produced will be used to meet drinking-water consumption needs. This point is highly relevant because the arguments advanced by SENARA, and particularly those advanced by SINAC of MINAE, refer to two public purposes of equal importance: the conservation and environmental protection of the RBLB, on the one hand, and access to drinking water, on the other. An analysis of all the documentation supporting the PAACUME project leads to the conclusion that, of the 20 cubic meters per second that would be conveyed to the right bank of the Tempisque River to supply water to the cantons of Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya, ONLY 10 %, THAT IS, 2 CUBIC METERS PER SECOND, IS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AS DRINKING WATER. Second, it has been widely publicized that PAACUME will benefit tourism; however, only 7.5% of the water volume would supposedly be allocated for that purpose.

A clarification must nevertheless be made regarding the use of that water, since it is intended for the IRRIGATION of tourism-related properties, not for human consumption, which would fall within the 10% mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This means that 82.5% of the water produced by the PAACUME project will be allocated to agricultural irrigation, particularly monocultures operated by large-scale producers. Thus, their assertions are false, and the information is also entirely devoid of context, since the actual drinking-water requirements of the cantons of Nicoya, Santa Cruz, and Guanacaste are very different today from what they were when SENARA conceived that project much more than 10 years ago. When SENARA conceived the PAACUME project, there were drinking-water supply problems in Carrillo and Santa Cruz, BUT those problems have since been resolved through aqueducts that the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewerage Systems (ICAA) took many years to construct. We refer to the SARDINAL–EL COCO–OCOTAL aqueducts in the canton of Carrillo and the NIMBOYORES aqueduct in the canton of Santa Cruz.

Together, the two aqueducts will supply drinking water to 80.000 people for the next 50 years, in addition to the 140.000 people who already receive drinking water through ASADAS. That covers the entire population of those cantons. Additionally, the operation of a desalination plant in Playa Conchal has already been authorized to meet the water requirements of real estate and tourism development in that area of the cantón de Santa Cruz. The cost of both wells and aqueducts was a fraction of the cost of the PAACUME megaproject, which is estimated to exceed the projected $500 million dollars for the development of the PAACUME project, including the construction of a dam to impound water and then channel it through 350 kilómetros of canals. Moreover, it is appropriate to refer once again to the statements made by the organization known as "Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de Costa Rica," which notes that the PAACUME project is "sold" as a project that will save Guanacaste because of the reservoir that would be built within the Reserva Biológica, but fails to mention that the water is already impounded in Lago Arenal, the country’s largest reservoir, which has that as one of its purposes, already supplies water to the left bank of the Río Tempisque basin, and could also supply water to the rest of the province of Guanacaste.

Why is it not used directly? That would entail changing the design of the PAACUME project, as SENARA’s own officials acknowledge, in the sense that, if they cannot use the 113 hectáreas of the RBLB for flooding, they would then have to modify the project to impound a smaller quantity of water and supplement it with other measures. As we can see, it is indeed possible to deliver drinking and irrigation water to the right bank of the Tempisque without taking 113 hectáreas of great ecological value away from the RBLB. It is also appropriate to revisit what the supporting intervenor (coadyuvante) Lobo stated on this matter when indicating that "...no studies have been submitted in the legislative record addressing other options, such as completing the construction of the remaining irrigation canals in order to use the water from the Arenal reservoir, nor are there any studies on the water capacity of the aquifers available for exploitation in the cantones de Nicoya, Santa Cruz y Carrillo." It is therefore improper to lead the Sala Constitucional and public opinion to believe that two public purposes of equal standing are at issue here (access to drinking water, which in any event would account for 10% of the total water from the PAACUME project, and environmental protection through a Reserva Biológica that is unique in the country and even enjoys international protection).

If public purposes are to be weighed against each other, they should therefore be WATER FOR IRRIGATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION—specifically, the protection of a RESERVA BIOLÓGICA UNIQUE IN COSTA RICA, with a protection category equivalent to that of a PARQUE NACIONAL, which also forms part of the Humedal de Palo Verde and consequently receives additional international protection. • ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS FOR DELIVERING IRRIGATION WATER TO THE MIDDLE BASIN OF THE RIO TEMPISQUE AND DRINKING WATER TO THE CANTONES DE NICOYA, SANTA CRUZ Y CARRILLO, OR IS THE PAACUME PROJECT THE ONLY OPTION? According to the legislative record and the documents submitted in this constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad), SENARA itself states on page 8 of its response to our constitutional challenge that there is no possibility of relocating or reducing the volume of the reservoir without significantly affecting the scope of PAACUME.

What does this mean? That other ways do exist to deliver water to the right bank of the río Tempisque, but the project would have to be redesigned. In fact, one of the PAACUME project’s most striking justifications was the issue of access to drinking water for the inhabitants of the cantones de Santa Cruz, Nicoya y Carrillo. On page 9 of its response, it even dramatically states that PAACUME will deliver water to SARDINAL de Carrillo, thereby showing that SENARA’s representatives are out of date on that issue because, as we have previously noted, that water shortage was resolved by ICAA. The other justification—water for irrigating coastal tourism projects—is also already being addressed by ICAA, which authorized one of those tourism projects to use desalinated seawater. As can be seen, the needs have changed. PAACUME is therefore not about drinking water. That issue, which in any event represents 10% of PAACUME’s total water, was already resolved by ICAA.

Thus, everything comes down to adversely affecting the RBLB in order to permit the development of that project to irrigate land belonging to tourism developments (which could be irrigated using desalinated seawater) and to use water for agricultural projects. Clearly, no study was conducted to determine whether there was another option for delivering water to the right bank of the río Tempisque. In the document entitled "Mandatory Consultation with Local Communities. Compensation Proposal for the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal" ("Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal") (appearing at Folios 622-726 of the legislative record), in response to one of the questions asked by a participant, SENARA’s representative at that event stated that "if the 113 hectáreas of the RBLB cannot be obtained, the project changes completely, because without these 113 hectáreas of the RBLB, the conditions of the dam, the quantity of water to be impounded, the cost of the project, and the design would all have to change completely." (see Folio 661 of the legislative record).

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? That it is indeed possible to deliver water to the middle basin of the río Tempisque and to coastal communities, but the design of the PAACUME project would have to change. That is the missing study! This renders Law #9610 unconstitutional because it violates the principles of non-reduction (irreductibilidad) of protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), objective substantiation of environmental protection (objetivación a la tutela ambiental), and non-regression in environmental matters (no regresión en materia ambiental). Moreover, it is appropriate to recall what PGR has stated regarding the OET Study. According to PGR, even if the sufficiency of the OET study and the final compensation proposal is established, it must be noted that this technical study would justify only the validity of the compensation provided and, as such, is not a technical study directly supporting the decision to remove protected status (desafectar) from part of the RBLB.

The Procuraduría is unequivocal on this issue when it states that ... "in accordance with constitutional case law on the matter, the study required by Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente to justify reducing a protected wilderness area should be a study determining the necessity and advisability of adopting that type of measure." (underlining and highlighting not in the original). In this case, such a study would be one that provides technical support for the necessity and advisability of removing protected status from part of the RBLB. That is, a study determining that the only alternative for developing the PAACUME project and the Río Piedras reservoir is to remove protected status from part of the Reserva Biológica. Incidentally, that study has not been conducted. The Procuraduría states that, unless the necessity and advisability of removing protected status from 113 hectáreas of the RBLB are established, Ley 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of non-reduction of protected wilderness areas, objective substantiation of environmental protection, and non-regression.

V. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, as well as the arguments presented in our constitutional challenge and in our response to the arguments submitted in the record by the supporting intervenors, the opposing intervenor, the Procuraduría General de la República, the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, and the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, we respectfully request that this Tribunal declare Law #9610, “MODIFICATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RESERVA BIOLÓGICA LOMAS BARBUDAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER-SUPPLY PROJECT FOR THE MIDDLE BASIN OF THE RÍO TEMPISQUE AND COASTAL COMMUNITIES,” published in Alcance #199 of La Gaceta of 23 de noviembre del 2018, unconstitutional for violating Articles 7, 11, 45, 50, and 176 of the Constitución Política; the procedure established in Article 208 bis of the Reglamento de Orden, Dirección y Disciplinalnterior (sic) of the Asamblea Legislativa for the lawmaking process, which is aparameter (sic) of constitutionality; andthe (sic) constitutional principles of non-regressionin environmental matters, in dubio pro natura, reasonableness and proportionality, economy, and budgetary efficiency and balance”.

1. 34The legal requirements have been complied with in the proceedings.

Justice Castillo Víquez writes the opinion; and,

Considering:

I.Subject matter of the action. The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Law No. 9610 of 17 October 2018, entitled “Modification of the Boundaries of the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve for the Development of the Water-Supply Project for the Middle Tempisque River Basin and Coastal Communities,” on the grounds that it is contrary to Articles 7, 11, 45, 50, and 176 of the Political Constitution, as well as to the constitutional principles of non-regression in environmental matters, in dubio pro natura, reasonableness and proportionality, economy and efficiency, balanced budgets, and legal certainty. They further contend that Article 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa was violated during the legislative proceedings because it was improperly applied.

II.Admissibility of the action and standing of the petitioners. An action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) is a proceeding subject to certain formal requirements, which must be satisfied for the Chamber to validly consider the merits of the challenge. Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes the admissibility requirements for an action of unconstitutionality. First, there must be a prior matter pending resolution, whether through judicial or administrative channels—in the procedure for exhausting the latter—in which unconstitutionality has been invoked as a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest alleged to have been infringed. In the second and third paragraphs, the law establishes, on an exceptional basis, circumstances in which no prior matter is required, such as the absence of an individual and direct injury owing to the nature of the matter, the defense of diffuse or collective interests, or when the action is filed directly by the Contralor General de la República, the Procurador General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, or the Defensor de los Habitantes.

As to the need for a prior matter pending resolution at the administrative level, it must concern the procedure that exhausts administrative remedies (vía administrativa), which, pursuant to Article 126 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, commences when ordinary appeals are filed before the superior authority of the body that issued the final act; otherwise, the action would be inadmissible. Other formal requirements must likewise be satisfied, namely: explicit identification of the challenged provisions, supported by proper grounds and specific citation of the constitutional rules and principles alleged to have been infringed; authentication by an attorney of the pleading instituting the action; proof of the requirements for standing, including powers of attorney and certifications; and a verbatim certification of the pleading in which the unconstitutionality of the provisions was invoked in the underlying matter. If the petitioner fails to submit any of these requirements, the Presidency of the Chamber may order that they be satisfied.

In this particular case, the petitioners base their standing on the defense of an interest concerning the community as a whole: the right to enjoy a healthy environment. However, they raise several different types of arguments, and it is therefore necessary to analyze the admissibility of each separately:

• 1)As to the alleged violation of Articles 7, 11, and 50 of the Political Constitution and of the constitutional principles of non-regression in environmental matters and in dubio pro natura, the action is admissible because the arguments presented are directly related to environmental protection and preservation, a circumstance in which the Chamber has recognized in its case law the existence of a diffuse interest (interés difuso) warranting protection.
• 2)Regarding the alleged violation of Article 176 of the Political Constitution and of the principles of balanced budgets, reasonableness and proportionality, and economy and efficiency, this Court finds the action admissible because, at bottom, it challenges the allocation and sound management of public funds. Since this relates to the State’s financial activity and compliance with the criteria of economy and efficiency, the Chamber has accepted it as a basis for standing.
• 3)With respect to the alleged violation of Article 45 of the Political Constitution, Article 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, and the principle of legal certainty, the action is declared inadmissible. On this point, the petitioners contend that Law No. 9610 violates Article 45 of the Political Constitution because three legal entities are deprived of private property without prior compensation, in order to add nearly 500 hectares of privately owned land to the RBLB as compensation. They argue that approval of the law imposing such restrictions required 38 votes and that, although this threshold was exceeded in the specific case, a substantial portion of the legislative proceedings was conducted under an expedited procedure based on Article 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa. They contend that this renders the law unconstitutional for violating legislative procedure, because that expedited procedure is unavailable for bills whose approval requires the vote of a qualified majority of legislators.

They state that the manner in which the property of Brindis de Amor is to be expropriated and incorporated into the RBLB excludes and leaves landlocked within the reserve a property of approximately 14 hectares belonging to Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa Rica Pacífico del Mar CMP S.A. They allege that a memorandum sent by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional to the Asamblea Legislativa (official letter DIG-0388-2018), in response to the consultation made through official letter AL-DSDI-OFI-0313-2018, reveals a violation of the principle of legal certainty. This is because it confirms the existence of inconsistencies and errors in the coordinates included in the law ultimately enacted, making it impossible to determine with certainty how many hectares must be expropriated and what the reserve’s true boundaries are. They also challenge the failure to provide prior compensation for the affected private properties.

In this regard, the Chamber finds no diffuse or collective interest in those arguments by the petitioners. All those arguments relate in one way or another to the right to private property and its potential infringement, which would require an underlying matter in which unconstitutionality had been invoked as a means of protecting the asserted right or interest; no such matter exists here. Consequently, those arguments cannot be considered on the merits.

Moreover, specifically regarding the alleged inconsistencies and errors in the proper definition or demarcation of the RBLB’s boundaries, it must also be taken into account that both the President of the Asamblea Legislativa and SENARA contend that the biological reserve’s boundary coordinates set forth in the challenged law are correct. In particular, it is asserted that MINAE and SENARA jointly performed the necessary field surveys and boundary retracements, thereby permitting the location and actual boundaries of the relevant reserve area to be determined with adequate geographic precision through the use of geographically precise technological instruments. This establishes that the sub lite dispute is an essentially technical one concerning the proper geographic location and demarcation of those boundaries. Resolving that controversy, after reviewing and weighing the various technical parameters governing the subject and even admitting and assessing the relevant evidence, would entail a discussion far exceeding the purpose and nature of constitutional review, as contemplated in Article 10 of the Political Constitution and Articles 73 et seq. of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Rather, such a dispute is properly adjudicated through ordinary proceedings, where evidence may be considered more fully.

III.Interventions in support of the parties (coadyuvancias). Article 83 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional provides that, within 15 days following the first publication of the notice referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81, parties appearing in matters pending on the date the action was filed, or persons with a legitimate interest, may appear in order to support the arguments that may justify granting or denying the action or, where appropriate, to expand upon the grounds of unconstitutionality relating to the matter in which they have an interest.

In this case, by a ruling issued at 15:23 on 21 March 2019, the Presidency of the Chamber accepted the interventions in support of the petitioners filed by Mario Andrés Boza Loría and Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura, and the intervention in support of the respondent filed by Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera, Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería. It also rejected the intervention filed by Juan Carlos Peralta, who stated that he was appearing on behalf of the Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José, because he failed to submit documentation establishing his legal authority to represent it, despite having been ordered to do so.

The request to intervene filed by Henry José Picado Cerdas is hereby denied because his appearance was untimely. The first publication in the Boletín Judicial of the ruling admitting this action for consideration occurred on 19 February 2019; however, Mr. Picado submitted his pleading on 2 November 2019.

IV.Statement of reasons for Bill No. 20.465, which subsequently gave rise to Law No. 9610. Before ruling on the arguments concerning the merits, the Court considers it appropriate to set forth the reasons supporting that legislative initiative, as stated in Bill No. 20.465:

“Guanacaste is an area of vital importance to the country’s social and economic development. In recent years, it has experienced exponential growth in the tourism sector, accompanied by significant real-estate development. It is also an agricultural area with special characteristics, where climatic and topographic conditions permit crop rotation according to the season, ranging from rice and sugarcane cultivation to the intensive production of melons and watermelons, in addition to livestock and aquaculture production.

These conditions have led to increased demand for water, both because of natural population growth and to meet the needs of all productive activities, in the country’s driest climatic region, which is heavily affected by the increasingly frequent droughts caused by the El Niño phenomenon.

In light of the foregoing, efficient water management is becoming essential to planning the development of that region. The Estrategia Nacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (Egirh, 2005) noted that competing demands for the use of water resources in this area—and in other parts of the country—could lead to conflicts among users unless the necessary corrective measures were implemented. In that regard, emphasis is placed on the need for significant investment in the water infrastructure urgently required by the province.

The delay in sustained investment in water infrastructure (infraestructura hídrica) for several years has led to the emergence of various conflicts over water use, such as those concerning proposed withdrawals of water from the Sardinal and Nimboyores aquifers, involving the Acueducto Sardinal – El Coco – Ocotal and what is now the Acueducto de Abastecimiento de las Comunidades Costeras de Santa Cruz, respectively.

This situation makes it necessary to prioritize and swiftly implement public policies for integrated water resources management (gestión integrada del recurso hídrico) and to ensure water security (seguridad hídrica) in the province. Such policies must establish controlled and sustainable use through regulatory infrastructure (infraestructura de regulación) that helps reduce the impacts arising from stress on water availability, affecting residential households, productive sectors, and real-estate development areas. Management must focus on administering the water supply (oferta hídrica) during the rainiest months to improve conditions during the dry season.

The Plan Nacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (PNGIRH, 2008) established as an immediate action the implementation of the Plan de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste under strategic line 8.3.3.2, with the objective of “Regulating the water supply to ensure its availability throughout the year and address vulnerability to climate change.” As a result of the Guanacaste: Agua e Infraestructura Hídrica working group, implemented by the Administración Solís Rivera, the project was revived and its implementation ordered. This Administration has adopted a comprehensive approach to the water-related challenges in Guanacaste in order to ensure integrated water management in the country and, particularly, in this province, and to address long-term water and food security.

Given its importance, this strategic line of action was included in the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2015-2018 “Alberto Cañas Escalante,” under program line 1.9 of the environmental sector. Under the governing authority of the environment, energy, oceans, and land-use planning sector, it provides for the development and implementation of the Programa Integral de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste - Pacífico Norte (Piaag), which integrates immediate-, short-, medium-, and long-term activities, works, and projects.

The Piaag integrates a series of strategic actions for the development of hydraulic infrastructure (infraestructura hidráulica) projects for water regulation and control, intended to meet the demand for water for communities and for irrigation on the Tempisque plains. It also includes groundwater (agua subterránea) monitoring and research activities, as well as the promotion and development of technologically innovative alternatives, water conservation and efficient-use measures, and climate-change adaptation.

The objective of the Piaag is to ensure the optimal use of water resources in the province of Guanacaste in order to meet the water demands of communities and various productive activities, improving access to water in adequate quantity and quality. To this end, it provides for four strategic pillars:

I- Water security for communities (human right of access to water—AyA systems and community aqueducts—asadas).

II- Food security (increased food production through irrigation systems).

III- Ecosystem water needs (promoting ecosystem sustainability).

IV- Sustainable-use management (improving the use of available water, with priority given to groundwater).

In accordance with pillars I and II, the Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterránea, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) is developing the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), which, because of its scope and breadth of benefits, is the most robust and strategic project.

PROYECTO DE ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA PARA LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RÍO TEMPISQUE Y COMUNIDADES COSTERAS (PAACUME) The objective of Paacume is to promote the socioeconomic development of the province of Guanacaste through better use of the water resources from the Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal-Dengo-Sandillal (Ardesa) and other available sources, as climate-change adaptation measures within a framework of sustainability and equity.

The project consists of creating the technical and technological conditions for better use of water in the Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque (DRAT), originating from hydroelectric generation by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) at the Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal, Dengo, Sandillal (Ardesa).

It includes the automation of the Presa Derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B and Canal Oeste Tramo I up to the Río Piedras reservoir (embalse), as well as the construction of a storage reservoir on the río Piedras and the expansion and construction of Canal Oeste Tramos II y III from there to río Tempisque. It also includes secondary and tertiary conveyance lines (líneas de conducción) for agricultural irrigation and tourism-development areas, and water-delivery works for communities, to be administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, extending from the río Tempisque plain to the coastal area. The project likewise includes the construction of a powerhouse for electricity generation at the dam site.

The fundamental objective is to provide water—available in sufficient quantity and quality and at the proper time—at a rate of 20 cubic meters per second for various potential uses. The project is expected to benefit at least 204 thousand people and provide irrigation for at least 17 thousand hectares. Of this flow, 2 cubic meters per second will remain available for the long-term supply of communities in the cantons of Santa Cruz, Nicoya, and Carrillo, to be administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. In addition, the project provides at least 1.5 cubic meters per second of water for irrigation in support of tourism in the coastal area, thereby benefiting coastal communities by freeing up groundwater currently used for irrigation.

This project will not only provide communities and the productive sector with sustainable access to water, but also seeks to harmonize and regulate the rational exploitation of the principal groundwater resources in aquifers on the right bank of the middle río Tempisque basin, because it will enable the State to regulate the maximum use of wells for these activities. The construction of the dam (presa) on the río Piedras entails a reservoir with a surface area of approximately 850 hectares, of which, according to the field survey conducted by Senara, 113 hectares lie within Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB). The dam site will be located at a natural narrowing of the river channel between the coordinates west longitude 358930, north latitude 1163180 and west longitude 359690, north latitude 1155330, at a maximum water-level elevation of 50.50 m.s.n.m. The function of this dam will be to impound and store the water captured by Senara at the Miguel Pablo Dengo dam, located on the río Santa Rosa.

From this site, the water will be conveyed through Canal Oeste, Tramo I, which is 21 km long and has a hydraulic capacity of 55 cubic meters per second. It is important to note that there is a natural drop before Canal Oeste Tramo I intersects the río Piedras, and it is precisely this drop that makes it possible to establish a storage site. The project will be located in the Chorotega region, province of Guanacaste. Its area of influence includes the cantons of Bagaces, Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya. However, the irrigation area covers only certain districts of the cantons of Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya. Location:

Canton District Canton District Nicoya San Antonio Carrillo Filadelfia Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Palmira Bolsón Belén Cartagena Sardinal Diriá Accordingly, the location of the dam on the río Piedras is dictated by a unique topographical condition that does not allow it to be moved elsewhere; therefore, this location and the difference in elevation between the inlet of the canal supplying it and the outlet of the canal that will carry the water to the río Tempisque determine the reservoir’s maximum level and its capacity to supply Paacume with 20 cubic meters per second.

At one point, consideration was given to constructing a dike (dique) to prevent the flooding of this area of Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal and a tunnel of more than 2 kilometers to discharge the water; however, the proposed dike site was found to coincide with a geological fault, making its construction impossible because of the high risk it would pose to the works.

There is no possibility of relocating or reducing the volume of the reservoir without significantly affecting the scope of Paacume and, consequently, its benefits for the population of Guanacaste. It was therefore determined that 113 hectares of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal must be made available for flooding.

It is vitally important that this reservoir be fully developed, for which it is essential that this entire area be available for inundation. Senara has demonstrated that a reservoir of this size, including the area within Reserva Lomas de Barbudal (113 hectares), is the only sustainable means of meeting water demand within the project’s scope. Project beneficiaries Paacume will provide irrigation benefits to three cantons in the province of Guanacaste: Carrillo, Santa Cruz, and Nicoya. In addition, Paacume will allocate 2 cubic meters per second of water for human consumption, the treatment and distribution of which will be the responsibility of AyA. This will resolve the projected deficit over a 50-year horizon for approximately 500.000 people. Furthermore, hydroelectric generation at the dam site will produce 7 MW per year, while irrigation will cover an estimated area of 1.875 ha in the tourism sector along the coastal area, freeing up groundwater currently used for this purpose. This is in addition to the water allocated for productive irrigation.

Table 1. Population projection for the period 2016-2020 By canton and district Canton/district 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Nicoya 54396 54958 55512 56053 56591 Nicoya 25727 25971 26216 26454 26693 Mansión 5737 5745 5756 5760 5768 San Antonio 6933 6974 7015 7055 7091 Quebrado Honda 2565 2573 2579 2580 2587 Sámara 4309 4373 4436 4499 4561 Nosara 6241 6405 6559 6720 6873 Belén de Nosarita 2884 2917 2951 2985 3018 Santa Cruz 64118 63345 66561 67758 68939 Santa Cruz 25739 26134 26518 26901 27278 Bolsón 1977 2010 2047 2081 2113 Veintisiete de Abril 8112 8313 8519 8717 8912 Tempate 5770 5888 6007 6123 6240 Cartagena 4510 4620 4727 4834 4935 Cuajiniquil 2285 2350 2416 2476 2543 Diriá 4530 4609 4684 4762 4834 Cabo Velas 3896 3979 4060 4141 4223 Tamarindo 7299 7442 7583 7723 7861 Carrillo 42325 43251 44157 45047 45939 Filadelfia 8425 8527 8618 8711 8804 Palmira 5986 6144 6296 6445 6594 Sardinal 17720 18119 18517 18909 19296 Belén 10194 10461 10726 10982 11245 Total 160839 163554 166230 168858 171469 Source: INEC,2016.

The project’s potential beneficiaries comprise the general population of the province of Guanacaste. According to projections by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), this province had a population of 371.375 inhabitants in 2.016, in addition to a transient population consisting of domestic and foreign tourists, estimated at more than one million people per year. This is further supplemented by another population comprising employees of various businesses, including the tourism sector, who continually enter and leave the area.

The Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA) has estimated that by 2025 the population within the project area using the main aqueducts in the region will exceed 220.000 inhabitants (Senara, 2006).

In 2002, 1.113.359 tourists entered the country. The growth trend has remained constant, as the number of visitors to the country had doubled by 2014.

In contrast to the poverty outlook in the Chorotega region, this is one of the areas that has experienced the greatest tourism development. The country’s principal hotel complexes are located along its coasts. In 2005, the installed capacity of hotels in the project area was estimated at 140.812 people during the high season, and it was projected to reach 230.900 people by 2025 (Senara, 2006).

It should be noted that the resource currently under the greatest threat is water, primarily because of the overexploitation of aquifers for human consumption, a problem further aggravated in tourist areas by the threat of well salinization. Based on the capacity installed in 2005, average drinking-water demand was estimated at 570 l/s and, with sustained growth through 2025, would reach 935 l/s.

The agricultural irrigation area is estimated at 17000 ha, where 1.067 large, medium-sized, and small agricultural producers could benefit. The distribution of landowners is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of producers by canton Canton Number of beneficiaries Nicoya 84 Santa Cruz 482 Carillo 505 Total 1067 Source: Senara, 2017 Table 3. Distribution of current land use in the PAACUME area of influence.

By canton, in hectares Current land use Carrillo (ha) Nicoya (ha) Santa Cruz (ha) Total (ha) Total (%) Protection areas 962 188 2396 3546 8.5 Protected areas 327 269 596 1.4 Rice 874 507 1380 3.3 Forest 659 448 1355 2462 5.9 Sugarcane 11282 616 1612 13510 3 2.6 Scrubland 90 203 293 0.7 Forestry plantations 19 33 52 0.1 Fruit crops 25 7 95 352 0.8 Industry 32 32 0.1 Melon 3 91 391 0.9 Hay bales 1814 1814 4.4 Palm 46 46 0.1 Pasture 4945 1464 9960 16370 39. 5 Sorghum 37 37 0.1 Urban 328 268 596 1.4 TOTAL AREA 20166 2716 18595 414 77 100 IRRIGABLE AREA 17749 2080 14071 33900 81 .7 Source: Senara. 2016. Fieldwork conducted in February 2016.

This Table 3 shows the project’s total coverage area, corresponding to 41.477 hectares, and the irrigable area, which, for the three cantons, excludes protection areas, protected areas, forest, scrubland, forestry plantations, industry, and the urban area, leaving a total of 33.900 potentially irrigable hectares.

Proposed land use Based on the water supply provided by Paacume, the area that will actually be irrigated is identified. For areas that cannot be supplied by the project, the feasible and viable option among the potential alternatives must subsequently be identified and analyzed. In the case of the supply of water for human consumption, what is being proposed is a future reserve for a use that has priority.

Based on the identification of the crops located within the project’s irrigable area, and considering that the potential irrigation area exceeds the area that can be irrigated with the available water, a proposal for the crops to be irrigated will be determined on the basis of land use. This proposal will be used as a reference for determining water demand and for the project’s financial and economic appraisal.

Table 4 presents the proposed land use, adjusted according to the availability of the water supply for agricultural use.

Depending on the available flow rate, water demand may vary according to the proposed planting seasons, the efficiency of the irrigation method, and water availability.

Table 4. Proposed land use and planting and harvest seasons according to the available water supply Crops Planting season Harvest season Total (ha) Total (%) Rice January-July April, November 1 400 8.2 Sugarcane Dec-April 8500 50 Forage crops May January-Dec 600 3.5 Fruit crops February-April 400 3.5 Vegetables January-May, Jul, Sep, Nov, Dec January-September, Nov 400 2.4 Melon Nov-January January-May 600 2.4 Hay bales May January-Dec 4000 23.5 Roots and tubers November-February February-April June-November 700 4.1 Watermelon Nov, March, April Jan, Feb, March, May, Jun, Jul, August 400 2.4 TOTAL 17.000 100 Potential land use The potential land-use table presents a crop proposal for an estimated period of three years after the irrigation system begins operating, maintaining the same crops and planting seasons. The production area increases because the operation of the irrigation system is expected to be optimized and the efficiency of the irrigation methods used is expected to improve. Table 5 breaks down the planting area for each of the different production systems and shows increases in the areas planted with sugarcane, fruit crops, hay bales, roots and tubers, and watermelon.

Table 5. Potential crops, planting and harvest seasons, and potentially irrigable areas Crops Planting season Harvest season Total (ha) Total (%) Rice January-July April, November 1400 7.5 Sugarcane Dec-April 8500 45.2 Forage crops May January-Dec 1000 5.3 Fruit crops February-April 1000 5.3 Vegetables January-May, Jul, Sep, Nov, Dec January-September, Nov 400 2.1 Melon Nov-January January-May 1000 5.3 Watermelon Nov, March, April Jan, Feb, March, May, Jun, Jul, August 500 2.7 Hay bales May January-Dec 4000 21.3 Roots and tubers November-February February-April June-November 1000 5.3 TOTAL 18.800 100 The 18.800 hectares reach their peak demand in April, totaling 16,35 m3 /s.

In view of the foregoing, we face the necessary decision to remove protected status (desafectación) from part of a protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida), which, as stipulated by the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, may be reduced only by means of a law of the Republic and after conducting technical studies that justify the measure. In this regard, the Sala Constitucional has issued extensive case law concerning Article 38 of the cited law, establishing that two essential requirements must be met to reduce protected wildlife areas: a law removing protected status and the prior completion of sufficient technical studies justifying the measure…

…In this regard, the proposal is considered not to contravene the principles of non-reduction (irreductibilidad) and non-regression (no regresión) contained in international instruments such as the Convenio de Diversidad Biológica and the Convenio de Washington, because the territorial or spatial removal of the protected area’s status is an exceptional measure subject to heightened safeguards and complies with the technical and legal requirements intended to prevent any form of regression in this field.

The technical studies and the need to remove the protected area’s status have been reviewed by regional and national bodies and received initial approval from the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación (Corac), under Agreement No. 01 at the special session held on 5 de julio del año 2017, and subsequently from the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Conac), at special session No. 3-2017 on 11 de julio de 2017. These bodies assessed the studies and made observations warranting significant consideration.

By virtue of the foregoing, the Consejo Regional del Área del Conservación Arenal Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación evaluated the corresponding technical studies in accordance with the recommendation issued by the Comité Técnico, in light of Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente N.° 7554 (and its development in case law—Voto 2014-0121287 Sala Constitucional—and prior analyses of the matter—Oficio N.º 09082 CGR and the Informe de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa AL-DEST- IJU-117- 2016). Given that Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal was created through Decreto Ejecutivo 16849-MAG, de 23 de enero de 1986, published in La Gaceta N.° 45 de 5 de marzo de 1986, the recitals of that decree identify the following conservation targets (objetos de conservación): 1) Flora and fauna of the lowland wooded dry savanna. 2) Lowland riparian forest. 3) Lowland deciduous forest. 4) At least 10 springs (nacientes) and part of the Río Cabuyo watershed. 5) Unique insect fauna.

Based on the study submitted by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales, this body proceeded to analyze the potential impacts on these conservation targets. In addition, those conservation targets have been aligned with the protected area’s current focal management elements (elementos focales de manejo), established in the Plan General de Manejo issued through Resolution R-Sinac-Conac-24-2016, effective since 3 de noviembre de 2016. That collegiate body reached the following conclusions, summarized in Table 6:

Table 6. Conclusions of Corac Arenal-Tempisque Conservation object according to executive decree Relationship to the focal elements established in the General Management Plan (Plan General de Manejo) Technical conclusion Flora and fauna of the lowland wooded dry savanna Dry forest (bosque seco) It will not be affected, since the area to be flooded does not include this type of ecosystem (wooded dry savanna) Lowland riparian forest (bosque ripario) Evergreen forests within the ecoregion and gallery forests (bosques de galería) The riparian forest cover type is of utmost concern due to its limited representativeness within the RBLB. This cover accounts for only 8,0% (216,17 has) of the RBLB’s total area. The studies determined that the riparian forest within the inundation site in the reserve accounts for 11,4% (24,64 has) of the total area of that cover type in the RBLB. The riparian forest area on the Brindis de Amor property accounts for 7,40 % (15,87 has).

Together with Asetrek’s 2,2 has, this totals 18.07 has of riparian forest proposed as compensation. This leaves a difference of approximately 6,57 has of riparian forest to be compensated for this type of ecosystem Lowland deciduous forest (bosque caducifolio) Dry forest Considering the result obtained by applying the methodology, both for habitat quality and for community diversity and composition, the Asetrek compensation site is inferior in environmental quality, composition, and biodiversity to the RBLB site that would be flooded by the Embalse Río Piedras; therefore, in Conservation object according to executive decree Relationship to the focal elements established in the General Management Plan Technical conclusion considering the condition most favorable to the RBLB, the OET recommends that at least 332 hectares of Finca Asetrek be acquired to compensate for the 113 ha that must be removed from the Biological Reserve.

According to (Quesada, 2008), “to restore pasture areas to forests through natural regeneration methods, they must be strategically located near seed sources and forest patches,” conditions present in the proposed area on the Asetrek and Brindis de Amor properties At least 10 springs (nacientes) and part of the río Cabuyo watershed (cuenca) River system of the lower Tempisque watershed The area to be flooded would not affect any spring; on the contrary, some of the principal springs of río Cabuyo and quebrada Amores are located within the Brindis de Amor property, while others are on the adjoining property Unique entomological fauna Dry forest Evergreen forests within the ecoregion and gallery forests River system of the lower Tempisque watershed This type of fauna will not be affected, since the associated ecosystems are included in the compensation proposal. The study results provide important data regarding community composition Likewise, as stated in the same agreement of the Regional Council (agreement 01 from the special session of 5 de julio de 2017), that body verified that the technical report submitted to it for consideration complied with the content required by sections 71 and 72 of Decreto Ejecutivo 34433-Minae, Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, and concluded that, except for the considerations concerning the conservation object designated as riparian forest, it may technically be stated that: a) The conservation objects underlying the creation of Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal are not being affected; and b) The area is being compensated with another area of equal size that fulfills the same purposes and has similar ecosystem conditions.

Finally, they state that the removal of the area from Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal should be authorized by a law of the Republic and, consequently, compensation should be provided through the purchase of the corresponding area, as defined by the technical studies.

Similarly, since Costa Rica is a party to the Convención Ramsar, the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (Minae) is to make the corresponding notification to the Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, because the area to be removed is both a protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) and a Sitio Ramsar, designated as such in diciembre de 1991 within Sitio Ramsar Palo Verde…

…In compliance with the foregoing and pursuant to the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) to be conducted for the potential construction of the project shall establish the measures necessary to minimize the possible environmental effects generated by the construction of the water-supply system for the middle Tempisque river basin and coastal communities…

…In enero de 2016, Senara entered into an agreement with the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET) to conduct the study establishing the biodiversity baseline (línea base de biodiversidad) for the RBLB and the adjoining property.

The objective of the study was to prepare and define the baseline needed to determine the ecological integrity, relevance, and fragility of the ecosystems present, as well as the biodiversity existing in the area of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal that would be directly affected by Embalse Río Piedras. At the same time, a comparative analysis was conducted between an area of the RBLB and previously selected adjoining lands to determine their degree of similarity and the feasibility of using them as a replacement area that would be ecologically equivalent.

Compensation area (área de compensación) The lands evaluated for the compensation area are owned in the name of Asetrek Tres Azul S.A., legal entity identification number N.° 3-101-370259, whose representative is Mr. Ramón Aguilar Facio, identity card N.° 9-0001-0541, registered survey plan (plano catastrado) N.° 5-666-1976, real-property folio (folio real) N.° 034932-000, located in distrito primero Bagaces, cantón cuarto Bagaces, provincia de Guanacaste, with a registered area of 751 hectares.

The procedure used by the OET to evaluate the compensation is based on a methodology known as Habitat/Hectare (Hábitat/Hectárea), a scoring system developed by Australian researchers that identifies a series of environmental-quality indicators and assigns values to each factor of the habitats being evaluated. Two compensation assessments were conducted independently: one based on habitat-quality indicators and the other on community diversity and composition, both adapted to tropical dry forest (bosque seco tropical). Additionally, the methodology used by the OET was modified to include other indicators (geophysical indicators, ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos), among others).

The final score is the sum of the values determined for each indicator and represents habitat quality or community composition in relation to the reference habitat (RBLB). Based on the result obtained in the study, it was possible to estimate the number of hectares required to achieve a quality level comparable to that of the reference and thereby compensate for the 113 hectares to be flooded in the RBLB. It is important to note that the study conducted by the OET considered an area of 131,07 hectares within the RBLB, because it was during the study’s implementation that Senara performed the topographical fieldwork needed to prepare the final plan for the area actually required for the reservoir, resulting in 113 hectares, all of which were included within the 131,07 hectares studied by the OET.

Considering the defined area, the study conducted by the OET (covering 131,07 hectares) determined that this sector of the RBLB has three types of forest cover (cobertura forestal): deciduous forest in 96,05 hectares, secondary forest (bosque secundario) in 9,13 hectares, and mature forest (bosque maduro) in 24,71 hectares. The latter shall hereinafter be called riparian forest because it is associated with the area’s watercourses and consists of vegetation remnants that survive along the banks of rivers and streams, composed of evergreen species. In addition, the property has 1,18 hectares of non-forest area and pasture.

The riparian forest area in Asetrek consists of small, fragmented areas, a circumstance that led to its exclusion for scoring purposes in the assessment conducted as part of the study to determine the required compensation area.

According to habitat quality, the study’s conclusions show that an equivalent area of between 290 and 332 hectares is needed to compensate for the area to be flooded in the RBLB, because the studied property represents between 34,00% and 51,20% of the reference site, corresponding to the 113 hectares of the RBLB. These differences indicate that the Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. property has been more disturbed and, because it lacks riparian forest cover, 332 hectares will be required for compensation, based on the maximum probable value produced by the methodology applied.

On the other hand, applying the methodology for community diversity and composition, Asetrek contains 30,90% of the reference (113 hectares of the RBLB); that is, the reserve has greater species richness (riqueza de especies) among the taxonomic groups studied, and therefore 290 hectares are needed to compensate for the loss in the RBLB.

In conclusion, considering the result obtained by applying the methodology, both for habitat quality and for community diversity and composition, the Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. compensation site is inferior in environmental quality, composition, and biodiversity to the RBLB site that would be flooded by Embalse Río Piedras. Accordingly, in considering the condition most favorable to the RBLB, the OET recommended that at least 332 hectares of Finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. be acquired to compensate for the RBLB’s losses.

The Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. property, studied by the OET as an extension for compensation, has a total area of 751 hectares, a significant portion of which is devoted to agricultural and livestock production.

In considering the compensation area proposed as a result of the completed study, the site was analyzed to assess the extent that should be proposed to compensate for the 113 hectares of the RBLB to be flooded, based on the following fundamental parameters:

1- Meet the minimum area required for compensation as determined by the study, corresponding to 332 hectares.

2- Ensure that the area to be acquired for compensation has sufficient forest, based on the types of cover found in the area of the RBLB to be flooded.

3- Ensure that the area to be purchased includes the 189,30 hectares studied by the OET for the corresponding comparisons between the potential compensation site and the reference site (RBLB).

4- Ensure that the area can be properly integrated into the remainder of the RBLB, while maintaining the highest possible percentage of contiguity between them.

5- Ensure that the area proposed for compensation allows connectivity between the RBLB and the protection areas (áreas de protección) intended to remain around the future Embalse Río Piedras as a protective buffer, principally along its left bank.

6- Minimize the boundary shared by the proposed area with areas having non-forest cover, paddocks, or pasture, because these may increase and facilitate the risk of fires within the RBLB.

7- Regularize the property boundary so that the compensation area can be properly managed by the Sinac administration within the RBLB.

Once the foregoing parameters were analyzed, the result obtained indicates that the area of Finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. that should be purchased is 444,04 hectares. Of this area, an estimated 286,67 hectares contain deciduous forest (bosque deciduo), 59,50 hectares contain secondary forest (bosque secundario), 73,23 hectares contain grasslands (pastizales), and 18,50 hectares constitute a non-forest area (área no forestal), that is, an area of pasture with other native grasses. It is important to note that the selected area of the property also includes 6,14 hectares of riparian forest (bosque ripario), distributed in small sections that, because they are not interconnected or are located within the reservoir’s direct impact zone (zona de impacto directo), were not considered when applying the methodology used in the study to determine the compensation area (área de compensación).

Although the proposed area of 444,04 hectares as compensation for the 113 hectares of the RBLB that would be flooded meets the requirements established on the basis of the results of the habitat-quality methodology (metodología de calidad de hábitat) applied in the study by the OET, the fact is that this area contains only 2,2 hectares of mature or riparian forest with characteristics similar to those found in the area to be flooded within the RBLB.

Under these circumstances, it was deemed appropriate to seek an additional area capable of remedying this shortage of riparian forest in the compensation area at Finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A., while meeting the parameters mentioned above. Following joint fieldwork by OET experts and officials from the RBLB, Sinac, and Senara, two properties with potential for compensation were identified along the northwestern boundary of the RBLB.

These properties are registered in the names of Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. and Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. In this regard, based on joint field inspections conducted by experts from the OET, Sinac, and Senara, supported by aerial images taken by a drone flying at low altitude, it was determined that the Brindis de Amor properties contain an initial estimate of 16,41 hectares of riparian forest, while Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. contains an estimated 8,49 hectares of riparian forest, consisting of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) made up of evergreen species and comparable in quality to that found at the potential flooding site within the RBLB.

The riparian forest area at Brindis de Amor represents 7,40% of the area currently covered by that type of forest within the RBLB; hence the importance of incorporating this area into the RBLB.

Another important consideration is that the riparian forest area on this property could serve as a species core area (área núcleo de especies) for repopulating other riparian environments on the property. Although, according to the OET, this development would not occur on a timeline corresponding to the loss within the RBLB, it nevertheless constitutes a considerable advantage because this core area would allow for the short-term restoration and incorporation of new riparian forests, which would not occur on the Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. property.

The deciduous forest (45,74 hectares), as well as the secondary forest (6,63 hectares), at Brindis de Amor has been protected for at least twenty years, and there are no records of recent logging or fires. It is therefore in better structural and compositional condition than the forests found at the site of potential impact within the RBLB or on the Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. property. Although this is not the primary objective, annexing this type of forest at Brindis de Amor to the RBLB also represents a significant gain in these types of forest cover.

The biodiversity baseline study (estudio de línea base de biodiversidad) for the RBLB showed an increase in the diversity of different taxonomic groups in response to more permanent water sources, a condition strongly supported at Finca Brindis de Amor, which has several permanent water sources, including río Cabuyo and its tributaries, thereby giving this property added value.

Studies by Dra. Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Ángeles) indicate that troops of white-faced monkeys (Cebus capuccinus) from the RBLB use the forests within Brindis de Amor as feeding and resting sites; that is, there is evidence of a constant flow of animals between the RBLB and Brindis de Amor as a foraging site, demonstrating the biological importance of incorporating this property into the RBLB.

Finally, it is important to mention that the study conducted by the OET establishes a compensation area based on the current condition of the lands being assessed, without reference to the future improvements that will result from their incorporation into a protection regime (régimen de protección) such as that of the reserve.

Accordingly, an area of riparian forest was identified that would compensate for the shortfall in hectares of this ecosystem type while maintaining the ecosystem connectivity (conectividad ecosistémica) of the protected area (área protegida). It was concluded that the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property meets these conditions and can compensate for an area of 8,49 hectares of riparian forest.

Additionally, it is concluded that the best option for completing the compensation for the riparian forest is to acquire an area of 40,00 hectares owned by Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., which contains 8,49 hectares of riparian forest.

According to the aforementioned land-cover layers (capas de cobertura), this property contains a total of 33,64 hectares of riparian forest, most of which borders quebrada Amores. The area selected for compensation contains 8,49 hectares of riparian forest, 2,44 hectares of secondary forest, 26,91 hectares of deciduous forest, and 2,16 hectares of pasture.

For its part, the expected future benefits from the regeneration of the grasslands owned by Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. include contributing to the establishment of secondary forest, carbon sequestration (fijación de carbono) (CO2), soil protection, increased cover, protection of biodiversity and the scenic beauty of the location, and protection of water sources, while also helping to increase its ecological, economic, and social value. In other words, the new area placed under the protection regime will tend to improve upon its current condition in terms of habitat quality and the diversity and composition of communities.

As stated by Quesada, R. (2008), in his Manual for Promoting Natural Regeneration in Degraded Pastures in Costa Rica’s Central and Northern Pacific Region, “to restore pasture areas to forest through natural regeneration methods (métodos de regeneración natural), they must be strategically located in relation to seed sources (fuentes semilleras) and near forest patches,” conditions present in the proposed area on the Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. and Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. properties.

These conditions make it foreseeable that, although the 91,74 hectares at Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. (a grassland area of 73,23 hectares and a non-forest area of 18,51 hectares), the 18,18 hectares of pasture at Brindis de Amor, and the 2,16 hectares at Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. are currently in those conditions, within a few years and under a protection regime such as that of the RBLB, together with controlled fire management, these areas may become incorporated into the various stages of secondary-forest succession (sucesión de bosques secundarios).

Accordingly, based on the results presented in the study conducted by the OET and the proposal made by the Piaag high-level commission, the definitive compensation proposal is:

1. 1A total of 444,04 hectares from the Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. property, in accordance with the survey plan (plano) of the proposed area.

2- The entirety of Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., with a registered area of 86,96 hectares, in accordance with the survey plan.

3- An area of 40,00 hectares from the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property. In total, 571 hectares would be purchased, representing five times the area that will be affected within the RBLB, with direct equivalence among forest types, as indicated in Table 7.

Table 7. Comparison of area by forest type between the affected area of the RBLB and the area proposed for compensation Cover type Affected area within the RBLB (Ha)¹ Area of ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. (Ha) Area of Brindis de Amor S.A. (Ha) Area of the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property Total area proposed for compensation (Ha) Mature forest (Riparian) 24,71 6,14 16,41 8,49 31,04 Secondary forest 9,13 59,5 6,63 2,44 68,57 Deciduous forest 96,05 286,67 45,74 26,91 359,32 Pasture 0,79 73,23 18,18 2,16 93,57 Non-forest areas 0,39 18,5 - - 18,5 TOTALS 131,07 444,04 86,96 40 571 ¹Although the required area of the RBLB is 113 hectares, the OET conducted the study over 130,64 hectares, which is why this value is used for the comparison.

The proposed compensation measures achieve the conservation objective and, therefore, it may be stated:

1. 1That the conservation targets (objetos de conservación) underlying the creation of the “protected area” are not being affected.

2- That the area is compensated for by another area of equal size that serves the same purposes and has similar ecosystem conditions.

Thus, based on all the foregoing, we submit the attached bill to the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Costa Rica for its corresponding approval.”

V.Regarding the challenged provision. Law No. 9610, “Modifies the Boundaries of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for the Development of the Water Supply Project for the Middle Basin of río Tempisque and Coastal Communities,” challenged herein, provides as follows:

“ARTICLE 1- The area of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, created by Executive Decree No. 16849-MAG of 23 de enero de 1986, is corrected and demarcated for the development of the Water Supply Project for the Middle Basin of Río Tempisque and Coastal Communities (Paacume). The protected area begins at a point located on río Cabuyo at coordinates X 350792,224 and Y 1163050,33 in the CRTM05 System and continues along the boundary with the property of Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa del Pacífico del Mar CPM S.A., with the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 350789,49 1163035,00 350791,24 1163029,34 350807,65 1163039,24 350860,78 1163033,04 350904,17 1162996,79 350926,55 1162988,11 350941,81 1162995,47 350955,83 1163002,42 350969,08 1163011,56 350982,63 1163018,04 351017,83 1163030,71 351012,37 1163052,81 351005,44 1163066,34 351003,92 1163079,71 350984,98 1163093,58 350972,68 1163107,21 350950,56 1163126,09 350943,93 1163156,21 350952,93 1163181,98 350970,50 1163210,11 350992,89 1163237,45 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351024,23 1163256,00 351033,66 1163260,80 351044,41 1163269,24 351055,66 1163284,78 351070,84 1163295,85 351112,40 1163342,33 351154,71 1163329,45 351178,30 1163323,39 351208,35 1163317,78 351224,46 1163320,12 351228,50 1163327,66 351222,73 1163333,76 351207,63 1163346,77 351196,42 1163364,26 351190,92 1163377,96 351179,41 1163436,66 351174,72 1163470,39 351196,01 1163539,96 351111,00 1163557,85 351048,91 1163571,70 350995,85 1163536,09 350968,12 1163506,96 350953,66 1163484,35 350852,88 1163489,22 Until reaching coordinates X 350776,31 and Y 1163485,43, and it continues along the boundary with the parcel properties of Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (Inder) to coordinates X 350768,00 and Y 1164185,00 at a public road, continuing along this boundary through the following coordinates X351032, 34 - Y 1164082,68, until reaching coordinates X 351196,45 and Y 1164006, 78, then continuing along the boundary with the property of Brindis de Amor de Liberia S.A. through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351208,40 1163948,88 351205,07 1163930,87 351183,76 1163885,51 351168,33 1163875,81 351162,81 1163867,47 351142,57 1163854,77 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351134,59 1163853,31 351125,57 1163854,38 351118,39 1163824,72 351104,14 1163812,39 351084,83 1163798,46 351077,45 1163786,20 351072,85 1163765,75 351085,49 1163750,30 351088,12 1163731,90 351119,83 1163700,82 351132,15 1163661,14 351157,15 1163654,53 Until reaching coordinates X 351206,67 and Y 1163648,75, and it continues along the boundary with the property of Pijije Land & Catlle S.A. through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351253,78 1163364,28 351258,30 1163280,40 351220,93 1162997,48 351222,96 1162988,68 351247,63 1162954,13 351256,53 1162934,68 351269,15 1162918,67 Until reaching coordinates X 351302,12 and Y 1162871,48, and it continues along the boundary with the property of Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351365,34 1162759,02 351440,05 1162595,92 351448,83 1162554,72 351449,11 1162533,02 351454,11 1162478,50 351472,15 1162355,93 351500,47 1162279,35 351518,55 1162244,91 351543,46 1162184,88 351551,79 1162158,15 351432,12 1162149,87 351209,01 1162185,45 351187,00 1162183,34 351188,09 1161793,04 351502,63 1161852,51 Until reaching coordinates X 351515,21 and Y 1161744,31 on the right bank of quebrada Amores, and it continues downstream along the right bank of quebrada Amores until reaching the boundary with Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Hacienda Ciruelas at coordinates X 350789,57 and Y 1161768,04, then continuing along this boundary through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 350790,15 1161613,41 350785,81 1161228,86 350789,68 1161183,19 350791,04 1161167,04 350795,25 1160846,79 350800,55 1160421,99 350799,64 1160335,52 350800,14 1160281,28 350801,79 1160245,59 350800,52 1160195,69 350798,08 1160160,24 350801,03 1160107,03 350800,36 1160028,38 350801,19 1159986,81 350803,26 1159906,01 350802,27 1159826,86 350805,01 1159703,16 351310,43 1159706,98 351412,68 1159708,91 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351492,03 1159704,06 Until reaching coordinates X 351682,28 and Y 1159583,24, and it continues along the boundary with the property of Pecuaria Burro Blanco S.A. through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351693,37 1159582,02 351699,78 1159578,77 351718,51 1159556,48 351783,14 1159506,94 351822,29 1159480,03 351922,99 1159411,18 351950,86 1159396,35 351959,86 1159388,54 352044,38 1159323,76 352147,75 1159245,22 352261,23 1159159,68 352415,42 1159046,85 352466,45 1158998,81 352481,43 1158988,92 352667,28 1158924,85 352688,10 1158916,85 352753,23 1158891,79 353010,27 1158802,12 353309,73 1158468,01 353288,77 1158275,33 353233,52 1157784,00 Until reaching coordinates X 353204,48 and Y 1157684,37 at the boundary with a public road, and it continues along the boundary with the parcel properties of Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (Inder) through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 353301,19 1157687,26 353422,15 1157675,97 353420,74 1157670,05 353445,74 1157634,59 353446,48 1157610,47 353466,68 1157558,35 353466,54 1157511,56 353424,55 1157466,95 353404,80 1157460,50 353416,03 1157405,22 353414,27 1157357,28 353425,75 1157331,84 353411,01 1157298,58 353436,01 1157298,92 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 353509,38 1157310,17 353519,07 1157308,57 353529,94 1157304,06 353569,44 1157265,57 353589,23 1157270,92 353620,35 1157283,86 353655,52 1157301,51 353735,20 1157295,12 353759,24 1157291,03 353765,64 1157282,12 353788,49 1157258,82 353804,91 1157220,35 353798,51 1157186,50 353899,03 1157172,56 353948,65 1157163,91 353978,61 1157148,03 354040,93 1157083,11 354082,37 1157116,37 354113,40 1157132,84 354156,22 1157149,90 354191,82 1157140,76 354209,75 1157164,94 354239,93 1157191,03 354269,91 1157215,77 354318,98 1157255,52 354371,34 1157288,65 355152,91 1157572,73 355153,68 1157554,28 355153,42 1157541,98 355148,96 1157437,83 355162,22 1157411,32 Until reaching coordinates X 355186,96 and Y 1157380,57, and it continues along the boundary with the property of Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 CRTM05 Y 355267,66 1157319,23 355280,54 1157302,05 355290,98 1157267,12 CRTM05 CRTM05 Y 355306,74 1157213,48 355358,68 1157137,98 355393,26 1157136,98 355520,54 1157135,06 355527,56 1157134,33 355529,22 1157133,83 355532,28 1157131,76 355576,16 1157100,42 Until reaching coordinates X 355640,83 and Y 1157053,32, and it continues along the boundary with the Embalse Piedras area through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 357387,23 1157808,22 357568,01 1157570,98 357654,97 1157519,88 357839,97 1157485,68 357951,98 1157473,56 357970,95 1157439,54 357889,84 1157355,61 358042,96 1157438,46 358161,70 1157177,29 358138,59 1157068,30 358323,74 1157185,12 358359,72 1157159,08 358509,60 1157014,90 358502,54 1156966,90 358448,49 1156921,94 358391,46 1156907,00 358424,27 1156713,93 358123,11 1156617,23 358011,88 1156412,31 358013,80 1156339,30 357943,72 1156272,36 357787,65 1156234,51 357581,33 1155961,68 357330,18 1155862,93 357166,23 1155935,11 356796,13 1155423,58 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 356819,57 1155441,85 356848,69 1155473,36 356898,70 1155480,31 356927,72 1155495,28 356964,77 1155536,25 357010,81 1155560,20 357067,86 1155605,15 357280,75 1155463,90 357276,71 1155424,90 357266,69 1155402,91 357237,65 1155369,93 357206,61 1155339,96 357168,58 1155319,00 357137,55 1155292,02 357089,55 1155300,07 357061,53 1155283,10 356971,49 1155263,19 356906,45 1155239,25 356881,44 1155236,28 356844,33 1155135,30 356938,29 1155080,19 357096,38 1155132,04 357192,39 1155131,94 357451,44 1155133,67 357534,47 1155151,58 357613,47 1155134,50 357679,40 1155052,42 357831,44 1155071,26 357861,68 1155289,27 357873,84 1155441,28 357893,89 1155492,27 357961,96 1155546,21 358009,07 1155643,18 358070,07 1155629,11 358100,99 1155550,06 358176,98 1155521,98 358255,05 1155574,91 358296,03 1155555,86 358254,92 1155450,89 358303,83 1155361,82 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 358352,78 1155306,76 358422,83 1155341,69 358460,82 1155327,65 Until reaching coordinates X 358468,82 and Y 1155324,64, and it continues along the boundary with the properties of Martillos del Pacífico S.A. and Inversiones Campos Bastos S.A. through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 358078,42 1153210,85 358052,54 1153079,89 358035,89 1152995,89 358027,73 1153002,71 358017,28 1152991,86 358014,03 1152985,24 358016,18 1152975,09 358028,51 1152967,54 358029,61 1152960,38 358020,05 1152917,97 Until reaching coordinates X 358003,37 and Y 1152867,19 at the boundary of Canal del Oeste, and it continues along this boundary through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 357987,04 1152862,79 357965,43 1152858,83 357955,02 1152858,35 357719,07 1152857,73 357706,37 1152857,25 357693,74 1152855,87 357681,24 1152853,60 357513,20 1152816,95 357510,98 1152816,61 357508,66 1152816,51 357506,52 1152816,67 357147,55 1152865,39 357133,75 1152866,00 357119,77 1152864,18 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 357106,47 1152859,98 357021,10 1152824,37 357015,47 1152822,93 357009,65 1152823,18 357004,15 1152825,10 356922,84 1152867,46 356917,41 1152871,60 356913,68 1152877,32 356912,09 1152883,94 356906,42 1152972,99 356896,96 1153005,91 356874,56 1153031,90 356843,34 1153046,18 356480,00 1153124,95 356459,09 1153126,67 356438,46 1153122,90 356419,55 1153113,91 356335,74 1153059,44 356315,88 1153050,59 356294,23 1153048,28 356272,89 1153052,73 356161,24 1153094,95 356154,04 1153098,15 356147,24 1153102,13 356140,95 1153106,83 355982,04 1153240,15 355975,60 1153246,28 355969,99 1153253,17 355965,30 1153260,71 355918,25 1153348,70 355917,46 1153351,59 355917,12 1153354,39 355914,92 1153407,09 355911,92 1153425,64 355904,67 1153443,00 355893,56 1153458,20 355608,94 1153764,30 355592,44 1153777,87 355572,96 1153786,61 355551,87 1153789,91 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 355418,20 1153792,82 355397,48 1153796,45 355378,68 1153806,12 355363,61 1153820,93 355180,01 1154065,99 355157,53 1154086,41 355129,08 1154097,03 355098,76 1154096,31 354896,27 1154052,27 354880,94 1154050,88 354864,75 1154053,10 354849,62 1154058,94 354576,10 1154203,36 354433,03 1154324,09 354418,90 1154333,64 354403,07 1154340,00 354386,64 1154342,84 354303,13 1154348,05 354295,93 1154349,88 354289,88 1154354,22 354285,87 1154360,34 354233,16 1154488,47 354215,42 1154514,94 354188,76 1154532,44 354157,41 1154538,17 353982,68 1154534,82 353973,71 1154537,07 353771,23 1154587,77 353767,53 1154588,80 353763,90 1154590,04 353760,34 1154591,47 353736,40 1154601,84 353688,53 1154622,59 353679,19 1154625,95 353669,30 1154628,16 353659,23 1154629,10 353636,13 1154629,80 353618,11 1154636,50 353607,82 1154652,72 353609,49 1154671,81 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 353613,45 1154680,80 353619,92 1154706,48 353617,60 1154732,89 353606,74 1154757,11 353549,31 1154843,27 353547,79 1154846,09 353506,08 1154923,06 353462,19 1155004,07 353460,75 1155007,46 353459,94 1155011,05 353459,81 1155014,62 353461,64 1155046,29 353455,69 1155081,41 353435,04 1155110,51 353403,79 1155127,79 353362,77 1155139,63 353298,99 1155158,04 353286,40 1155160,57 353273,36 1155161,05 353260,70 1155159,46 353198,44 1155146,32 353185,58 1155147,90 353176,35 1155157,01 353114,84 1155280,55 353090,32 1155314,62 353056,21 1155339,15 353016,10 1155351,58 352980,50 1155356,55 352969,91 1155361,45 352963,84 1155371,41 352948,49 1155431,13 352877,03 1155527,85 352831,88 1155547,07 352783,14 1155551,78 352758,44 1155547,78 352735,03 1155541,19 352692,71 1155516,02 352659,82 1155479,65 352557,62 1155323,39 352552,53 1155318,10 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 352545,87 1155315,01 352538,52 1155314,55 352484,90 1155321,10 352470,01 1155330,88 352407,64 1155437,35 352376,05 1155467,66 352333,27 1155476,90 352292,12 1155462,29 352210,74 1155404,33 352197,79 1155400,68 352125,01 1155405,70 352108,19 1155405,09 352037,71 1155387,74 352030,91 1155387,23 352024,32 1155389,03 352018,72 1155392,93 351929,50 1155481,04 351906,65 1155496,85 351879,80 1155503,93 351852,18 1155501,43 351846,04 1155499,77 351838,64 1155499,19 351831,54 1155501,35 351714,18 1155562,53 351705,85 1155567,63 351644,04 1155611,72 351629,11 1155620,13 351612,73 1155625,17 351595,67 1155626,63 351550,03 1155625,62 351527,22 1155625,11 351501,29 1155621,91 351488,71 1155618,38 351328,47 1155564,48 351322,36 1155563,44 351316,21 1155564,32 351253,83 1155583,44 351246,79 1155587,27 351241,82 1155593,54 351210,35 1155655,52 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351192,53 1155678,79 351167,53 1155694,11 351138,71 1155699,45 351029,02 1155699,35 351022,62 1155700,39 351016,88 1155703,43 351012,41 1155708,13 350977,52 1155759,40 350974,91 1155764,87 350974,06 1155770,86 350974,50 1155809,95 350972,36 1155829,23 350965,62 1155847,44 350954,68 1155863,50 350872,71 1155957,11 350868,46 1155965,00 350868,09 1155973,94 350894,78 1156116,68 350886,57 1156169,18 350847,17 1156205,02 350794,06 1156208,32 350771,95 1156202,04 350763,75 1156201,47 350755,99 1156204,25 350750,00 1156209,90 350714,12 1156261,53 350710,83 1156269,57 350711,26 1156278,23 350769,74 1156489,41 Until reaching coordinates X 350773,38 and Y 1156507,46, then continuing along the boundary of parcels belonging to the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (Inder) at the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 350774,41 1156525,86 350772,82 1156544,23 350749,41 1156691,18 350743,74 1156713,66 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 350734,16 1156734,78 350720,96 1156753,88 350670,90 1156814,09 350670,96 1156816,33 350671,80 1156844,73 350656,92 1156910,13 350650,99 1156925,02 350634,00 1156973,49 350628,28 1156985,85 350611,44 1157013,47 350599,04 1157044,34 350571,18 1157098,51 350541,95 1157132,54 350424,28 1157312,46 350387,20 1157428,88 350383,26 1157511,27 350264,65 1157646,88 350234,20 1157669,67 350192,72 1157696,17 350182,62 1157707,58 350162,29 1157729,07 350153,29 1157746,74 350150,06 1157755,22 350141,71 1157794,53 350124,72 1157814,01 350108,98 1157829,52 350096,88 1157843,03 350019,73 1157869,57 349992,99 1157871,40 Until reaching coordinates X 349929,76 and Y 1157901,11 at the boundary of Canal Oeste, then continuing along this boundary at the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 349926,74 1157911,94 349906,38 1157937,12 349877,70 1157952,17 349540,73 1158048,80 349528,32 1158059,14 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 349497,01 1158122,27 349495,16 1158134,22 349525,20 1158328,26 349529,02 1158342,63 349574,56 1158461,26 349574,73 1158520,15 349537,05 1158562,77 349478,58 1158569,81 349452,04 1158563,21 349437,09 1158561,16 349422,05 1158562,37 349407,61 1158566,78 349340,69 1158595,39 349330,89 1158600,53 349322,03 1158607,16 349314,31 1158615,10 349222,77 1158725,62 349212,94 1158736,23 349202,02 1158745,68 349190,07 1158753,86 348949,14 1158899,96 348941,36 1158908,67 348939,77 1158920,24 348944,91 1158930,73 349006,62 1158996,71 349018,80 1159013,75 349026,14 1159033,37 349028,14 1159054,23 349026,51 1159099,54 349012,33 1159142,20 348977,37 1159170,48 348932,68 1159175,44 348903,20 1159170,24 348888,68 1159173,26 348880,24 1159185,46 348882,55 1159200,11 348886,94 1159207,60 348895,67 1159228,89 348897,99 1159251,78 348893,69 1159274,38 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 348876,13 1159325,30 348873,12 1159337,48 348825,21 1159643,42 348820,26 1159657,91 348813,64 1159671,71 348785,35 1159722,75 348783,07 1159729,47 348783,28 1159736,57 348822,94 1159924,80 348826,45 1159936,36 348874,51 1160056,54 348883,53 1160072,57 348896,40 1160085,70 348912,25 1160095,02 349017,67 1160139,59 349034,45 1160149,22 349048,43 1160162,60 349058,78 1160178,95 349075,11 1160213,31 349082,83 1160245,69 349076,69 1160278,41 349057,77 1160305,80 349051,90 1160311,35 349043,46 1160323,18 349043,35 1160333,77 349048,67 1160342,93 349067,25 1160361,20 349091,49 1160395,64 349102,00 1160436,43 349097,43 1160478,30 349056,90 1160597,13 349031,79 1160631,69 348999,44 1160659,69 Until reaching coordinates X 348956,78 and Y 1160688,89 at the boundary of the public road connecting the town of San Ramón de Bagaces, then continuing along this boundary at the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 349060,09 1160695,02 349080,77 1160703,77 349095,03 1160718,99 349154,41 1160824,72 349200,75 1160910,96 349215,26 1160946,13 349218,97 1160961,76 349244,63 1161071,69 349367,55 1161254,50 349390,20 1161296,86 349389,51 1161329,14 Until reaching coordinates X 349384,50 and Y 1161343,08 at the boundary of a parcel belonging to the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (Inder), then continuing along this boundary at the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 349404,67 1161348,56 349428,08 1161371,77 349480,63 1161385,52 349521,00 1161435,85 349627,32 1161459,23 349757,40 1161533,12 349823,97 1161624,17 349828,29 1161733,09 349783,25 1161817,49 349760,83 1161816,80 Until reaching coordinates X 349752,43 and Y 1161825,58 at the Cabuyo River, continuing upstream until reaching the initial coordinates X 350792,224 and Y 1163050,33.

ARTICLE 2- The land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) and removal from protected status (desafectación) under Articles 13 and 33 of Ley N.° 7575, Ley Forestal, of 13 de febrero de 1996, are hereby authorized for the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), including the area removed from protected status located within the boundaries described below:

The boundary begins at a point located between Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. and Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal at coordinates X 356819,57 and Y 1155441,85 and continues along the boundary of Embalse Piedras through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 356848,69 1155473,36 356898,70 1155480,31 356927,72 1155495,28 356964,77 1155536,25 357010,81 1155560,20 357067,86 1155605,15 357280,76 1155463,90 357276,71 1155424,90 357266,69 1155402,91 357237,65 1155369,93 357206,61 1155339,96 357168,58 1155319,00 357137,55 1155292,02 357089,55 1155300,07 357061,53 1155283,10 356971,49 1155263,19 356906,45 1155239,25 356881,45 1155236,28 356844,33 1155135,30 356938,29 1155080,19 357096,38 1155132,04 357192,39 1155131,94 357451,44 1155133,67 357534,48 1155151,58 357613,47 1155134,50 357679,40 1155052,42 357831,45 1155071,26 357861,68 1155289,27 357873,84 1155441,28 357893,90 1155492,27 357961,96 1155546,21 358009,07 1155643,18 358070,07 1155629,11 358100,99 1155550,06 358176,98 1155521,98 358255,05 1155574,91 358296,03 1155555,86 358254,92 1155450,89 358303,83 1155361,82 358352,78 1155306,76 358422,83 1155341,69 358460,82 1155327,65 Until reaching coordinates X 358468,82 and Y 1155324,64, on the boundary with the property of Martillos del Pacífico S.A., and continuing in a straight line northward along the boundary with Martillos del Pacífico S.A. to coordinates X 358653,97 and Y 1156392,64.

From those coordinates, the boundary continues along the boundary with Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. and upstream along the unnamed stream through the following coordinates:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 358638,97 1156393,65 358568,95 1156384,72 358493,90 1156352,80 358431,91 1156368,86 358361,88 1156350,93 358331,87 1156354,97 358294,84 1156327,00 358277,79 1156287,01 358229,74 1156248,05 358196,69 1156202,08 358168,68 1156198,11 358116,63 1156155,16 358106,59 1156126,16 358095,58 1156112,17 358073,58 1156113,19 358033,60 1156141,24 358006,61 1156156,27 357979,61 1156158,30 357945,58 1156137,33 357898,56 1156126,38 357864,55 1156121,41 357830,52 1156104,45 357786,48 1156066,49 357768,44 1156039,50 357772,36 1155955,48 357750,30 1155909,49 357720,29 1155896,52 357686,32 1155932,57 357634,32 1155948,62 357607,28 1155914,65 357601,25 1155883,65 357573,22 1155855,67 357559,21 1155848,68 357526,22 1155862,72 357488,21 1155860,76 357484,21 1155863,76 357471,20 1155857,78 357447,20 1155859,80 357429,17 1155838,82 357315,07 1155763,92 357281,07 1155769,96 357265,06 1155762,98 357199,02 1155731,04 357169,01 1155725,07 357145,01 1155730,09 357089,98 1155709,15 357032,92 1155664,20 357019,90 1155646,21 356890,78 1155555,33 356831,73 1155514,38 356829,70 1155485,38 Until reaching the initial coordinates X 356819,57 and Y 1155441,85, located on the boundary between Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. and Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal.

ARTICLE 3- The Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac) is authorized to use, for its own purposes, the usable timber extracted from the storage reservoir area of Río Piedras under the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume). It may also authorize donations to ministries, their decentralized bodies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, local governments, or comprehensive development associations, upon prior written request to the Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque.

ARTICLE 4- The Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) shall be the entity responsible for conducting the environmental study (estudio ambiental) of the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), which shall include measures for the prevention, mitigation, and compensation of impacts in the area removed from protected status (área desafectada) referred to in Article 2 of this law, which must be implemented by the developer.

The environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) shall take into account the baseline (línea base) approved by the competent entities and endorsed by the Consejo Regional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), without prejudice to the terms of reference issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena), in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

ARTICLE 5- The area of Embalse Río Piedras, including the protective buffer zone (anillo de protección), forms an integral part of the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), to be developed by the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara). It shall provide for the storage and regulation of water originating from the Complejo Hidroeléctrico Arenal Dengo Sandillal (Ardesa), followed by its conveyance and equitable distribution to meet the needs of agricultural production, hydroelectric generation, tourism development, and public water supply, the latter through the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA), as well as any other activities necessary to fulfill the objectives proposed by Paacume.

Of the fee (canon) charged by the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (Minae) to users for water use and utilization, fifty percent (50%) shall be allocated to the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac) for implementation of the Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional.

ARTICLE 6- Once construction work has been completed and Embalse Río Piedras has been placed into operation by the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara), the reservoir area, including the protective buffer zone, shall become a wetland ecosystem (ecosistema de humedal) administered by the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), in accordance with Article 33 of Ley N.° 7575, Ley Forestal, de 13 de febrero de 1996. Strict coordination with Senara shall be maintained regarding the use of the water for the various required purposes. The Executive Branch, through Sinac, shall conduct the studies necessary to assign a management category (categoría de manejo) to that area, which shall not conflict with the use made of the water resulting from the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume).

A commission comprising representatives of Sinac, Senara, and the Municipalidad de Bagaces shall be established to prepare the Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional.

SOLE TRANSITORY PROVISION- The Executive Branch shall amend the Plan General de Manejo de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal and issue the regulations necessary to authorize ecosystem rehabilitation (rehabilitación ecosistémica) and adaptive management (gestión adaptativa) actions in compensation areas requiring actions of this nature, within one year after registration in the name of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (Minae).

This law shall take effect upon its publication.

Given at the Presidencia de la República, San José, on the seventeenth day of the month of October of the year two thousand eighteen.”

VI.Regarding the claims of unconstitutionality. For purposes of resolving the challenges raised, the admissible claims of the petitioners shall be grouped as follows:

A.- Regarding the alleged violation of Articles 7 and 50 of the Constitución Política and of the principles of non-regression in environmental matters (no regresión en materia ambiental), evidentiary substantiation of environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental), precaution (precautorio), or in dubio pro natura, and legality. As established in these proceedings, the removal of protected status (desafectación) from the area at issue is not intended to leave that land environmentally unprotected, but rather to change its use in a manner that likewise seeks to protect it, over a larger area, while also ensuring its sustainable use (aprovechamiento sostenible). This aspect is essential, because many of this Court’s rulings concerning removal of protected status have addressed compensation for such removal, in the sense of completely stripping land of its special environmental protection so that it may be devoted to any other purpose differing from and contrary to environmental protection.

Accordingly, this Court’s case law has been emphatic about the need for the Legislative Branch to have a prior technical study (estudio técnico previo) justifying why such protection is no longer environmentally necessary and, subsequently, it also required compensation as environmental reparation. In the sub examine case, State authorities may not alter the habitat of a protected area except within the limits permitted by its own protection regime. Therefore, even when the area to be altered will remain protected, if it is altered beyond the limits authorized by law because of the nature of its use, it was likewise necessary to resort to a statutory removal-of-protected-status process authorizing such modifications. This is the case with the law under review. Note the content of Article 6 of the challenged provision, which likewise grants special environmental protection to the land removed from protected status:

“ARTICLE 6- Once construction work has been completed and Embalse Río Piedras has been placed into operation by the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara), the reservoir area, including the protective buffer zone, shall become a wetland ecosystem administered by the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), in accordance with Article 33 of Ley N.° 7575, Ley Forestal, de 13 de febrero de 1996. Strict coordination with Senara shall be maintained regarding the use of the water for the various required purposes. The Executive Branch, through Sinac, shall conduct the studies necessary to assign a management category to that area, which shall not conflict with the use made of the water resulting from the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume).

A commission comprising representatives of Sinac, Senara, and the Municipalidad de Bagaces shall be established to prepare the Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional.” Certainly, the construction of that project, even though its ultimate purpose will be environmental protection, will have an impact on the area, given the modification of the habitat in the area to be flooded for the reservoir (embalse); hence, it must first be determined whether the project is indispensable and whether its impacts can be offset. As established in the explanatory statement for the bill that culminated in the challenged legislation, the water-resource (recurso hídrico) shortage in the province of Guanacaste has been an evident fact for several years. Accordingly, different administrations have sought solutions to this situation. Let us consider:

“The project’s potential beneficiaries comprise the general population of the province of Guanacaste. According to projections by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), this province will have a population of 371.375 inhabitants in 2.016, in addition to a transient population consisting of domestic and international tourists, estimated at more than one million people per year, as well as another population consisting of employees of the various businesses, including those in the tourism sector, who continually enter and leave the area.

The Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA) has estimated that, by 2025, the population within the project area using the principal water-supply systems (acueductos) in the region will exceed 220.000 inhabitants (Senara, 2006).

In 2002, 1.113.359 tourists entered the country. The growth trend is constant, since by 2014 the number of visitors to the country had doubled.

In contrast to the poverty affecting the Chorotega region, this is one of the areas that has experienced the greatest tourism development. The country’s principal hotel complexes are located along its coasts. In 2005, the installed capacity of hotels in the project area was estimated at 140.812 people during the high season, and it was projected that by 2025 it would reach 230.900 people (Senara, 2006).

It should be noted that the resource currently under the greatest threat is water, primarily because of the overexploitation of aquifers for human consumption, a concern that is further aggravated in tourist areas by the threat of well salinization. Based on the installed capacity in 2005, average drinking-water demand was estimated at 570 l/s, and with sustained growth it would reach 935 l/s by 2025.

The area under agricultural irrigation is estimated at 17000 ha, where 1.067 large, medium-sized, and small agricultural producers could benefit … The Estrategia Nacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (Egirh, 2005) noted that competition over the use of water resources in this area (and others in the country) could lead to conflicts among users if the necessary corrective measures were not implemented. The Plan Nacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (PNGIRH, 2008) established, as an immediate action, the implementation of the so-called Plan de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste under strategic line 8.3.3.2, with the objective of ‘Regulating the water supply to ensure its availability throughout the year and addressing vulnerability to climate change’…As a result of the Guanacaste: Agua e Infraestructura Hídrica working group, implemented by the Administración Solís Rivera, the project was revived and its execution ordered..

Because of its importance, this strategic course of action was included in the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2015-2018 ‘Alberto Cañas Escalante,’ under programmatic line 1.9 for the environmental sector. In exercising its leadership over the environment, energy, seas, and land-use planning sectors, the plan provides for the development and implementation of the Programa Integral de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste - Pacífico Norte (Piaag), which integrates immediate-, short-, medium-, and long-term activities, works, and projects…Pursuant to Pillars I and II, the Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterránea, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) is developing the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), which, given the scope and reach of its benefits, is the most robust and strategic project.” In other words, the need to address this issue had been studied for several years by the competent authorities.

Specifically, by Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 38642-MP-MAG del 30 de noviembre de 2014, a drought emergency declaration (declaratoria de emergencia por sequía) was requested for certain parts of the country, including the Chorotega region, where 11 of its cantons were affected. That area experiences more than 5 months of water deficit per year because of the effects of the El Niño phenomenon and climate change. Nor has this situation been unfamiliar to this Court. In judgment n.° 20 18-7758 de las 9:15 horas del 18 de mayo de 2018, for example, in response to the lack of drinking-water service for days from intake sources (fuentes de captación) in Nicoya, and because of the salinization problem in that area, this Chamber ordered the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, within 6 months following notice of that judgment, to conduct the hydrogeological study (estudio hidrogeológico) in the area of influence that had been recommended by the Oficina Cantonal de Nicoya del ICAA, for the purpose of identifying sources sustainable over time that would permit the implementation of a project to meet the present and future demand of the communities of Cuesta Grande, Maquenco and Terciopelo.

Thereafter, they were required to propose a temporary or permanent solution and implement it within the 12 months following that initial period. In the interim, they were required to supply the community of Maquenco with safe, high-quality drinking water by tanker trucks or another alternative mechanism whenever there was a shortage, until a definitive solution was achieved regarding the facts that gave rise to that amparo proceeding (amparo). Similarly, the situation involving the Sardinal water-supply system has come before this Chamber; that system already had the “Análisis del Impacto de la Sequía en el Acuífero Sardinal 2015 ” study (see, in this regard, judgments 2016-6417 and 2017-1163). The various preliminary studies and fieldwork carried out by several authorities led specifically to the proposal for the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), and it was presented and justified to the legislators on that basis. The explanatory statement provides in this regard:

“…the Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterránea, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) is developing the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), which, given the scope and reach of its benefits, is the most robust and strategic project.

PROYECTO DE ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA PARA LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RÍO TEMPISQUE Y COMUNIDADES COSTERAS (PAACUME) The objective of Paacume is to promote the socioeconomic development of the province of Guanacaste through better utilization of the water resources originating from the Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal-Dengo-Sandillal (Ardesa) and other available sources, as climate-change adaptation measures within a framework of sustainability and equity.

The project consists of establishing the technical and technological conditions for better utilization of the waters in the Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque (DRAT), which originate from hydroelectric generation by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) in the Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal, Dengo, Sandillal (Ardesa).

It includes the automation of the Presa Derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B and Canal Oeste Tramo I up to the Río Piedras reservoir, including the construction of a storage reservoir (embalse de almacenamiento) on the río Piedras, as well as the expansion and construction of Canal Oeste Tramos II y III from that point to río Tempisque. It also includes secondary and tertiary conveyance lines (líneas de conducción) for agricultural irrigation and tourism-development areas, and water-delivery infrastructure for communities, to be administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, extending from the río Tempisque plain to the coastal area. The project likewise includes the construction of a powerhouse for electricity generation at the dam site.

The fundamental objective is to provide water—available in sufficient quantity and quality and at the appropriate time—at a rate of 20 metros cúbicos por segundo for various potential uses. The project is expected to benefit at least 204 mil people and cover at least 17 mil hectáreas under irrigation. Of this flow, 2 metros cúbicos por segundo will remain available for the long-term supply of communities in the cantons of Santa Cruz, Nicoya and Carrillo, to be administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. In addition, the project provides at least 1.5 metros cúbicos por segundo of water for irrigation in support of tourism activity in the coastal area, thereby benefiting coastal communities by freeing up groundwater currently used for irrigation.

This project will not only provide communities and the productive sector with sustainable access to water, but also seeks to harmonize and regulate the rational exploitation of the principal groundwater resources in aquifers on the right bank of the middle río Tempisque basin, since it will enable the State to regulate the maximum use of wells for these activities. Construction of the dam on the río Piedras entails a reservoir with a water-surface area of approximately 850 hectáreas, of which, according to the field survey conducted by Senara, 113 hectáreas lie within the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB). The dam site will be located at a natural narrowing of this river channel between the coordinates west longitude 358930, north latitude 1163180 and west longitude 359690, north latitude 1155330, at a maximum water-level elevation of 50.50 m.s.n.m. This dam will create an impoundment for water storage; the water will be diverted by Senara at the Miguel Pablo Dengo dam located on the río Santa Rosa…” This project consists of four components: the río Piedras reservoir (including system automation, the powerhouse, and the dam and reservoir themselves); the expansion of the Canal Oeste from the río Piedras to the río Tempisque, covering approximately 55 kilómetros; construction of the distribution network on the right bank of the río Tempisque (approximately 300 kilómetros in length); and the proposed implementation of a Plan de Desarrollo Regional for the area directly and indirectly affected by the project, a process currently at the conceptualization and formulation stage.

It is important to note that the explanatory statement itself clearly established the compelling need to carry out this project specifically in that area, informing the legislators as follows:

“ …Accordingly, the location of the dam on the río Piedras is dictated by a unique topographical condition that cannot be replicated elsewhere; therefore, this location and the difference in elevation between the inlet of the canal supplying it and the outlet of the canal that will carry the water to the río Tempisque determine the reservoir’s maximum level and its capacity to supply Paacume with 20 metros cúbicos por segundo.

At one point, the possibility was considered of building a dike to prevent the flooding of this portion of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal and a tunnel more than 2 kilómetros long to discharge the water; however, the proposed dike site was found to coincide with a geological fault, making its construction impossible because of the high risk posed to the structure.

There is no possibility of relocating or reducing the reservoir’s volume without significantly affecting the scope of Paacume and, consequently, the benefits for the population of Guanacaste; it was therefore determined that 113 hectares of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal would need to be flooded.

It is vitally important that this reservoir be developed to its full capacity, for which it is essential that this area be available for flooding. Senara has demonstrated that this reservoir area, including the zone within the Reserva Lomas de Barbudal (113 hectares), is the only means of sustainably meeting the water demand within the project’s scope. Project beneficiaries.

Paacume will provide irrigation benefits to three cantons in the province of Guanacaste: Carrillo, Santa Cruz and Nicoya. Additionally, Paacume will allocate 2 cubic meters of water per second for human consumption (with treatment and distribution to be handled by AyA), thereby resolving the projected deficit over a 50-year horizon for approximately 500.000 people. Furthermore, on-site hydroelectric generation at the dam will produce 7 MW per year, and, with respect to irrigation, it will cover an estimated area of 1.875 ha in the tourism sector along the coastal zone, freeing up groundwater currently used for that purpose. This is in addition to the water allocated for productive irrigation.” (Emphasis not in the original).

In other words, the grounds for carrying out the removal from protected status (desafectación) at issue were set forth in the statement of reasons (exposición de motivos) itself. Indeed, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente provides as follows:

“Article 38.- Reduction of protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas). The surface area of protected wild areas constituting the natural heritage of the State (patrimonio natural del Estado), regardless of their management category (categoría de manejo), may be reduced only by a Law of the Republic, after conducting the technical studies that justify such a measure.” In the matter under examination, precisely because of the particular nature of this removal from protected status for the establishment of other protective management plans (planes de manejo), it is reasonable to require a technical study, but not one that establishes that the area does not require environmental protection. In fact, the intent is not to remove its protected status in order to deprive it of environmental protection and permit any other use, but rather to modify the form of its protection and sustainable environmental use. An evident impact on the area is acknowledged, and therefore what was submitted is a compensation study (estudio de compensación) designed to guarantee such protection and compensate the environment in response to a situation of necessity.

The final report of the study “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property,” was prepared by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales at SENARA’s request, so that it would address the specifications of Article 72 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad (see the letter dated 14 de junio de 2017 attached to the case file). That regulation provides as follows in Articles 71, 72 and 73:

“Article 71.—Declaration, modification, or change in the management category of protected wild areas. For the declaration, modification, or change in the management category of ASP, a technical report (informe técnico) shall be prepared under the coordination of the corresponding SINAC body.

Article 72.—Technical report. For the purposes of the preceding article, the technical report shall contain the objectives for establishing the proposed area and recommendations concerning the most appropriate management category, together with the corresponding technical grounds. The criteria used to prepare this report, define the objectives, and issue such recommendations shall include at least the following:

• a)Relevance and fragility of the ecosystems, wildlife populations, and geological or geomorphological features included in the proposed area.
• b)Estimated dimensions of the most relevant ecosystems and the geological or geomorphological features contained in the proposed area.
• c)Conservation status of those ecosystems, the most relevant wildlife populations, and geological or geomorphological features, as well as the demonstrated potential for the ecological restoration of degraded sites within the proposed area.
• d)Relevance and nature of the environmental goods and services (bienes y servicios ambientales) supplied by the proposed area to the surrounding local communities.
• e)Demonstrated potential of the proposed area for uses compatible with the recommended management category.
• f)Land-tenure regime (régimen de tenencia de la tierra) (state-owned, private, or mixed) within the proposed area.
• g)Availability of sufficient financial resources to acquire the land within the proposed area and ensure its adequate long-term protection and management.
• h)Mandatory consultation (consulta obligatoria) with Indigenous populations or local communities that may be affected or impacted by the establishment or modification of protected wild areas.

That report, together with the relevant documents, shall be submitted to CORAC for its consideration and, if appropriate, forwarded to CONAC for the corresponding action.

When the modification entails elevating the existing management category, the corresponding technical report shall also set out the specific reasons supporting the proposed change in management category.

Article 73.—Restoration, recovery, and rehabilitation of ecosystems, species, and their environmental services. SINAC shall define, develop, and promote management actions aimed at achieving the conservation, restoration, recovery, and rehabilitation of ecosystems and their components, based on scientific studies, management plans, or other planning instruments for protected wild areas, in accordance with the objectives underlying their declaration. These actions shall include the management and/or eradication of invasive exotic species, restoration of soils and vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal), control and prevention of forest fires, mitigation of natural disasters, control of populations of opportunistic native species, and regulation of hydrological cycles.” For that reason, the study was submitted for consideration by the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (CONAC), which approved it under the conditions set forth in the technical opinion issued by ACAT, expressly stating that the study was neither equivalent to nor a substitute for the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) that must be conducted for the PAACUME project. Precisely for that reason, the challenged legislation incorporates other provisions and, specifically, Article 4 requires its preparation:

“ARTICLE 4- The Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) shall be the entity responsible for conducting the environmental study for the Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), which shall include measures to prevent, mitigate, and compensate for impacts on the area removed from protected status referred to in Article 2 of this law, and those measures shall be implemented by the developer.

The environmental impact study shall take into account the baseline approved by the relevant entities and endorsed by the Consejo Regional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), without prejudice to the terms of reference issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena), in accordance with the applicable legal framework.” Based on the foregoing, contrary to the assertions of the petitioners, it is apparent that the bill was not lacking in technical support, since it is based on the results of various studies demonstrating the need to supply water to that community, the limited availability of sources from which it can be obtained, and the study “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property,” prepared by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales to ensure proper compensation for the modification of the protective management category applicable to that particular area, based on technical grounds and the methodology selected for its preparation.

In addition, the results of the mandatory consultation were submitted to the legislative case file, as was the compensation proposal prepared by SENARA, SINAC and PIAAG in a supplementary study completed in marzo de 2018, before the Comisión Especial Legislativa issued the unanimous affirmative report (17 de julio de 2018) that culminated in this law. Based on the OET study and their assessment of the three properties at issue (ASETREK, BRINDIS DE AMOR and HACIENDA CIRUELAS), that supplementary study reinforced the reasons for implementing this project and changing the use of the area in question, as well as the manner in which that change would be compensated. Following a field analysis, the study determined that it was feasible to acquire 25.000 ha from the Hacienda Ciruelas property, of which 7,16 represent riparian forest (bosque ripario), 2,42 ha secondary forest (bosque secundario), 13,13 ha deciduous forest (bosque deciduo), and 2,28 ha pastureland, supplementing the information concerning the Brindis de Amor property, which had been assessed by OET.

The report “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and Adjacent Property” determined the biological and geophysical characteristics of the area within the protected zone of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) that could potentially be flooded if the reservoir were established on the Río Piedras as part of SENARA’s PAACUME irrigation project. It also assessed the compensation potential of an adjacent property, identified in the report as ASETREK, if that impact were to occur, applying a scoring-based methodology known as Habitat/Hectare (Hábitat/Hectárea).

Now, the challenge raised by the petitioners and some supporting intervenors is that the standards used in the cited study are insufficient to authorize the de-designation (desafectación) of the area in question and to assess its impacts. However, as indicated, the study at issue was limited to evaluating the conditions that had to be offset in order to assess the impacts that modifying the land-use plan for that area would entail. Furthermore, implementation of the PAACUME project is also contingent upon the conduct and approval of other technical and scientific studies, such as the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) contemplated in provision 4 of the challenged legislation. Thus, not only would it be inappropriate for this Court to review the expert methodology used to conduct a technical study—which would require a dispute concerning legality in which different experts would have ample opportunity to present and debate their views, something not suited to constitutional proceedings—but, more importantly, this law also makes the construction and implementation of the project in question contingent upon the conduct of the supplementary technical study.

Otherwise, that area may not be disturbed. This is because, as reiterated, this law did not de-designate that area so that it could be used for any purpose, thereby stripping it of environmental protection; rather, it did so solely to place it under a different form of environmental protection management and made the project contingent upon the prior completion of the environmental impact assessment, which must identify all impacts and mitigation measures and verify that adequate compensation is provided. Accordingly, although that environmental impact assessment was not conducted before the law was enacted, given the particular nature of this project and the conditions under which the de-designation of that land was approved in order to modify its use and environmental protection—while maintaining its protection against any use other than the justified one and making that use contingent upon the eventual findings of the environmental impact assessment—the principle of objectification of environmental law (principio de objetivación del derecho ambiental) is not deemed to have been violated.

The technical need to supply water to the Chorotega region in order to implement this project was explained to the legislators in the statement of reasons. Executive decrees have declared a drought emergency in that area since 2014, and for years the competent authorities have sought different options to address that problem, even though this was not recorded in a single, consolidated document, as the petitioners claim.

In other words, the public interest in addressing that situation is evident and manifest. Likewise, the supporting intervention brief (escrito de coadyuvancia) submitted by the Minister of Agriculture summarizes the project’s benefits as follows: a) a positive impact benefiting approximately 500 mil farmers (mostly small- and medium-scale farmers); b) recovery of aquifers in the area; c) increased irrigation capacity across approximately 18 mil hectares currently affected by drought and climate change; d) creation of an 850-hectare reservoir surface; e) reduction of the area’s water deficit.

The legislative proceedings also show that the legislators were informed that this particular site was the only suitable location for carrying out the project. Therefore, precisely in view of the impacts that a habitat change would plainly have, environmental compensation (compensación ambiental) was arranged for that area (see, by way of example, appearances at folios 1326, 1327 et seq., 1332, 1334, 1335, 1342, 1351 et seq., 1357 et seq.). Certainly, compensation cannot consist merely of increasing the area of the replacement land, since similar vegetation and wildlife conditions must be sought. However, this does not mean that identical conditions must be required, because even greater environmental benefits could be achieved over time. According to legal scholarship, the fundamental principle underlying environmental compensation is that the compensation provided must not be less than the environmental cost of the impact that will occur.

Its purpose is to compensate for the environmental services provided by the ecosystems affected by the land-use change (cambio de uso). There is no single methodology for measuring this, and the most important consideration is that the environmental gain be maximized. The study conducted by OET was directed toward that objective. It proceeded from the premise that compensation should maximize the gain to the environment and therefore initially determined that a 332-hectare area with an environment similar to that found in ASETREK would offset what would be lost at the impact site in RBLB. That is the reason for the 3:1 ratio stated in the report. However, in order to maximize the environmental gain that a compensation plan must seek, the study noted that it could also be advisable to use other properties containing important additional conservation features beyond the area in ASETREK, particularly because they likewise contain riparian forest (bosque ripario).

On p. 217 of that study, the authors explained why they considered that the reservoir to be formed in the inundation zone should be included in the compensation. Likewise, although other areas were not analyzed as thoroughly as ASETREK, they suggested other adjacent properties to improve the compensation proposal. One of those properties is Brindis de Amor, whose selection was not arbitrary but was based on its location at the northwestern end of RBLB, where it is crossed by one of the few permanent streams in the area (río Cabuyo) and retains a narrow strip of riparian cover (cobertura riparia). The vegetation at this site was indeed evaluated, as indicated on pages 210–216 of the report. The report also considered the uninterrupted studies conducted for more than 25 years in the area by Dr. Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Ángeles), which indicate that troops of white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capuccinus) from Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal use the forests within Brindis de Amor as feeding and resting sites.

In other words, there is evidence of a constant flow of animals to and from the reserve. The use of the Brindis de Amor property as a foraging site therefore demonstrates the property’s biological importance and the soundness of protecting it. The decision to annex a portion of Hacienda Ciruelas was intended to avoid leaving a peninsula along the boundary of RBLB if Brindis de Amor were annexed, which would contravene basic principles of reserve design aimed at minimizing edge effects (efecto de borde) and their impact on the species to be protected. Moreover, that portion also contains a fragment of riparian cover. Thus, this is a technical criterion intended to maximize environmental benefits, based not only on the size of the land but also on the added and maximized resources that would provide more extensive and better equivalent conditions for compensation. Consequently, the professionals considered that initial assessment sufficient, taking into account that these are supplementary annexes rather than the main ASETREK property and that, in any event, they will also be assessed subsequently in the environmental impact assessment.

The study established that the impact area in the southeastern portion of Reserva Lomas de Barbudal is not a wetland (humedal) and is not connected to the wetlands of Parque Nacional Palo Verde. Furthermore, Lomas de Barbudal, Parque Nacional Palo Verde, and the additionally proposed properties are not located within Área de Conservación Guanacaste (a UNESCO heritage site), but rather within Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque (ACAT). That is why the report made this recommendation without diminishing the compensation already contemplated. OET explained it as follows: “…Following this methodology, we conclude that: (1) It is possible to establish ecological equivalence between the two sites (RBLB and ASETREK); (2) The area-based compensation is at a ratio of 3:1. However, as specified in our report, our recommendation was to request even more to compensate for the losses in the reserve, with a view to improving compensation in environmental terms.

The inclusion of these two properties in our final recommendation did not require further assessment because they constitute a supplementary, but not essential, annexation under the methodology established. Although the Ciruelas property was not assessed, it is important to clarify that we conducted a survey of the vegetation structure and composition on the Brindis de Amor property, as specified in our report.” Likewise, the inclusion of the Ciruelas property was justified based on its location and its role as a corridor for species, which was verified by that study group when it investigated the area surrounding the main property. The dispute concerning the sufficiency of the study period and the methodology employed is, once again, a technical matter that is not for this jurisdiction to resolve. In any event, although it was established that this study was scheduled to be conducted over ten months rather than two years, that fact does not in itself constitute a deficiency that would disqualify it, since application of the methodology designed for the study would necessarily lead to the same conclusion regardless of the time taken to conduct it.

In the evidence received by this Court at the oral hearing, Mr. Mahmood Sasa Marín, coordinator of the OET study, stated with respect to this issue that the results should not change if a longer period were allowed. In any event, and to ensure environmental protection, the de-designation of the area in question is likewise contingent upon approval of an environmental impact assessment, which must subsequently be reviewed and approved by SETENA.

The study “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve and Adjacent Property,” assessed at the appropriate time by the legislators, was prepared, at SENARA’s request, by the Organization for Tropical Studies, which has maintained a scientific presence in the country and in that area since 1970, when the Palo Verde Biological Station—now Palo Verde National Park—was created. Duly identified professionals participated in the study and used a specific scientific methodology. Furthermore, it was endorsed by SINAC and SENARA, registered with the Office of the Vice-Rector for Research of the University of Costa Rica, and approved by the Research Council of the Clodomiro Picado Institute, also part of that university, without the School of Biology having timely expressed any reservations to its authors. Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable that the legislators enacted the law at issue after considering the technical opinion expressed therein, just as this Court does at present, since neither is a technical body competent to question and review its scope or to determine whether each of its legal requirements was met.

It should be noted that there is not even any record of a judicial proceeding concerning legality having been brought after the enactment of this law in which that study was challenged and annulled, so as to suggest that the technical value it provided should be diminished. Likewise, although it is alleged that the study in question was not coordinated by the relevant SINAC body, the fact remains that it was endorsed by SINAC, as already indicated. Finally, the compensation offered under this law was at a ratio of 5 to 1 in order to improve environmental redress, since, in exchange for the use of the current 113 hectares, the reserve will receive more than 5 00 hectares that would become part of it, including those same 113 hectares, but with a different aquatic and protected habitat. In this regard, consideration must be given not only to environmental protection, but also to the need to supply a vital resource—water—to a large portion of the population of Guanacaste.

All possible scenarios must therefore be assessed, and the measures least harmful to all parties and rights involved must be adopted, in keeping with the objectives of sustainable development. Nor is the principle of environmental non-regression with respect to the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve violated; on the contrary, the challenged legislation guarantees stronger environmental protection and administration because it expands the reserve’s area; protects and incorporates areas containing natural wetlands (the Cabuyo River and Amores Creek); allocates financial resources for the administration and management of natural resources; establishes coordination among institutions for the management and preparation of the corresponding environmental plans; and, finally, incorporates a new wetland ecosystem that, in addition to being a new destination for waterfowl, will contribute to climate-change adaptation throughout the province of Guanacaste.

Going beyond the OET study’s recommendation that at least 332 ha be acquired, the legislative proposal ultimately approved and supported by national technical bodies such as SENARA and SINAC included many more hectares in the project’s compensation proposal in order to facilitate fire management and control. Likewise, by incorporating the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties, it made it possible to include riparian forest in a suitable state of conservation and also to preserve, because they are located within the project area, the principal headwaters of the Cabuyo River and Amores Creek found on those properties. Moreover, preparation of the General Sustainable and Rational Use Management Plan for this project would be entrusted to a commission with representatives from SINAC, SENARA, and the Municipality of Bagaces and, as SINAC explained, would take into account important criteria regarding the special management category of that reservoir and its ecosystem benefits: “•The powers of each institution would be defined more clearly, and the mechanisms and procedures for the management and use of resources would be better defined. •Under the official Wetland category, there would be greater opportunities to regulate use so that local, national, and international society may have access to quality goods and services produced by a well-conserved resource, including education, research, water, recreation, and tourism. •It would make it possible to prevent and control various unlawful activities—such as land invasion and illegal logging, poaching and illegal fishing, and forest fires—with greater efficiency and rigor. • By assigning the Reservoir a management category and incorporating it as a Ramsar site, the country would responsibly fulfill its international commitments as a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance; the Ramsar Convention approved by Ley número 7224 del 02 de abril de 1991. • Granting it official Wetland status would facilitate the process of regulating tourism activities, in which local groups and microentrepreneurs from the area could participate in developing sustainable rural tourism as a socioeconomic alternative. • The creation of this protected area would strengthen an important zone that serves as a Biological Corridor among the Lomas Barbudal Biological Reserve, Palo Verde National Park, and the Nambiral Biological Corridor. • Local civil society and related local institutions would be brought together to coordinate and carry out comprehensive environmental planning and management through the Local Wetland Council, making efficient use of the resources and installed capacity of each related institution. • The Wetland category would make it possible to plan, regulate, and carry out the harmonious and sustainable use of natural resources with a low level of friction or conflict, unlike what might occur if a National Park or Biological Reserve category were assigned. • Having a core wilderness area would provide justification and motivation for local and regional bodies and international entities to provide technical and financial cooperation to promote actions aimed at conservation and sustainable socio-productive activities throughout the watershed. •Assigning a management category for the regulation and sustainable use of the Reservoir would contribute significantly to conserving the ecosystems and species of the Lomas Barbudal Biological Reserve because, in addition to facilitating connectivity and the movement of species, it would also serve as a buffer zone and reduce pressure on the Reserve’s resources.” It should be remembered that the environments recorded in a particular area are not static but dynamic, and therefore changes, including more positive changes to the ecosystem, may occur over time.

Consequently, the challenged law is not unconstitutional; it was supported by prior studies and technical opinions expressed by the competent authorities throughout the legislative hearings, including SENARA, SINAC, MINAE, SETENA, MAG, and OET. It also establishes the obligation to conduct an environmental impact study, which must first address all applicable impacts and mitigation measures to guarantee that the environment is not in fact harmed, and must also determine that compensation will be provided not only in terms of size, but also in ecological terms insofar as reasonably possible in the latter respect. In this Court’s view, this is a conditional law whose effectiveness is contingent upon the pending environmental impact study for the PAACUME project confirming the previous findings and complying with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the requirements of sustainable development, ecological balance, a healthy environment, and the general welfare of the population, so as to justify the measure and determine that compensation for the area takes into account both quantitative and qualitative elements. The claimants are therefore incorrect in asserting that the precautionary principle is violated.

On the other hand, the claimants challenge the failure to notify RAMSAR of the removal of the RBLB area from protected status or of the change to the boundaries of that biological reserve, which they contend constitutes an omission that breaches our country’s international commitments and, therefore, violates Article 7 of the Political Constitution. In this regard, it should be stated that, although the “Technical Sheet for Expansion of the Palo Verde Ramsar Site, Costa Rica” shows that the RBLB forms part of that site, paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the aforementioned international instrument authorizes States, for urgent reasons of national interest, to delete wetlands or restrict their boundaries, in which case the loss of resources must be compensated, insofar as possible, particularly by creating new nature reserves for waterfowl and protecting an adequate portion of their original habitat, either in the same region or elsewhere.

It is precisely for each State to determine the “urgent reasons of national interest”; therefore, it is not considered unreasonable for the Legislative Assembly to enact a law one of whose purposes is to provide water resources to part of the province of Guanacaste and thereby ensure their sustainable use. Likewise, the text of the aforementioned convention does not establish any obligation—one that would entail a constitutional defect—to notify RAMSAR in advance of the removal of the protected area from that status. In any event, it would be sufficient to provide the corresponding notification, since the State has the authority to do so, provided that it complies with the international commitments it undertook and with domestic parameters such as those established by this jurisdiction. Consequently, the claimants’ arguments are rejected.

B.- Regarding the alleged violation of Article 176 of the Political Constitution and the principles of budgetary balance, reasonableness and proportionality, economy and efficiency. The petitioners contend that no socioeconomic studies were conducted to justify, on the one hand, the removal from protected status (desafectación) and, on the other, the expansion of the RBLB by nearly 500 hectares of privately owned land. They object that the minimum funding required to acquire, protect, and manage the area was unavailable, and that the properties had not even been appraised. They state that the requirement to verify the availability of sufficient financial resources to acquire the lands within the proposed area was not met, and that Article 36 of the Ley del Ambiente provides that, before creating new State-owned protected wildlife areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), regardless of the management category established for them, certain requirements must first be met, including minimum funding to acquire, protect, and manage the area.

They maintain that this requirement was not satisfied in the case of Law No. 9610. They indicate that the 2018 ordinary budget, which was being executed when Law No. 9610 was enacted, contained no budget appropriation to pay for the expropriations (expropiaciones) of the privately owned properties incorporated into the RBLB. They add that this failure violates the principle of budgetary balance (principio de equilibrio presupuestario) (Article 176 of the Political Constitution), because that law created new payment obligations that had not been provided for in the budget law, which is a requirement for expanding protected areas. They further assert that, to permit that removal from protected status, compensation is provided through more than 500 hectares of privately owned land; however, this raises the question of why those properties, rather than other properties adjoining the RBLB, were selected, including lower-value lands or more than 300 hectares of State-owned land adjoining Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal that has a protection category far below that of a biological reserve.

They therefore allege a violation of the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, economy, and efficiency, because an expenditure of billions of colones to compensate for 113 hectares of the RBLB removed from protected status by the challenged law is unjustified when options exist that would entail no cost, or a much lower cost, to the State. This is even less justifiable when the law requires the expropriation of more than 500 hectares to compensate for 113 hectares being removed from protected status, even though more than 300 hectares of State-owned land having a management and protection category below that of a national park or biological reserve could readily be incorporated into the RBLB at no cost whatsoever to the public treasury. They note that not all properties adjacent to the RBLB were reviewed to identify a means of providing compensation at the lowest possible cost. Finally, they state that the cost-benefit analysis was not conducted with respect to all properties adjacent to the RBLB.

Based on the foregoing, it is important to clarify that the jurisdiction of this Court, with respect to the principle of budgetary balance derived from Article 176 of the Political Constitution, is confined to a macro-level analysis and does not extend to a particular situation such as the one under review. As noted by the Procuraduría General de la República, the question of whether the specific appropriation intended to cover the expropriations required to compensate the RBLB was included in the ordinary budget does not concern a violation of this principle.

Moreover, the Court cannot disregard what has already been stated in this judgment: this is a conditional law whose effectiveness is subject to the pending environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) for the PAACUME project confirming the preliminary results and complying with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the requirements of sustainable development (desarrollo sostenible), ecological balance (equilibrio ecológico), a healthy environment (ambiente sano), and the general welfare of the population, so as to justify the measure and determine that compensation for the area encompasses both quantitative and qualitative elements. Therefore, if the aforementioned environmental impact assessment—which, as stated, conditions the effectiveness of the challenged law and the potential commencement of the project’s implementation phase—is lacking, it is premature to require the effective determination and allocation of the financial resources necessary to carry out a future expropriation, since no proceeding to expropriate a property is yet underway.

Additionally, with regard to the proper protection and administration of the RBLB, consideration must be given to the fact that the challenged legislation itself guarantees its strengthening because, among other things, it allocates financial resources for the administration and management of natural resources. Accordingly, no environmental harm or adverse impact is established on this point either.

Furthermore, the alleged objection concerning the supposedly high economic cost to the country of removing that area from protected status and compensating for it with those properties rather than others does not constitute an argument susceptible to constitutional review, but instead concerns discretion, an area in which the legislature enjoys broad latitude—freedom of legislative configuration—in this case logically following technical criteria and considerations of advisability and timing in selecting land when required by a duly established public-interest reason, as is the case here. Moreover, reducing the size of a protected wildlife area and compensating for that reduction must not be based solely on an economic criterion, but also on the ecological attributes of the land, so that it provides environmental conditions equivalent to those of the area removed from protected status. This would likewise entail a technical analysis that is not properly subject to verification in this jurisdiction.

VII.Conclusion. As a corollary to the foregoing, this Court considers the action inadmissible with respect to the alleged violation of Article 45 of the Political Constitution, Article 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, and the principle of legal certainty, because the petitioners lack standing (legitimación). As to the remaining claims, the alleged grounds of unconstitutionality are not established, provided that what is authorized under the challenged legislation is supported by a prior environmental impact assessment that determines the impacts and the corresponding mitigation measures, guarantees environmental protection, and ensures proper environmental understanding.

VIII.Documentation submitted in the case file. The parties are advised that, if they submitted any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, or telematic device or produced using new technologies, these must be collected from the Court’s offices within a maximum period of 30 business days from notice of this judgment. Otherwise, any such material not collected within that period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial,” approved by the Corte Plena at session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

Therefore:

With respect to the alleged violation of Article 45 of the Political Constitution, Article 208 bis of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, and the principle of legal certainty, the action is unanimously declared inadmissible because, on the one hand, no diffuse or collective interest is apparent and, on the other, there is no prior proceeding in which unconstitutionality was invoked as a means of protecting the asserted right or interest. Likewise, the action is unanimously denied with respect to the alleged violation of Articles 7 and 176 of the Political Constitution and the constitutional principles of budgetary balance, reasonableness and proportionality, and economy and efficiency.

Regarding the alleged infringement of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado), provided for in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the action is denied by majority vote. Justices Cruz Castro, Rueda Leal, and Garro Vargas dissent and would grant the action based on violations of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), the principle of non-regression in environmental matters (no regresión en materia ambiental), lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad), and the objective grounding of environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental). Justice Garro Vargas states different reasons and files a separate note.

Justice Hernández López and Justice Salazar Alvarado file separate notes.

Notice of this ruling shall be given to the petitioner, the Procurador General de la República, the Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa, the Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, the Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, the Gerente General del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, and the intervenors (coadyuvantes).

Fernando Castillo V.

Presiding Justice Fernando Cruz C. Paul Rueda L.

Nancy Hernández L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.

Case File 19-000257-0007-CO Separate Note of Justice Hernández López During the deliberation of this matter, I had reserved the drafting of a separate note. However, I dispense with it because the judgment fully reflects the observations I had regarding the matter.

Nancy Hernández López CASE FILE 19-000257-0007-CO Note of Justice Salazar Alvarado:

Having reviewed the complete text of the Judgment issued in this matter, I dispense with the note that, at the time, I considered appropriate during the deliberation and vote on this constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad).- Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Case File 19-000257-0007-CO Dissenting Opinion of Justices Cruz Castro and Rueda Leal, drafted by the latter.

With customary respect, we depart from the majority’s position and declare unconstitutional Law No. 9610 of October 17, 2018, entitled “Modificación de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras,” based on violations of the precautionary principle, the principle of non-regression in environmental matters, lifetime tenure, and the objective grounding of environmental protection.

In the sub examine, the challenged law was based primarily, as shown in the statement of reasons for the corresponding bill, on the June 2017 study by the Organización para Estudios Tropicales (hereinafter OET), entitled “Establecimiento de la línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente.” Although, in principle, it is not for the Sala to technically evaluate the quality of the studies or determine which professional opinion should prevail, it is nonetheless true that this Court may intervene when there are evident and manifest inconsistencies or deficiencies (for example, judgments No. 2012013367 issued at 11:33 on September 21, 2012, and 2013010540 issued at 15:50 on August 7, 2013). In the sub iudice, after analyzing the OET study, we identified a series of problems that are readily apparent from a simple reading and that plainly demonstrate noncompliance with the constitutional requirements established by this Court for removing protected areas from protected status.

Regarding the reduction of protected areas, this Court, in Judgment No. 2019000673 at 12:00 noon on 16 de enero de 2019, held:

“V.- Case law on the reduction of protected areas, the sufficiency of technical reports, and proper compensation.- Regarding the reduction of protected zones, the case law of this Chamber establishes the following:

1. Constitutional requirements for reducing a protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) (statutory reservation (reserva legal) and technical studies): In support of Article 38 of the Organic Law on the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) (“the surface area of protected wildlife areas, which constitute the natural heritage of the State, regardless of their management category, may be reduced only by a Law of the Republic, after conducting technical studies that justify such a measure”), there has been a consistent line of case law holding that, in order to reduce a protected wildlife area under any of its management categories (including national wildlife refuges (refugios nacionales de vida silvestre)), two essential requirements must be met: “by means of a law and following the completion of sufficient technical studies justifying the measure.” (Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), judgments Nos. 13367-2012 and 010158-2013. Similarly, judgments Nos. 7294-1998, 11155-2007, 1056-2009, 18702-2010, and 14772-2010, among others). As stated in the aforementioned 1998 decision:

““(…) once a specific area has been declared a protected zone (zona protectora) by an act of the State, the State cannot simply remove that designation (desafectarlo), in whole or in part, in order to protect other interests—whether public or private—to the detriment of the enjoyment of a healthy environment, in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution. The fact that a provision, regardless of its rank, has declared a specific area a protected zone does not mean that an immutable zone has been established, such that its area may under no circumstances be reduced by a subsequent provision. It must be borne in mind, however, that the declaration and delimitation of a protected zone, in compliance with Article 50 of the Constitution, entails the protection of the fundamental right to the environment and, therefore, any reduction in its area must not impair that right, a matter that must be determined in each specific case.

The fact that a subsequent law reduces the area of a protected zone, a forest reserve, a National Park, or any other site of environmental interest is not necessarily unconstitutional, provided that the reduction is justified insofar as it does not violate the right to the environment. It may be that, due to various circumstances, a particular site has lost, at least in part, the environmental significance that initially led to its protection, which, after the relevant studies have been conducted, would justify its modification or reduction, all in application of the principle of constitutional reasonableness…” (Judgment No. 7294-1998).

Specifically regarding the statutory reservation in this matter, Judgment No.14772-2010 stated:

(…) the public purpose of property within the public domain (demanio público) cannot be modified without a legislative act; that is, the reduction of the area of a protected zone is subject to the safeguard provided by the principle of statutory reservation. Although, pursuant to Article 36 of the Organic Law on the Environment, the Executive Branch is authorized to establish Protected Wildlife Areas upon fulfillment of the requirements set forth in that provision—as Parque Nacional Corcovado was established by Executive Decrees No. 5357-A of 24 de octubre de 1975 and 1148-A of 5 de febrero de 1980—its modification may be carried out only in accordance with Article 38 of the Organic Law on the Environment, following technical and scientific studies and by means of a legislative act. (emphasis not in the original).

Likewise, Judgment No.1056-2009 stated that a reduction is possible only by law:

“when the boundaries of the protected zones forming part of the State’s forest heritage are expanded, this may be done by regulation; however, when those boundaries are reduced, this may be done only by law, provided, of course, that there is a prior expert determination justifying the measure.” (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber No. 1056-2009) This was applied when the Chamber declared unconstitutional the regulatory provision (Executive Decree No. 32753-MINAE) through which the Executive Branch reduced the territory of Refugio Gandoca-Manzanillo, removing the Refuge’s urban zone from the protected area and protection regime.

Moreover, the studies must be prior, sufficient, necessary, and individualized—as indicated in the following section. This was stated in the same 1998 decision:

“According to the foregoing, mutatis mutandis, if, for the creation of a protected wildlife area, the Legislative Assembly, by means of a law, required compliance with specific requirements in order to determine whether the designation in question was justified, it logically follows that certain requirements—such as conducting technical environmental studies—must also be met for its partial or total removal from protected status (desafectación), in order to determine that such removal does not violate Article 50 of the Constitution. In this regard, there may be degrees of removal from protected status. Thus, not every removal of a protected-zone designation is unconstitutional, insofar as it does not impair or threaten the right to the environment. Consequently, to reduce any protected wildlife area, the Legislative Assembly must act on the basis of sufficient and necessary technical studies establishing that no harm will be caused to the environment or place it at risk and, therefore, that Article 50 of the Constitution will not be violated.

In relation to the fundamental right to the environment, the principle of reasonableness requires that provisions enacted in this field be duly supported by rigorous technical studies, even if no other legislation expressly requires them. In the opinion of this Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucinal) (sic), the requirement contained in Article 38 of Organic Law on the Environment No. 7554—namely, that before a protected wildlife area may be reduced by formal law, technical studies justifying the measure must be conducted—is nothing more than the concrete embodiment of the principle of reasonableness in environmental protection.” (emphasis not in the original).

2. Technical study as a scientific and individualized analysis: The Chamber has addressed the sufficiency of the technical study, holding in several decisions that such a study must constitute a scientific and individualized analysis. It stated:

“the requirement of technical studies is not a mere formality but a substantive requirement; that is, a scientific and individualized analysis must substantively demonstrate the extent of the relevant measure’s impact on the environment, propose recommendations aimed at mitigating its adverse environmental impact, and demonstrate how the measure entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Judgment No. 13367-2012. See also No. 10158-2013).

It follows that the technical study required by Article 38 of the Organic Law on the Environment, which constitutes the concrete embodiment of the constitutional principle of reasonableness in environmental protection, requires a technical and individualized analysis that must address, at a minimum, the following matters:

The extent of the relevant measure’s impact on the environment; Recommendations aimed at mitigating the adverse impact on the environment; A demonstration of how the measure adopted entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

In summary, that prior study must demonstrate that the removal from protected status is consistent with the constitutional protection of the right to the environment because, as stated in Judgment No. 18702-2010, “areas of this nature cannot be allowed to be titled indiscriminately, since this would be contrary to the very environmental conservation policies pursued by the State pursuant to the mandates of the Political Constitution and the International Conventions it has entered into.” 3. Compensatory measures (medidas de compensación): A protected area may be reduced only if the reduction is effected by law, if technical and scientific studies rule out environmental harm, and if the area removed is compensated for with another area of equal size. There can be no doubt that all provisions reducing protected areas without the support of technical studies or any compensation whatsoever are unconstitutional” (Judgments Nos. 12887-2014, 2773-2014, 2012-13367, and 2009-1056).

VI.On the challenged provisions.- As may be observed, both the Law Regulating the Creation and Development of the Las Tablillas Border Post, Ley No. 8803, and its Regulations are challenged in their entirety, essentially for two reasons: because there is no technical study supporting the reduction of a protected area (in this case, a national wildlife refuge), and because no compensation measures were established. Each of these claims is examined separately. REGARDING THE TECHNICAL STUDY: The petitioner states that the challenged Law and its Regulations are segregating and reducing several hectares of the National Wildlife Refuge in the border area, without any environmental studies justifying that action. The petitioner states that the legislators relied on a mere recommendation that could never be regarded as a serious, thorough, and comprehensive study that would permit what was done. In its report, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic states that, in Legal Opinion No. O.J.-98-2009 issued by that Office on October 14, 2009, in response to a consultation by the legislators during consideration of the bill that culminated in Ley No. 8803, it analyzed the technical study then included in the record and deemed it insufficient to justify the bill: “…it must respectfully be noted that said technical report does not meet the requirements necessary to support the bill under consultation.

It should be noted that it examines the 236 hectares originally proposed and concludes that the project is not viable from an environmental and social standpoint. However, that study does not explain in any way why that negative impact would not occur on the proposed 13 hectares or, in other words, there is currently no technical assessment addressing the reasons why segregation (segregación) of the 12.3 hectares specified in the bill under consultation would be viable…”. The Minister of Environment and Energy states that there is no unconstitutionality. He adds that the challenged law was not intended to remove the area in question from the public domain (desafectación del dominio público), but rather to authorize the use of a portion of the area for another public-interest purpose, namely the establishment of a border and customs post, with the understanding that the structures would be public rather than private.

Thus, on September 28, 2007, the technical report prepared by the Tablillas case committee, entitled “Request to Reduce the Area of the Corredor Fronterizo National Refuge,” was issued, proposing the removal of an area of 13 ha adjoining the border line, because officials from the Área de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte deemed segregation of the indicated 236 ha area unviable; the report concluded that: “13 hectares would be a more viable proposal from the standpoint of its impact on the ecosystems present at the site and in the surrounding areas.” That report considered biophysical, socioeconomic, and security factors. It concludes that the cost-benefit balance of establishing posts to control and organize migratory entry in that sector helps regulate entry through the publicly owned strip coinciding with the Protected Wilderness Area (Área Silvestre Protegida). The Ministers of the Presidency and Foreign Trade state that the technical report prepared by MINAE in September 2007 appears at folios 76 through 94 of the legislative record.

The identified site meets the appropriate conditions for development of the Border Post project because it had already been affected by human activity, as demonstrated by the absence of important or fragile ecosystems, primary or secondary forest cover (cobertura boscosa), wetlands, or watercourses, and the presence only of natural pastures and cleared land for cultivation or ready for planting. In addition, the area is strategically suitable from a technical standpoint for locating the Border Post because of its proximity to the border line and the existence of transportation routes for internal travel (roads), as well as a national highway connected to the roadway on the Nicaraguan side of the border. In this regard, this Chamber concludes that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic is indeed correct in its report: there is no technical study addressing the viability of this project, because the study that was conducted concerned a larger area and concluded that it was not viable from an environmental and social standpoint.

It was therefore necessary to explain why the new proposal would not cause problems for the wetlands, the species in the area, or the aquifers, and would not create social problems of the kind identified in the initial proposal. The technical study cited by the Ministers is plainly insufficient because it does not explain in any way why that negative impact would not occur on the proposed 13 hectares, the degree of environmental impact of the corresponding measure, the recommendations aimed at mitigating the negative environmental impact, or how the measure adopted entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Furthermore, although it may be true, as the Ministers state in their report, that the property is not leaving the public domain, it is also true that its protected status is being removed (desafectación), environmentally speaking.

It may also be true, as the Ministers state in their report, that, in addition to the environmental interest in the border area, there may be other relevant interests, such as immigration security and others. However, that is precisely what the technical report should have addressed in its supporting rationale. It should be noted that, as the Ministers indicate, certain environmental measures may have been taken; however, this does not alter the fact that the law lacked the technical report that should have supported it, leaving those environmental measures without the required technical basis. Accordingly, the alleged unconstitutionality of the challenged law—and, by extension, of its Regulations—is established because of the absence of a sufficient technical report supporting the reduction of the National Wildlife Refuge in the border area. REGARDING COMPENSATION MEASURES: The petitioner states that the law did not establish timely compensation measures in response to the ordered segregation.

In its report, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic states that unconstitutionality arising from a violation of this principle need not necessarily be remedied by annulment of the Law; if classified as unconstitutionality by omission, it would suffice for the Constitutional Chamber to order in its judgment that the portion or portions compensating for the removed area be added to the Refuge, which could even be done through regulations. The Ministers of the Presidency and Foreign Trade state that the requested demolition of the public infrastructure would immediately leave order, peace, health, sustainable development, life, and human dignity unprotected. They further consider that the State has no obligation to compensate for an already deforested and affected area with another area, because there was never any reduction of the forest or environmental harm that would justify compensation.

In this regard, this Chamber concludes that the challenged provisions are indeed also silent regarding compensation measures. Given the evident segregation of approximately 13 hectares, as stated in Article 1 of the challenged law, and although those hectares did not leave the public domain, they did cease to fall within an environmental management category, which required the establishment of statutory compensation measures; no such measures were adopted or guaranteed, as is apparent from a reading of the entire law. Accordingly, the alleged unconstitutionality of the challenged law—and, by extension, of its Regulations—is established because of the absence of compensation measures for the reduction of the National Wildlife Refuge in the border area.

VII.In conclusion.- The settled case law of this Chamber establishes that any reduction of a protected wilderness area, under any of its management categories (including national wildlife refuges), must satisfy three essential requirements: statutory authorization (reserva legal) (that is, it may be done only by law), prior completion of sufficient technical studies justifying the measure, and the establishment of compensation measures. In this case, it was established that the Law Regulating the Creation and Development of the Las Tablillas Border Post (Ley No. 8803) and its Regulations segregated, and consequently reduced, the National Wildlife Refuge in the border area. However, although this was done by means of a law, no sufficient prior study was conducted that justified the measure, established the degree of its environmental impact, provided recommendations aimed at mitigating the negative environmental impact, demonstrated how the measure adopted entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, or set out specific and detailed compensation measures. All of the foregoing establishes unconstitutionality by omission (inconstitucionalidad por omisión). Accordingly, the petition is hereby granted, with the effects of this judgment being adjusted as stated.”

Based on the cited precedent, we consider that the requirements that must be met for the removal of the protected status (desafectación) of protected areas to be constitutionally permissible are as follows:

• 1)The designation and delimitation of a protected zone (zona protectora), in compliance with Article 50 of the Constitution, entails protection of the fundamental right to the environment and, therefore, any reduction in area must not impair that right (by causing harm or placing it at risk), a matter that must be determined in each specific case.
• 2)The reduction of a protected area, regardless of its management category, may occur only by law and following technical and scientific studies (prior, sufficient, necessary, and individualized) that justify the measure in accordance with the principle of reasonableness.
• 3)Through a scientific and individualized analysis, the study must substantively demonstrate the degree of environmental impact of the corresponding measure, propose recommendations aimed at mitigating its negative environmental impact, and demonstrate how such a measure entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• 4)The reduction of a protected area requires compensation for the removed area with at least one other area of equal size and equivalent conditions.

Now, regarding the problems identified in the study at issue, OET itself stated that at least two years should be allowed for conducting the baseline, compensation, and impact studies. In that regard, it expressly stated: “The recommendation is that at least two years be allowed for conducting the baseline, compensation, and impact studies and that they indeed be regarded as an indispensable component of the project.” The foregoing is crucial for purposes of these constitutional proceedings, because, without any scientific or technical justification having been established, the sampling period for the OET study was only 10 months, a period calculated based on the time limit for the project, with no indication of any technically supported criterion underlying that figure.

In this regard, Mr. Mahmood Sasa Marín, coordinator of the OET study, stated at the hearing held in this action that, in his opinion, the main conclusions would not change if a longer period were used, and that: “the recommendation (…) was aimed at having supporting evidence, right (…) obviously, the more data we have, the better, but I believe that the broad conclusions—let us say, that ratio of approximately three to one—would remain.” However, this situation creates uncertainty and raises doubts, since the consultant himself had previously stated: “that many of those groups (…) do not actually provide sufficient information; many of the taxonomic groups (…), many of the indicators, if you will, (…) that was the time available, the analysis was conducted, those data were obtained, and with those data we weave that conclusion.” Hence, we find that the 10-month period during which the study was conducted does not provide sufficient scientific certainty to ascertain the actual conditions of the RBLB and of the area proposed as compensation (compensación) for the removal of its protected status (desafectación), which is unacceptable because of the impact on a protected area (área protegida).

In other words, if it is stated that the period for baseline studies (estudios de línea base) must be at least two years—that is, a minimum is imposed—and there is no scientific or technical justification for shortening it, the reliability of the results is manifestly uncertain.

Moreover, the aforementioned study was initially intended to analyze only two sites: “the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) and the potential exchange area intended to compensate for potential losses, located at the western end of the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property.” Likewise, Chapters II (Habitat Quality) and III (Community Composition) focus on comparing conditions in the RBLB with those on the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property. It was not until Chapter IV (Considerations Regarding Compensation) that the acquisition of a property known as Brindis de Amor was proposed, based on the following considerations:

“4.2. Other compensation alternatives.

Our assessments reveal that the site selected at ASE TREK to compensate for losses in the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal contains environments of lower biological quality. The compensation-estimation method that we have followed here ‘penalizes’ these lower-quality habitats by assigning them lower scores, which translates into the allocation of a larger surface area with which to mitigate the deficit. The compensation proposal at ASETREK is to subdivide (segregar) the portion of the property containing forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and annex it to the Reserva Biológica.

However, this procedure by itself does not satisfy the need to obtain habitat of a quality comparable to that of the affected habitat, which is currently vulnerable and protected by the Reserva Biológica. Thus, under the habitat-hectare method (método hábitat-hectárea), our results indicate that it is possible to offset some of the losses in Lomas de Barbudal through a specified area of the habitat available at ASETREK; but it does not ensure that all the elements or characteristics that will be affected by the reservoir will be gained. The best example is provided by the riparian forest cover (cobertura de bosque ripario) that will be lost in RBLB and that has no counterpart in the environment available at ASETREK.

Another drawback is that ASETREK, despite containing the largest forest fragment adjacent to the Reserva Biológica, does not have the number of hectares of forest cover needed to satisfy the minimum 330 hectares required by our analysis. Figure 46 shows the deciduous-forest and secondary-forest patches available within the forest-covered area at ASETREK (sites 3 and 4). This forest cover amounts to 292 Ha, although connecting the patches would require subdividing an area of approximately 444 Ha. Furthermore, because they are flammable and conducive to the spread of fires, the grassland and non-forest-use areas within the ASETREK property are considered a threat to the forest fragments that remain on that property.

These considerations suggest that other compensation options should be analyzed as a complement to the contribution that annexing the ASETREK property to the Reserva Biológica would make.

Northeast of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, there are private properties containing riparian- and secondary-forest fragments. Indeed, a cursory examination reveals that forested conditions near Quebrada Amores may warrant protection. One such property is Brindis de Amor, a property of approximately 86 Ha that borders Reserva Lomas de Barbudal and whose forest cover has been protected by its owner, Carlos Jiménez, for the last twenty years (Figure 47).

(…)

4.2.1. Brindis de Amor as a complement to the compensation Brindis De Amor contains 15.87 Ha of riparian forest, 8.4 Ha of secondary forest, and 45.2 Ha of deciduous forest. The remainder of the property consists of grasslands showing early stages of deciduous-forest succession (sucesión). The property is crossed by the permanent Río Cabuyo, the same river that supplies the adjacent Reserva Biológica (Figure 48).

(…)

Based on these observations, the following are the arguments that we believe justify using Brindis de Amor as part of the compensation to offset the losses in RBLB caused by the project.

1. The results of our study, both in habitat quality [sic] and in community composition, reveal the need to offset the loss in Lomas de Barbudal with at least 332 Ha of forest habitat. However, to reach that number of hectares at ASETREK, part of the deciduous forest on the property’s eastern slope must be included, although its quality is lower (because it has a steeper slope) than that on the western side. In addition, there is no mature riparian-forest fragment, which undoubtedly represents a shortcoming in the compensation capacity of the ASETREK property evaluated in our study.

2. The Brindis de Amor property contains 15.87 ha of mature riparian forest. Although the analysis of this fragment’s composition was preliminary, our field observations indicate that it consists of evergreen species similar to those found in the same forest-cover type in RBLB and that its basal area (área basal) is comparable (Figure 49) to that of the fragment found at the potential inundation site in Lomas de Barbudal. Although the extent of the riparian forest at Brindis de Amor is smaller than the area that would be lost in Lomas de Barbudal, it represents a significant portion of what remains throughout the region. Indeed, the riparian-forest area at Brindis de Amor represents 7.4 % of the area currently covered by that forest type within the Reserva Biológica.

(…)

6.1. Final recommendations.

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE COMPENSATION TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

1. Compensation area at ASETREK. In terms of both habitat-quality attributes and species diversity and composition, our results show that the compensation site at ASETREK represents between 30% and 45 % of the quality of the reference site, which translates into compensation of 252 or 332 hectares (estimates taking into account species composition or the lowest possible habitat-quality value, respectively). To establish a uniform criterion, we suggest using the estimate of 332 hectares as the measure of the area needed to compensate for the loss caused by the impact on the Reserva Biológica.

2. Compensation must also be carried out by incorporating other properties and systems. An important consideration is that the number of hectares of the assessed habitat required under our compensation estimates is not available at ASETREK. Furthermore, as noted in this report, that property has no riparian forest available for compensation. Accordingly, we recommend incorporating the Brindis de Amor property as part of the compensation. The proposal is summarized in Figure 51 and would entail annexing 530 Ha (444 Ha from ASETREK and 86 Ha from Brindis de Amor) to Lomas de Barbudal as compensation for the losses caused by inundation of the terrestrial environment.” In this regard, the study also concluded:

“The compensation-assessment procedure was designed to compare sites containing the same type of habitat. However, in the present study, the heterogeneity found at the potential impact site within the Reserva Biológica made it necessary to average the values assigned to each type of forest cover for each indicator. An additional difficulty was that the riparian forest has no counterpart at ASETREK, and it was therefore decided to assign this forest-cover type a minimum value for each indicator.” As can be seen, OET acknowledged that the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property contains environments of lower biological quality and that the compensation-estimation method (habitat-hectare) did not ensure that all the elements or characteristics that would be affected would be gained. It also expressly acknowledged that the proposal to acquire the property known as Brindis de Amor—as a complement to the compensation—was based on a preliminary analysis.

In that regard, the coordinator of the OET study stated at the aforementioned hearing that, although the ASETREK property should have been sufficient from a methodological standpoint—because the difference in environmental quality had been “penalized”—in his own judgment it was not. In addition, the professional in question admitted that Brindis de Amor had been assessed through a series of vegetation samples, but not fauna samples. He added that the study was preliminary in the sense that it did not include the entire fauna component, and in that regard stated: “it is plainly different from what was done at ASETREK, yes.” The foregoing permits the a priori conclusion that the study conducted to compensate for the potential losses did not demonstrate the sufficiency or ecological equivalence (equivalencia ecológica) of the proposed area and that the incorporation of another property was recommended without the same degree of rigor or thoroughness.

It is enough to compare the number of indicators studied in the RBLB and at ASETREK—habitat-quality and diversity indicators, including geophysical attributes, landscape quality, vegetation structure, and ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos); and community-composition indicators, including vascular plants, birdlife, mammals, herpetofauna, fish fauna, and understory-insect diversity—with the preliminary analysis conducted at Brindis de Amor. It should be noted that the study itself stated that adding the Brindis de Amor property contravened basic principles of reserve design because it would not contribute to forming a compact block; nevertheless, its inclusion in the compensation was recommended without any additional formal recommendation or consideration.

Now, even with the foregoing inclusion, the Comité Técnico del Área Conservación Arena Tempisque, in accordance with minutes no. 5-2017 of the meeting held on 30 de junio de 2017, concluded that the proposal was still insufficient: “The type of cover consisting of riparian forest (bosque ripario) is a matter of the utmost concern due to its limited representation within the RBLB. This cover accounts for only 8.0% (216,17 hectares) of the total area of the RBLB. The studies determined that the riparian forest within the inundation site in the reserve accounts for 11,4% (24,64 hectares) of the total area of that cover in the RBLB. The area of riparian forest on the Brindis de Amor property accounts for 7,40% (15,87 hectares). This, together with ASETREK’s 2,2 hectares, amounts to 18.07 hectares of riparian forest proposed as compensation. This leaves a shortfall of approximately 6,57 hectares of riparian forest to compensate for this type of ecosystem.” It also recommended to the regional council: “1.

Identify an area of riparian forest that would make it possible to compensate for the shortfall in hectares of this type of ecosystem. The studies determined that the riparian forest within the inundation site in the Reserve accounts for 11.4% (24,64 hectares) of the total area of that cover in the RBLB, while the area of riparian forest on the Brindis de Amor property accounts for 7,40% (15,87 hectares). This, together with ASETREK’s 2,2 hectares, amounts to 18.07 hectares of riparian forest proposed as compensation, meaning that approximately 6,57 hectares of riparian forest would still be needed to compensate for this type of ecosystem. According to the maps and knowledge of the site, there are other properties adjacent to Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal with those characteristics.” In that regard, the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (CORACAT), pursuant to resolution no. 1 adopted at the special session held on 5 de julio de 2017, and, subsequently, the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (CONAC), at special session no. 3 of 11 de julio de 2017, determined that the combined proposed areas of riparian forest totaled 18,07 hectares, that is, an area smaller than the tract that would be lost at the RBLB inundation site (24,71 hectares).

They therefore proposed identifying an additional area for the compensation proposal that included riparian forest and would thereby make up the shortfall in hectares of this type of ecosystem. Accordingly, after analyzing the proposed areas that could potentially compensate for the missing riparian forest, and jointly with SINAC officials, the inclusion of part of the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property was considered.

Regarding this matter, CORACAT stated in official letter no. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041: “There are several official letters sent by SENARA, for example, SENARA-GG-0374-2017, SENARA-GG-0257-2017, and SENARA-INDER-172-2017, indicating that the ASETREK property contains 6,14 hectares (sic) of riparian forest. Nevertheless, this figure is not mentioned in the study conducted by OET or supported by any study on the matter having the same characteristics as the initial study. With respect to the Brindis de Amor property, this Council likewise considers that the studies were not conducted with the same depth of analysis as the initial study, nor over a sufficient period to provide technical support for the quality of the components addressed from the beginning of the research. More in-depth studies must be conducted on this property, or on any other property considered as proposed compensation, so that this Council may issue a substantiated opinion.” Furthermore, the final compensation proposal was defined in official letter no. SENARA-INDEP-441-2017 of 17 de julio de 2017, which provided that, to compensate for the area whose protected status was removed (área desafectada) and cover the riparian-forest shortfall, 444,04 hectares of the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property, the entirety of the Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., comprising 86,96 hectares, and an area of 40 hectares of the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property would be included.

Thus, after analyzing official letter no. SENARA-INDEP-441-2017, it can be seen that several properties were compared in order to propose the additional compensation area; however, no detailed analysis was conducted of the biological and geophysical characteristics of the Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. property. Furthermore, although SENARA reported that the document entitled “Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal” had been considered during the legislative proceedings for law no. 9610, the section concerning the Hacienda Ciruelas property also expressly stated that only a “preliminary” analysis had been conducted on it.

In a different vein, the case file contains no evidence that there was any complete technical study justifying the decision to remove the protected status of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for purposes of enacting the challenged law. In this regard, Patricia Quirós, general manager of SENARA, was asked at the hearing: Was there any technical study determining the need to remove the protected status of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for the PAACUME Project, any technical study stating that it was necessary specifically to affect that biological reserve so that the PAACUME project could be developed? In response, she stated: “We entered into a contract directly with ICE for the feasibility study of the dam and reservoir on the río Piedras, and, according to the analysis conducted, it was determined that the only location available for construction of the reservoir is indeed on the río Piedras, because there is a depression there, a drop that allows the difference in elevation existing in the area to make it possible to carry the water to the right bank of the río Tempisque.

Thus, it is the only possible location in the region where the reservoir can be built and the water can be carried to the right bank.” Then, before the hearing concluded, she was asked the following: “You mention that there is a technical study that justified removing the protected status of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal and determined that construction of the reservoir at that location was necessary. Specifically, which study are you referring to, and can you submit it to the case file?” In that regard, she answered: “The technical study to which I refer is specifically the study conducted by OET. When the question is asked, what I mean is that the study conducted by ICE refers specifically to the engineering study, the feasibility study for the dam and reservoir.” She was likewise asked a follow-up question: “You state that there was a study saying that the project could be carried out only by affecting Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal.

Is that study the ICE study, then?” To which she replied: “No, there is a feasibility study conducted by SENARA for the entire project, which establishes that circumstance.” She also stated that she would submit a copy of that study to the case file.

In relation to the foregoing, a review of the OET study shows that it did not specifically analyze the need to remove the protected status of the RBLB for construction of the reservoir, but merely constitutes a study intended to establish the Biodiversity Baseline for the area whose protected status was to be removed and the potential compensation site. Likewise, the Feasibility Study submitted by SENARA after the hearing expressly states that it dates from octubre de 2018, by which time the bill had already been approved on second reading (special plenary session no. 11 of 6 de setiembre de 2018), and therefore it could not even have been discussed in the Asamblea Legislativa. Thus, even if this feasibility study addressed the need to remove the protected status of the RBLB, chronologically it could not have served as the basis for that purpose in connection with the challenged law.

It is also worth clarifying that the study concerning the removal of protected status from protected areas is not a substitute for the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) to which the PAACUME project as a whole must be subjected. Specifically, SETENA will be able to analyze the project’s various direct and indirect impacts on adjacent areas, as well as the possible violation of the UNESCO Convención para la Protección del Patrimonio Mundial Cultural y Natural and the potential effects of the PAACUME project on the site declared a World Heritage Site in Área de Conservación Guanacaste. In the latter case, if the Environmental Impact Study establishes measures to mitigate and prevent impacts within the protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) or its surroundings, the corresponding precautions must be taken to comply with those requirements.

In conclusion, because a study was conducted on Reserva Biológica Lomas del Barbudal and the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property over a period shorter than that recommended by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales itself, there is no scientific or technical certainty regarding the results obtained. Furthermore, the study failed to demonstrate reliably and with supporting evidence that the ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. property, as proposed compensation, was environmentally equivalent to the area whose protected status was removed, since the study specifically stated that the habitat was not comparable, did not correspond to the reserve’s environment—the clearest example being the identified shortfall in riparian forest—and did not ensure that all elements or characteristics affected by the reservoir would be gained. The foregoing is relevant because the OET study itself, in its conclusions regarding the impact site and its compensation, stated that the RBLB is one of the few state-owned protected wildlife areas safeguarding natural resources in Costa Rica’s Tropical Dry Forest life zone and that, given such a significant effect from the project’s direct impact, environmental compensation (compensación ambiental) became an indispensable measure.

In addition, because only a preliminary analysis was conducted in the case of the Brindis de Amor property, we consider that the Sala cannot even consider it a priori, since removing the protected status of a biological reserve and proposing the corresponding compensation requires, at a minimum, complete and sufficient studies. The foregoing reasoning applies with even greater force to the Hacienda Ciruelas property, which was not even included in the OET study and for which the analysis conducted was likewise preliminary. In this regard, we consider that a preliminary study can never be sufficient to support a decision with environmental implications of this magnitude, as in the case at bar (sub lite). Finally, there is no indication that the challenged law was supported by any scientific and technical study justifying the need to remove the protected status of the RBLB, since the OET report did not address that issue and, in any event, the PAACUME feasibility study prepared by SENARA postdated the approval of that statute.

Permitting the removal of protected status (desafectación) from a biological reserve on the basis of this OET study (clearly insufficient, as explained above), other preliminary analyses, and a feasibility study that could not even be discussed during the legislative proceedings constitutes a serious regression in environmental protection, which this Constitutional Chamber had previously recognized extensively. Such regression is even more regrettable in light of the recent evolution of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which, in its judgment of 6 de febrero de 2020 (Comunidades indígenas miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) Vs. Argentina), fully incorporates Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of 15 de noviembre de 2017, thereby making the latter’s legal considerations binding jurisprudence for the countries subject to that international court’s jurisdiction.

In this regard, the Inter-American Court emphasizes that “in environmental law, the prevention principle applies to activities carried out within the territory or under the jurisdiction of one State that cause environmental damage to another State, or to damage that may occur in areas that are not part of the territory of any particular State, such as the high seas.” Specifically, the Inter-American Court recalls that the “International Court of Justice has indicated that the obligation of prevention arises when there is a risk of significant harm. According to that court, the significant nature of a risk may be determined by taking into account the nature and scale of the project and the context in which it will be carried out.” Consistent with this perspective, the Inter-American Court highlights, as an essential element of the human right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the duty to regulate, pursuant to which, given “the relationship between environmental protection and human rights (supra paras. 47 to 55), States must regulate this area and adopt other similar measures to prevent significant environmental damage.” (Emphasis not in the original).

In furtherance of the foregoing, the requirement of sufficient technical studies conducted prior to the approval of bills that affect the environment—a requirement ordinarily applied in constitutional jurisprudence in observance of the principle of evidence-based environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental)—clearly constitutes one of those appropriate “similar measures,” elevated to the status of a requirement under international human rights law by virtue of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court.

For the reasons stated, there has been a violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution; the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) (due to uncertainty regarding the actual conditions of the RBLB and the proposed compensation arising from the deficiencies identified in the OET study, as well as the lack of certainty that the healthy and ecologically balanced environment will not be harmed); the principle of non-regression in environmental matters (principio de no regresión en materia ambiental) (because it was not established that the proposed compensation was at least equivalent to the removal of protected status); the principle of irreducibility (principio de irreductibilidad) (because a biological reserve was reduced without satisfying the corresponding constitutional requirements); and the principle of evidence-based environmental protection (because merely preliminary studies were used to support compensation proposals and the challenged law was not supported by technical and scientific studies—prior, sufficient, necessary, and individualized—justifying the reduction of the protected area (área protegida)).

Fernando Cruz C. Paul Rueda L.

Res. Nº 2020-0013836 DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE GARRO VARGAS

I. Preliminary considerations

II. Claims of error raised by the petitioners and examined in this opinion

III. Jurisprudential framework. Technical justification of environmental legislation

IV. On the removal of protected status from a protected area

A. Regulatory and jurisprudential framework governing the removal of protected status from protected areas B. Analysis of the technical justification for the challenged removal of protected status 1. Environmental importance of Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal 2. Examination of the existence of technical studies concerning the removal of protected status a. Statement of reasons for the challenged law b. Reports of SENARA and Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación 3. Report of the Procuraduría General de la República C. Conclusions on this matter

V. On the compensation studies

A. Claims of error raised by the petitioners B. The international obligation to conduct compensation studies C. Reports from the authorities contained in these proceedings 1. Report of the Procuraduría General de la República.

2. Report of the President of the Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa 3. Report of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento 4. Organización de Estudios Tropicales D. Conclusions on this matter

VI. Conclusions

Preliminary considerations As a Costa Rican and as a Justice of this Chamber, I share the concern regarding the extremely serious problem of access to water resources (recurso hídrico) affecting a significant area of the province of Guanacaste. I understand that the law challenged here is intended as a means of resolving it. Nevertheless, much to my regret, I cannot fail to note that it contains serious constitutional defects. Therefore, based on the arguments I will explain, I have decided to dissent with respect to the alleged infringement of the right to a healthy environment and to grant the petition on the grounds that the precautionary principle, the principle of non-regression in environmental matters, the principle of irreducibility, and the principle of evidence-based environmental protection were violated.

Claims of error raised by the petitioners and examined in this opinion Accordingly, in this dissenting opinion I will address only the claims of error relating to environmental matters. On the one hand, I will address the legislative decision to remove 113 hectares of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) from protected status without any study concerning that removal to justify it and, on the other, the attempted justification of the reduction of that reserve through a compensation study that is incomplete and biased.

To analyze both issues, it is first necessary to clarify the line of jurisprudence this Chamber has followed regarding the justification of bills relating to environmental matters. Thus, once each claim of error has been examined, it will be possible to reach properly reasoned conclusions.

Jurisprudential framework. Technical justification of environmental legislation In exercising its legislative power, Parliament is bound by the Constitution and by treaties duly incorporated into our legal system. Moreover, the legislative function—not merely the State’s administrative function—is subject to a limitation: the substance of Article 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP):

“Under no circumstances may acts be issued that contravene unequivocal rules of science or technology, or elementary principles of justice, logic, or expediency.” That provision embodies the principle prohibiting arbitrariness (principio de la interdicción de la arbitrariedad), an essential tenet of the rule of law, which entails a prohibition against making decisions without a proper basis. In examining the origin of this principle, this Chamber stated:

“It was conceived by the German jurist Leibholz in 1928 as a criterion for assessing the legislature’s observance of the principle of equality. Under this formulation, the principle prohibiting arbitrariness entails the prohibition of arbitrariness, that is, of any distinction lacking a sufficient and just reason. The principle was subsequently adopted by Spanish legal scholarship, specifically by García de Enterría in the late nineteen-fifties (1959), in a broader sense—not confined to the principle of equality—than that proposed by Leibholz. Thereafter, the principle, in that broader sense, was incorporated into Article 9.3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 at the proposal of Senator Lorenzo Martín-Retortillo, who justified his initiative on the need to have the principle prohibiting arbitrariness serve as an additional technique or mechanism for controlling or overseeing public authorities inherent in the rule of law.” (Judgment 11155-2007).

In an earlier judgment, the Chamber had already clarified that, although it appears in the LGAP, its origin and ultimate basis lie in Article 11 of the Political Constitution, which provides:

“Public officials are mere custodians of authority. They are required to discharge the duties imposed on them by law and may not claim powers not granted therein” (see Judgment 2004-14421).

In other words, although formally expressed at the statutory level, this principle is substantively constitutional and governs the exercise of public functions in their entirety. It may therefore be concluded that this principle also applies to parliamentary work. In this regard, the Chamber expressly stated the following in Judgment 2003-5090:

“Legislative discretion is not unlimited, because it is constrained by the Law of the Constitution, that is, the body of constitutional law comprising constitutional provisions and customs; constitutional values and principles—including, most notably, those of proportionality, prohibition of arbitrariness, non-discrimination, due process, and defense—and the jurisprudence issued by this Court in similar cases.” (Emphasis not in the original).

Indeed, this Court has established a line of jurisprudence holding that the principle prohibiting arbitrariness requires decisions affecting the environment to be duly supported by technical and scientific criteria. This gave rise to the principle of evidence-based environmental protection, also known as the principle of adherence to science and technology (principio de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica).

This principle was introduced into this Chamber’s jurisprudence in Judgment 2005-14293, which stated:

“[The] environmental ‘principle of adherence to science and technology,’ which governs environmental matters, insofar as administrative decisions that may affect the environment require technical support and, as such, limit and constrain the Administration’s discretion in its actions.” This was expanded upon in Judgment 2006-17126, which stated that this principle translates into the need to substantiate decision-making in this area through technical studies, with respect both to individual acts and to provisions of general application—whether statutory or regulatory. The requirement of “adherence to science and technology” is understood to constrain the discretion not only of the Administration but also of the legislature itself.

All of the foregoing was reiterated in Judgment 2012-12716, which included the following considerations:

“The Chamber adopts as its own the opinion (sic) provided in this case by the Procuraduría General de la República, to the effect that, as a constitutional principle constraining State action in the protection of the environment, the principle of evidence-based environmental protection, or the principle of adherence to science and technology, is recognized:

“translates into the need to substantiate decision-making in this area through technical studies, both with respect to acts and to provisions of a general nature—whether statutory or regulatory—which gives rise to the requirement of ‘adherence to science and technology’ (vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica), thereby constraining the Administration’s discretion in this area.” (resolución No. 17126-2006).

“the environmental principle of ‘adherence to science and technology’ governing environmental matters, insofar as administrative decisions that may affect the environment require technical support, and, as such, limit and constrain the Administration’s discretion in its actions.” (voto No. 14293-2005 reiterado por el 11562-2006).

“The starting point is the principle that environmental rules must have a technical basis, because their application must proceed from limits that determine the conditions governing the use and exploitation of natural resources.” (Voto No. 6322-2003).

It is also related to the principle of reasonableness (principio de razonabilidad) as a standard of constitutionality (parámetro de constitucionalidad):

“The principle of reasonableness, in relation to the fundamental right to the environment, requires that rules issued concerning this subject be duly supported by rigorous technical studies, even if no other legal provision expressly so required.” (Voto No. 7294-1998, emphasis added).

“Thus, the application of this environmental principle is directly linked to a standard of constitutionality governing conduct—both administrative and private—and the rules regulating this subject, namely reasonableness—as developed in the case law of our Constitutional Court—insofar as its purpose is to promote the sustainability of the [sic] use of natural resources and the elements comprising the environment through their ‘proper use’; and by virtue of which it is clear that environmental protection must be directed toward the proper and intelligent use of its elements and their natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships, thereby safeguarding the heritage to which present and future generations are entitled; insofar as the production and use of technology must promote not only economic gains (freedom of enterprise), but above all the favorable development and evolution of the environment and natural resources alongside human beings, that is, without causing them harm or injury, as our Constitutional Court has held in its extensive case law, including from its earliest decisions, such as the above-cited judgments número 3705-93 y número 2006- 17126.” (Voto No. 2410-2007).

It is also closely related to the principle prohibiting arbitrariness (principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad):

“Arbitrary action is action contrary to justice, reason, or the law, arising solely from the whim or will of a public official. The prohibition of arbitrariness condemns the lack of objective legal support or grounds for administrative conduct and, consequently, the violation of the substantive order of principles and values inherent in the rule of law. (…) With respect to the application of the principle prohibiting arbitrariness in the exercise of regulatory authority (potestad reglamentaria), it should be noted that, because such authority is by nature discretionary, the principle prohibiting arbitrariness plays a paramount role.” (Emphasis in the original judgment).

From that decision, it is worth highlighting the precedent it invokes:

“The principle of reasonableness, in relation to the fundamental right to the environment, requires that rules issued concerning this subject be duly supported by rigorous technical studies, even if no other legal provision expressly so required.” (Emphasis in the original judgment).

It is evident that the principles of objectification of environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental), or adherence to science and technology, as well as the principle prohibiting arbitrariness, must be observed by the Legislative Assembly when considering bills, because otherwise the principle of reasonableness as a standard of constitutionality would be violated.

Concerning the removal of protected status from a protected area (desafectación de un área protegida) The challenged law provides for the removal of protected status from the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB). This reserve enjoys absolute protection, similar to that of a national park. The purpose of removing its protected status is to change its use so that this large expanse of land may be flooded, with a view to eventually carrying out the water-supply project known as Paacume. The petitioners state that there is no study concerning the removal of protected status and, in subsequent statements, such as those made at the oral hearing, insisted that what the authorities involved—specifically, the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA)—have is a feasibility study concerning construction of the dam on the Río Piedras, prepared by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE). They argue that this is not the study required by environmental law to determine whether removing the protected status of a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) is justified and that, moreover, it was not included in the legislative record (expediente legislativo).

To analyze this issue, it is essential to identify precisely the applicable law and case law.

Statutory and case-law framework governing the removal of protected status from protected areas The Ley Orgánica del Ambiente provides as follows in this regard:

“Article 38.- Reduction of protected wilderness areas. The surface area of protected wilderness areas, which form part of the State’s natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado), regardless of their management category, may be reduced only by a Law of the Republic, after completion of the technical studies justifying that measure.” (Emphasis not in the original).

In other words, it provides that, before the protected status of a protected area is removed, technical studies must be conducted to justify that decision.

For its part, this Court has established a well-settled doctrine on this subject, namely, the need for technical studies justifying a decision to remove protected status from an area that was previously declared a protected area. Thus, in sentencia 7294-1998, the Constitutional Chamber upheld the action challenging the modification of the boundaries of the Tivives protective zone (zona protectora). That decision stated as follows:

“From the judgment transcribed above, it is clear that once a particular area has been declared a protective zone by an act of the State, the State cannot simply remove that protection, in whole or in part, in order to protect other interests—public or private—to the detriment of the enjoyment of a healthy environment, in accordance with artículo 50 constitucional. Now, the fact that a rule, regardless of its rank, has declared an area to be a protective zone does not mean that the area has become immutable, in the sense that its size could under no circumstances be reduced by a subsequent rule. It must be borne in mind, however, that the declaration and delimitation of a protective zone, in compliance with artículo 50 constitucional, entails protection of the fundamental right to the environment and, therefore, any reduction in its size must not impair that right, a matter that must be determined in each specific case.” “In accordance with the provisions transcribed above, and taking into consideration the specific case submitted for adjudication, the Legislative Assembly cannot validly approve a reduction in the surface area of a protective zone without first having a technical study that justifies its decision.

Such action is contrary to the Political Constitution because it violates the constitutional principle in relation to artículo 121, inciso 1), y 129 de la Carta Política. On this subject, there is a precedent from the Chamber that is relevant both because of the similarity of the alleged violation and because it concerns a situation in which failure to comply with certain requirements has as its effect that of substantive rules or principles of constitutional rank.” (Emphasis not in the original). (See, to similar effect, los votos 1999-02988, 2008-008075).

Subsequently, in sentencia 2012-013367, this Chamber stated:

“It is evident that these two requirements are entirely consistent with the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. First, in this area, the legal system requires that any restriction or limitation of the right must be imposed by law; by contrast, any benefit or expansion of the protection afforded to the right may be established by a substatutory rule (norma infralegal). Second, the requirement of prior technical studies reflects the principle that decisions relating to the environment must be subject to scientific and technical criteria, in order to protect the system’s ecological balance and the health of the environment. In this regard, the requirement of technical studies justifying approval of bills intended to reduce or remove the protected status of an environmentally protected area must be satisfied before or during the legislative procedure. Furthermore, the requirement of technical studies is not a mere formality but a substantive requirement; that is, a scientific and individualized analysis must substantively demonstrate the degree of environmental impact caused by the relevant measure, propose recommendations aimed at mitigating its negative impact on the environment, and demonstrate how the measure entails development that meets present needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In that judgment, the Chamber also developed the principle of progressivity and non-regression in environmental protection (principio de progresividad y no regresión en materia de tutela medio ambiental).

According to this Court, the principle of non-regression (principio de no regresividad), or irreversibility of benefits or protection already attained, derives from the principle of the progressive realization of human rights (principio de progresividad de los derechos humanos) and the principle prohibiting the retroactive application of rules to the detriment of vested rights and settled legal situations, enshrined in numeral 34 de la Constitución Política. The Chamber held that this principle constitutes a substantive guarantee of rights—in this case, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment—under which the State is required not to adopt measures or policies, or approve legal rules, that worsen the level of protection of rights attained up to that time without reasonable and proportionate justification. This principle does not entail absolute irreversibility, because all States may face economic, political, social, or climatic circumstances that could require reconsideration of the obligation to maintain the levels of protection attained.

In such cases, reducing the levels of protection must be justified in light of the constitutional standards of reasonableness and proportionality. In view of these principles, the Chamber stated as follows:

“Consequently, in application of these two principles, the Constitutional Chamber has established that it is constitutionally valid to expand the physical extent of protected areas (áreas de protección) by executive decree (principle of progressivity); however, any reduction may occur only by statute and following completion of a technical study consistent with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the requirements of ecological balance and a healthy environment, and the general welfare of the population, which serves to justify the measure. A right is only as effective as its safeguards; therefore, these principles are violated when the technical study fails to meet the applicable constitutional and technical requirements. If such a safeguard is infringed, the fundamental right protected by that safeguard will likewise be infringed, and to that extent, the reduction of protected areas would be unconstitutional.” (Emphasis not in the original).

Those constitutional principles are binding on the legislature. The Chamber so concluded when it stated the following:

“Within the framework of the Constitution, the legislature has the authority and jurisdiction to reduce the physical dimensions of environmentally protected areas. However, pursuant to Article 50 of the Constitution, legislative decisions in this area must comply with the unequivocal rules of science and technology in order to guarantee a ‘healthy’ and ‘ecologically balanced’ environment and the ‘greatest welfare of all inhabitants.’ The technical study required by Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente must serve these purposes; formal compliance is insufficient because this is a substantive requirement, meaning that it must substantively demonstrate, through a technical and individualized analysis, the degree of environmental impact of the relevant measure, offer recommendations aimed at mitigating its adverse environmental impact, and demonstrate how the measure entails development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Emphasis not in the original).

Subsequently, this Court added that, for the removal of protected status (desafectación) from protected areas, in addition to the specific and individualized technical studies required by Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, compensatory measures are required in order to safeguard the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In judgment 2019-663, the Chamber consolidated its lines of precedent and stated the following:

“1. Constitutional requirements for reducing a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) (statutory reservation (reserva legal) and technical studies): In support of Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (‘the surface area of protected wilderness areas constituting the natural heritage of the State, regardless of their management category, may be reduced only by a Law of the Republic, after conducting technical studies that justify the measure’), there has been a well-established line of precedent holding that, to reduce a protected wilderness area under any of its management categories (including national wildlife refuges), two essential requirements must be met: ‘by means of a statute and following completion of sufficient technical studies justifying the measure.’ (Sala Constitucional, votos números 13367-2012 y 010158-2013. Similarly, sentencias números 7294-1998, 11155-2007, 1056-2009, 18702-2010 y 14772-2010, among others). As stated in the aforementioned 1998 decision:

“‘(…) once a particular area has been declared a protection zone (zona protectora) by an act of the State, the State cannot simply remove its protected status, in whole or in part, to protect other interests—public or private—to the detriment of the enjoyment of a healthy environment, in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution. The fact that a provision, regardless of its rank, has declared a particular area a protection zone does not, however, establish an immutable zone whose area may under no circumstances be reduced by subsequent legislation. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that declaring and delimiting a protection zone, in compliance with Article 50 of the Constitution, entails safeguarding the fundamental right to the environment; therefore, reducing its area must not impair that right, a matter that must be determined in each specific case. Reducing the area of a protection zone, forest reserve, National Park, or any other site of environmental interest by means of a subsequent statute is not necessarily unconstitutional, provided that the reduction is justified insofar as it does not violate the right to the environment.

It may be that, due to various circumstances, a particular site has lost, at least in part, the environmental significance that originally gave rise to its protection, which, once the relevant studies have been conducted, would justify its modification or reduction, all in application of the principle of constitutional reasonableness…’ (voto No. 7294-1998).

Specifically regarding the statutory reservation in this matter, voto No.14772-2010 stated:

(…) the public purpose of an asset in the public domain (demanio público) cannot be modified without a legislative act; in other words, the reduction of the area of a protected zone is subject to the safeguard afforded by the principle of statutory reservation. Although, pursuant to Article 36 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Executive Branch is authorized to establish Áreas Silvestre Protegidas upon fulfillment of the requirements set forth in that provision—as Parque Nacional Corcovado was established through Decretos Ejecutivos No. 5357-A del 24 de octubre de 1975 y 1148-A del 5 de febrero de 1980—its modification may be carried out only in accordance with Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, following technical and scientific studies and by means of a legislative act.

Likewise, sentencia no.1056-2009 stated that a reduction is possible only by statute:

‘when the boundaries of the protection zones comprising the State’s forest heritage are expanded, this may be done through regulations; however, when they are reduced, this may be done only by statute, provided, of course, that there is a prior assessment justifying the measure.’ (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 1056-2009) This was applied when the Chamber declared unconstitutional the regulatory provision (Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 32753-MINAE) through which the Executive Branch reduced the territory of Refugio Gandoca-Manzanillo, removing the urban zone of the Refugio from both the protected area and the protection regime.

Furthermore, the studies must be prior, sufficient, necessary, and individualized—as indicated in the following section. The same 1998 decision stated:

‘In accordance with the foregoing, mutatis mutandis, if, for the establishment of a protected wilderness area, the Asamblea Legislativa, by means of a statute, required compliance with specific requirements in order to determine whether the designation for protection (afectación) at issue was justified, it logically follows that certain requirements—such as the performance of technical environmental studies—must also be met for the partial or total removal of protected status, in order to determine that such removal does not violate Article 50 of the Constitution. In this regard, we may speak of degrees of removal of protected status. Thus, not every removal of protected status from a protected zone is unconstitutional, insofar as it does not entail impairment of or a threat to the right to the environment. Accordingly, to reduce any protected wilderness area, the Asamblea Legislativa must do so on the basis of sufficient and necessary technical studies establishing that the environment will neither be harmed nor placed at risk and that, consequently, Article 50 of the Constitution will not be violated.

The principle of reasonableness, in relation to the fundamental right to the environment, requires that provisions enacted in this area be duly supported by serious technical studies, even if no other legal provision expressly so required. In the opinion of this Constitutional Court, the requirement contained in Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente No. 7554—that, before a protected wilderness area may be reduced by formal statute, technical studies justifying the measure must first be conducted—is simply the concrete expression of the principle of reasonableness in environmental protection.’ 2. Technical study as a scientific and individualized analysis: The Chamber has addressed the sufficiency of the technical study by holding in several decisions that such a study must constitute a scientific and individualized analysis. It stated:

‘the requirement of technical studies is not a mere formality; rather, it is a substantive requirement, meaning that it must be substantively demonstrated, through a scientific and individualized analysis, what degree of impact the relevant measure will have on the environment; recommendations must be offered to mitigate its adverse environmental impact; and it must be demonstrated how the measure entails development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ (Voto No. 13367-2012. See also No. 10158-2013).

It follows that the technical study required by Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, which is the concrete expression of the constitutional principle of reasonableness in environmental protection, requires a technical analysis involving an individualized analysis that must include, at a minimum, the following matters:

• The degree of impact of the relevant measure on the environment; • Recommendations aimed at mitigating the adverse environmental impact; • Demonstration of how the measure being adopted entails development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

In summary, that prior study must demonstrate that the removal of protected status is consistent with the constitutional protection of the right to the environment because, as stated in voto no. 18702-2010, ‘areas of this nature cannot be allowed to be titled indiscriminately, as this would run counter to the very environmental conservation policies pursued by the State pursuant to the mandates imposed by the Constitución Política and the Convenios Internacionales it has entered into.’ 3. Compensatory measures (medidas de compensación): A protected area may be reduced only if this is done by statute, if technical and scientific studies rule out environmental harm, and if the removed area is offset by another area of equal size. There can be no doubt that all provisions reducing protected areas without the support of technical studies or any compensation whatsoever are unconstitutional’ (voto Nos. 12887-2014, 2773-2014, 2012-13367 y 2009-1056).” (Emphasis not in the original).

The foregoing was reiterated in sentencia 2019-012745, which summarized the Chamber’s position as follows:

“Based on the foregoing, a protected area may be reduced only if this is done by statute, if technical and scientific studies rule out environmental harm, and if the removed area is offset by another area of equal size or to the extent possible.” These lines of precedent establish the principle of lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) of protected wild areas, under which it is not lawful to reduce these protected areas unless there is simultaneous compliance with both Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and the principles consolidated in the case law of this Court, namely, the principles of non-regression in environmental matters, objective grounding of environmental protection, and precaution.

Analysis of the Technical Justification for the Challenged Removal of Protected Status The following sections will seek to assess the significance of the removal of protected status (desafectación) approved by the law challenged herein and to establish that the technical studies justifying that measure were omitted.

Environmental Importance of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal To place the analysis of this issue in context, it should be explained that the area whose protected status was removed belongs to the RBLB, which was created by executive decree n.°16849-MAG of 23 de enero de 1986. The importance of this particular reserve stems from the fact that it is virtually the only reserve protecting tropical dry forest environments and their biological diversity, that it contains types of fauna unique in the country, and that it encompasses dry savannas not included in any other conservation unit. This is apparent from the recitals of the decree in question, which state as follows:

“1°.-That it is an essential function of the State to ensure the conservation, protection, administration, and development of the country’s natural resources.

2°.-That the Lomas Barbudal area, in the province of Guanacaste, preserves highly valuable examples of the flora and fauna of lowland wooded dry savanna, lowland riparian forest, and lowland deciduous forest, which formerly covered extensive areas of that province.

3°.-That this area contains at least 10 springs (nacientes) and part of the Cabuyo River basin, which is important for agricultural and livestock production in the region, 4°.-That the soil type of Lomas Barbudal does not provide suitable conditions for sustained agricultural and livestock development but that, from the standpoint of research and tourism, the area is important because it contains unique entomological fauna and dry savannas that are not protected in any other conservation unit.” (Emphasis not in the original).

The decree under analysis provided that, from that point onward, the area in question would be a biological reserve, one of the categories of protected wild areas, specifically established in subsection d) of Article 32 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Likewise, pursuant to sections 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal currently in force, it forms part of the natural heritage of the State (patrimonio natural del Estado, PNE). The latter classifies these properties as public-domain property:

“Article 14.- Non-attachable and inalienable status of the natural heritage.

The forest lands and forests constituting the natural heritage of the State, as detailed in the preceding article, shall be non-attachable and inalienable; their possession by private parties shall not confer any right upon them, and the State’s action to recover such lands shall not be subject to any statute of limitations. Consequently, they may not be recorded in the Public Registry through possessory-information proceedings, and both their invasion and their occupation shall be punished in accordance with this law.” The Ley de Biodiversidad defines protected wild areas as follows:

“Article 58. Protected wild areas Protected wild areas are delimited geographical areas consisting of lands, wetlands, and portions of the sea. They have been declared as such because of their special significance in terms of their ecosystems, the existence of threatened species, their impact on reproduction and other needs, and their historical and cultural significance. These areas shall be dedicated to conserving and protecting biodiversity, soil, water resources, cultural resources, and ecosystem services in general. The objectives, classification, requirements, and mechanisms for establishing or reducing these areas are set forth in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554, de 4 de octubre de 1995. The prohibitions affecting natural and legal persons within national parks and biological reserves are established in the Ley de la Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales, No. 6084, de 24 de agosto de 1977.

During the process of fulfilling the requirements for establishing state protected wild areas, the respective technical reports shall include the relevant recommendations and justifications for determining the most appropriate management category to which the proposed area should be subject. In all cases, the establishment of areas and categories shall give careful consideration to the previously acquired rights of Indigenous or rural populations and other natural or legal persons located within or adjacent to the area.” (Emphasis not in the original).

The regulations implementing the Ley de Biodiversidad, n.°34433, define biological reserves and establish their technical management category as follows:

“Article 70 (…) d). Geographical areas containing terrestrial, marine, marine-coastal, or freshwater ecosystems, or a combination thereof, and species of particular conservation interest. Their principal purposes shall be the conservation and protection of biodiversity, as well as research.” Consequently, they have a highly restrictive management category, since only conservation, protection, and research are permitted.

It should be emphasized that the RBLB is not itself a wetland, but, according to the authorities, it does form part of the Ramsar site Palo Verde; that is, it forms part of a wetland of international importance (Ramsar site).

As is well known, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (known in abbreviated form as the Convenio de Ramsar, duly approved by law n°.7224) provides that wetlands of international importance must retain their designation and original boundaries and that changing them should be considered only in truly exceptional circumstances (Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention, cited below). Moreover, when Ramsar sites are defined, consideration is given not only to the ecosystems themselves, but also to the existing interrelationships that affect the wetlands.

The Parque Nacional Palo Verde was created by executive decree n.°11541 del 30 de mayo de 1980, whose recitals stated as follows:

“1°—That the area comprising fila Catalina, fila Pedregosa, cerro Bocana, cerro El Roble, and cerro Alvarado, in Guanacaste, is one of the last areas in the entire province to preserve tropical dry forests, an ecological formation that is very scarce in the country.

2°—That the Nicaragua, El Roble, Los Aromos, and Corralillos lagoons, and the sites El Tieso, Piñuela, Cristina, and others, are places of particular importance for the conservation of migratory and resident birds and are also the country’s richest areas in terms of birdlife.

3°—That the area as a whole is particularly diverse in wildlife and is one of the last remaining refuges for animals that are still unprotected in the province of Guanacaste.

4°—That it also contains several ecosystems with great diversity and richness of plant species, such as forests on limestone deposits, herbaceous lagoons, mixed lowland forests, and palo verde forests on Vertisols.” This was ratified by law n.°6794 de 25 de agosto de 1982, “Ley de Creación de Parques Nacionales y Reservas Biológicas. Ratifica como Leyes Decretos Creadores de Parques Nacionales y Reservas Biológicas”. Subsequently, executive decree 27345-MINAE, “Establece para el Parque Nacional Palo Verde Manejo Activo en sus Humedales y Áreas de Pasto y Crea Comité Asesor”, emphasized the following in its recitals:

“III.—That among the fundamental objectives of Parque Nacional Palo Verde are the protection, management, conservation, and restoration of both wetland and tropical dry forest ecosystems in order to maintain wildlife diversity and populations.

IV.That the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, known as the Ramsar Convention, was ratified by Costa Rica through law 7224 del 2 de abril de 1991 and that, as an international legal instrument, it has a status superior to that of ordinary law. That Costa Rica, as a contracting party, must promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by creating wetland nature reserves and properly providing for their management and care. It also undertakes to promote research and the exchange of data concerning wetlands in order to foster conditions conducive to increasing waterfowl populations.” (Emphasis not in the original).

In addition, the General Management Plan for Parque Nacional Palo Verde, issued by the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, clearly establishes the inclusion of the RBLB within Parque Nacional Palo Verde (see Acuerdo n.°20 de la Sesión Ordinaria n.°03-2016 del 28 de marzo del 2016, issued by the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, available on the Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica – SCIJ website).

Through executive decree n.°39786-MINAE de 22 de abril de 2016, the management, conservation, and rehabilitation activities for this park were declared to be of public and national interest:

“Article 3.- Declaration of Public Interest. The active-management activities for the conservation and rehabilitation of the ecosystems of Parque Nacional Palo Verde are hereby declared to be of public and national interest, for the purpose of obtaining support for their implementation from the State and other public agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and public and private international organizations.” A detailed examination of the foregoing legal framework reveals the great importance of the area in question for environmental protection. Accordingly, decisions concerning any reduction in the size of these areas or change in their designated purpose must be duly supported by technical studies appropriately justifying such a determination.

Examination of the Existence of Technical Studies Concerning the Removal of Protected Status Based on the foregoing, it is clear that national legislation, the constitutional principles examined, and constitutional case law all require, as a first element, that a law providing for the removal of the protected status of a protected wild area forming part of the PNE must be reasonably grounded in a technical study specifically justifying why the status of a particular area should be removed and its legal nature changed. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the challenged law was supported by such a study.

Statement of Reasons for the Challenged Law As has been seen, the original purpose of safeguarding these lands is to protect a highly distinctive type of forest that is nearly unique in our country, namely, tropical dry forest and its biological diversity, which is not included under any other specific category of protection. In contrast, although the challenged legislation provides it with environmental protection and stipulates that it shall be recognized as a wetland ecosystem (ecosistema de humedal) administered by the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) (Article 6 of Law No. 9610, which “Modifies the Boundaries of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal for the Development of the Water Supply Project for the Middle Basin of the río Tempisque and Coastal Communities”), the fact remains that its nature is completely altered. This is because the ultimate purpose of the removal of protected status (desafectación) is precisely to make the Paacume project possible, which entails flooding these primary forest areas. The study by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET) itself demonstrated the change in the nature of the property:

“Due to its geographical location and the terrain of the area, the Rio Piedras reservoir would directly affect a site within the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, a protected wildlife area (área silvestre protegida) created in 1986 to safeguard tropical dry forest environments and their biological diversity. The area in dispute has been estimated at nearly 113 hectares below the elevation contour of 50 m, which would be flooded once the reservoir is built.” (Emphasis not in the original).

Regarding the purpose of the Paacume project, the explanatory statement accompanying the bill set forth the following in detail:

“The fundamental objective is to provide water—accessible in sufficient quantity, quality, and at the appropriate time—at a rate of 20 cubic meters per second for various potential uses. The project is expected to benefit at least 204 thousand people and provide irrigation for at least 17 thousand hectares. Of this flow, 2 cubic meters per second will be available for the long-term supply of communities in the cantons of Santa Cruz, Nicoya, and Carrillo, and will be administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. In addition, the project provides for at least 1.5 cubic meters per second of water for irrigation to support tourism activity in the coastal area, thereby benefiting coastal communities by freeing up groundwater currently used for irrigation.

“This project will not only provide communities and the productive sector with sustainable access to water, but also seeks to harmonize and regulate the rational exploitation of the principal groundwater resources in aquifers on the right bank of the middle basin of the río Tempisque, because it will enable the State to regulate the maximum use of wells for these activities.” Accordingly, and bearing in mind what the authorities stated during the constitutional challenge proceedings (trámite de acción de inconstitucionalidad), there is no doubt as to the urgency and importance of enabling access to potable water service and addressing other problems involving drought, shortages, aquifer desalination, among others (see statements by the Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa, SENARA, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG)). It is stated that water will be supplied to the area through the construction of a dam on the Río Piedras, which will require a reservoir with a water surface area of approximately 850 hectares, of which 113 hectares lie within the RBLB, according to the design prepared by SENARA.

However, upon review of the explanatory statement accompanying the bill, the legislative record, and the record of this constitutional challenge, it was not possible to ascertain compliance with this critically important requirement, namely, the preparation of a study specifically justifying the need to address this severe problem by removing an area under special protection from protected status.

The only reference in the explanatory statement is the following:

“Accordingly, the location of the dam on the río Piedras is dictated by a unique topographical condition that does not permit it to be relocated elsewhere; therefore, this location and the difference in elevation between the inlet of the canal supplying it and the outlet of the canal that will carry the water to the río Tempisque determine the maximum reservoir level and its capacity to supply Paacume with 20 cubic meters per second.

“At one point, the possibility was considered of constructing a dike to prevent the flooding of this area of the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal and a tunnel more than 2 kilometers long to drain the water; however, it was found that the site of the dike coincides with a geological fault that would make its construction impossible due to the high risk it poses to the works.” (Emphasis not in the original).

Although these assessments may be useful in illustrating the situation, they in no way establish that the necessary study specifically justifying the removal of protected status was conducted.

Reports of SENARA and the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación The report submitted by SENARA authorities after the oral hearing held in these constitutional challenge proceedings referred to a Feasibility Study for the Water Supply Project for the Middle Basin of the Río Tempisque and Coastal Communities. This study dates from October 2018; in other words, it was prepared at approximately the same time as the legislation under review was enacted, namely, 17 de octubre de 2018. It therefore could not have been considered by the legislative body. Likewise, both at the oral hearing and in the subsequent report, the General Manager of SENARA stated that the area has ideal conditions for carrying out the works and based her statements on a technical study conducted by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE)—pursuant to inter-administrative agreement (contrato interadministrativo) SENARA-ICE-MINAE 201600011 and its addenda—according to which, given the topographical conditions of the area, the area in question has ideal conditions for constructing a large-capacity reservoir (see report submitted to the Chamber on 15 de junio de 2020). However, it is clear that no specific study exists to justify the removal of protected status as such.

The legislative record contains statements made by the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque itself in julio de 2017, concluding as follows:

“Based on the aforementioned study (Mandatory Consultation with Local Communities, Compensation Proposal for the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal) and the documents submitted to date, this body considers that it has not yet been demonstrated that other alternatives for the PACUUME project exist that would avoid the need to remove an area of the current RBLB from protected status. If those alternatives are in fact not viable, it will be necessary to evaluate the third measure, which is compensation.” (Official Letter SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041, appearing at folios 126 and 1492 of the copy of the legislative record).

Additionally, Official Letter SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 of 9 de setiembre de 2018 was submitted during the legislative proceedings, in which the Executive Secretary of the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque emphasized the following:

“Pursuant to the Ley General de Administración Pública and the line of precedent established by the Sala Constitucional, sufficient environmental, legal, and financial technical studies must exist to justify the proper selection of both the area to be removed from protected status and the areas that would serve as compensation. The existence of these studies within the record of this bill must be verified, because as of this date this Council does not have such information.” (Folio 2641 of the copy of the legislative record. The emphasis appears in the original official letter).

These statements show that, in the view of these authorities, the compensation study must follow the technical studies justifying the need to remove the areas in question from protected status and radically alter their designated use. In other words, they would cease to be tropical dry forest and become—through flooding—a wetland, thereby losing the area’s original richness. The authorities of the Área de Conservación themselves emphasize that the initial decision to remove protected status is not duly supported by a study appropriately justifying it. Indeed, the governing authority of the Área de Conservación in question stated during the legislative proceedings that “it has not yet been demonstrated that other alternatives for the PACUUME project exist that would avoid the need to remove an area of the current RBLB from protected status” (folios 126 and 1494). It also drew the legislators’ attention to the need for sufficient environmental, legal, and financial technical studies to justify “the proper selection (…) of the area to be removed from protected status.” At a later stage, once the technical determination has been made that a particular protected wildlife area must be removed from protected status, compensation studies are required.

These studies seek a form of environmental redress for the area eliminated through another area of equal size and similar biological characteristics. In this regard, the representatives of OET stated the following:

“Environmental compensation for an environmental impact is a measure of last resort, which should be undertaken only where the impact cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated. Consequently, when the impacts of a project require compensation, the situation is one in which redress for a potential impact is unavoidable. Under those circumstances, the discussion should focus not on whether compensation is possible, but on how to achieve it in a manner that produces environmental gains.” (Emphasis not in the original).

It could be concluded from the foregoing that even OET itself recognizes that it must first be determined with certainty, on the basis of technical studies, that removing protected status is the last possible solution, after which the corresponding study of compensation measures must be conducted.

The Report of the Procuraduría General de la República It is highly relevant to the case at hand to reproduce, insofar as pertinent, certain passages from the report submitted by the Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) in the constitutional challenge. Regarding the need to conduct a prior study justifying the removal of portions of the RBLB from protected status, it stated the following:

“Moreover, even if the sufficiency of the OET study and the final compensation proposal is established, it must be noted that this technical study would justify only the validity of the compensation carried out and, as such, is not a technical study directly justifying the decision to remove part of the RBLB from protected status.

“In light of the constitutional case law on the matter, the study required by Article 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente to justify reducing a protected wildlife area should be a study determining the necessity and advisability of adopting that type of measure.

“In this case, a study to that effect would be one providing a technical basis for the need to remove part of the RBLB from protected status. That is, a study determining that the only alternative for developing the PAACUME project and the Río Piedras reservoir is to remove part of the Reserva Biológica from protected status.

In this regard, the Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, referring to the OET study, stated that “this body considers that it has not yet been demonstrated that there are other alternatives for the PAACUME project that would not necessarily require removing protected status (desafectar) from an area of the current RBLB. If those alternatives are indeed not viable, it will be necessary to assess the third measure, namely compensation.” (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo). After the bill was approved in the second debate, that same Council stated that “there must be sufficient environmental, legal, and financial technical studies to justify the proper selection of both the area whose protected status is to be removed and the areas that would serve as compensation. The existence of these studies must be verified within the record of this bill, because as of this date this Council does not have that information.” (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644).

The “Documento Perfil del Proyecto PAACUME,” prepared by SENARA (Folios 505-621), proceeds from the premise that “one of the properties within the reservoir area belongs to the Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, with an area of approximately 112 ha.” It states that the “area must be compensated for with an adjacent area having similar ecological characteristics, which requires the preparation of a biodiversity baseline study (estudio de línea base de biodiversidad) demonstrating the equivalence of the compensation areas,” and indicates that the study was prepared by OET. (ver folio 557). Some of the officials who appeared at the sessions of the Legislative Committee that considered the bill stated that, from a technical standpoint, the PAACUME project could not be developed without removing protected status from and flooding part of the RBLB. In the document entitled “Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal” (Folios 622-726), in response to a question asked by one of the participants, it was stated that “if the 113 hectares of the RBLB cannot be obtained, the project changes completely, because without these 113 hectares of the RBLB, the dam specifications, the quantity of water to be impounded, the cost of the project, and the design would all have to change completely.” (Folio 661).

Accordingly, based on the views of the institutions afforded a hearing concerning this constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad), it must be determined whether sufficient technical support exists to justify the need to remove protected status from part of the RBLB so that it may be used in implementing the PAACUME project.

If that basis is not established, Ley 9610 must be declared unconstitutional for violating the principles of non-reduction of protected wild areas (irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas), evidence-based environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental), and non-regression (no regresión).

Under that assumption, the provision could be contrary to the Convención Ramsar because, although it is true that the Convention does not require States to give prior notice of a decision to modify the area of sites of international importance, its Article 4° makes that possibility contingent upon the existence of an urgent reason of national interest, which would not be duly justified in this particular case.” (Emphasis not in the original).

It is apparent that the PGR emphatically noted the need to address the applicants’ arguments concerning this first claim, namely, the obligation to determine whether there is a technical study justifying the removal of protected status from a particular protected area such as the RBLB.

Conclusions on this matter It is established that the authorities proposing the project have repeatedly asserted that the existence of the compensation study justifies the need to remove protected status. The foregoing reflects, at the very least, serious confusion between the respective purpose of a study concerning the removal of protected status from a specially protected area that has been incorporated into the PNE and that of a compensation study. That confusion—or attempt to equate two categories of studies that are different in nature—renders the decision to remove protected status unjustified.

Moreover, it should be added that both studies differ from the technical study required to assess the infrastructure intended for development, namely, an environmental impact assessment (estudio de evaluación de impacto ambiental). Under the terms of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, such an assessment applies specifically to human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate hazardous waste, and it is an essential prerequisite before activities, works, or projects may begin:

“Article 17. Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste or toxic or hazardous materials shall require an environmental impact assessment by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental created under this law. Prior approval by that body shall be an essential prerequisite for commencing the activities, works, or projects. Laws and regulations shall specify which activities, works, or projects require an environmental impact assessment.” Accordingly, based on the regulatory framework and the case law, it must be concluded that the technical studies justifying the removal of protected status and the subsequent compensation studies must precede the legislative decision, precisely because that decision is required to be based on those studies.

I therefore consider that the PGR is correct in concluding that the challenged law is unconstitutional because it lacks a study providing technical support for the need to remove protected status from part of the RBLB. This omission violates the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), the principle of non-regression in environmental matters, the principle of non-reduction, and the principle of evidence-based environmental protection.

Regarding compensation studies The claims, regulatory framework, and reports concerning the obligation to conduct compensation studies shall now be examined.

• Claims raised by the applicants The applicants challenged the attempt to justify the reduction of the RBLB’s area through an incomplete and biased study conducted by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET). They allege that the intent is to compensate for the area whose protected status would be removed and which is intended to be flooded by adding private lands adjacent to the biological reserve, including two properties identified by SENARA. No study was conducted concerning one of them (a property belonging to Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A.), while only a very superficial study was conducted concerning the other (a property belonging to the company known as Brindis de Amor).

They thus contend that ley n.°9610 violates Article 50 of the Constitución Política because, in their view, it does not include a serious, comprehensive, and objective study of the consequences of removing protected status from 113 hectares of the RBLB and replacing or compensating for them with approximately 500 hectares of private properties intended for incorporation into the biological reserve. In this regard, they question the soundness of the study conducted by the Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET), which was intended to justify the removal of protected status and the compensation. They refer to other studies that call the consistency of that study into question and conclude that it is “insufficient to define the change in the boundaries of Lomas de Barbudal and does not demonstrate that this change will be fully compensated for by additional areas in other sectors of the Reserve.

The ASETREK property, which was studied in greater detail by the consultants, is ultimately acknowledged as insufficient to justify the land exchange, and other nearby properties are hastily introduced to balance the compensation.” They insist that the study conducted by OET is neither complete, objective, scientific, nor technical, because it contains numerous omissions and weaknesses. They reiterate that the study focuses almost entirely on a portion of one of the three private properties intended to compensate for the 113 hectares whose protected status was removed by the law, while omitting studies of the biological conditions of the other two properties. It therefore cannot be scientifically determined that those properties actually possess environmental characteristics capable of replacing the ecosystem functions (funciones ecosistémicas) of the area whose protected status is to be removed.

The international obligation to conduct compensation studies With regard to the need to adopt compensation measures when protected wild areas that are wetlands or are integrated into wetlands are to have their protected status removed, there is an international obligation established in the Convención Ramsar, ley n.°7224 de 9 de abril de 1991, which provides as follows:

“Article 2.5. The Contracting Parties shall have the right to add to the ‘List’ other wetlands situated within their territory, to extend the boundaries of those already included, or, because of urgent reasons of national interest, to delete from the ‘List’ or restrict the boundaries of wetlands already included, and shall inform the organization or government responsible for the functions of the permanent Bureau specified in Article 8º of such changes as rapidly as possible.” “Article 4. 1. Each Contracting Party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by establishing nature reserves on wetlands, whether or not they are included in the ‘List,’ and shall adequately provide for their management and care.

2. Where a Contracting Party, because of urgent reasons of national interest, deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the ‘List,’ it shall, as far as possible, compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, shall establish new nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same region or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of their former habitat. 3. The Contracting Parties shall encourage research and the exchange of data and publications regarding wetlands and their flora and fauna.” (Emphasis not in the original).

These provisions establish the State’s obligation to provide compensation that, insofar as possible, remedies the loss of wetland resources and to establish new nature reserves for protection within the same region.

Reports from the authorities contained in these proceedings 1- Report of the Procuraduría General de la República.

In its report, the PGR stated that if the OET study and the final RBLB compensation proposal were determined to be technically insufficient, the challenged law would be unconstitutional for violating the principles of evidence-based environmental protection, precaution, prevention (prevención), and non-reduction of protected wild areas. Indeed, there would be no guarantee that the approved change in boundaries does not affect the integrity of the RBLB, and the environmental impact caused by removing protected status from part of that biological reserve would not be adequately mitigated. This would also be contrary to the obligation established by Article 3° of the Convención Ramsar to promote the conservation of wetlands included in the list of wetlands of international importance.

Report of the President of the Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa The President of the Legislative Assembly states in her report that the legislative record contains the study entitled “Establishment of a Biodiversity Baseline for the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) and Adjacent Property,” conducted by OET, which carried out a comparative analysis between the reserve and previously selected neighboring lands to determine their similarity and the feasibility of using them as an ecologically equivalent replacement. She explains that OET conducted the corresponding study based on the guidelines established by SENARA and that OET was able to verify that the area of RBLB whose protected status was to be removed (desafectar) was in better ecological condition than the areas proposed as compensation, at a ratio of 3 to 1; that is, for every hectare removed from protected status, 3 should be provided as compensation.

She asserts that a detailed review determined that one of the purposes for which RBLB was created—specifically, the conservation and protection of riparian forest (bosque ripario)—was not represented within the ASETREK property, which had been proposed to compensate for the 113 hectares whose protected status would be removed. She explains that this created the need to seek other neighboring lands containing riparian forest to remedy the shortfall of that ecosystem in the compensation proposal. She notes that because the only requirement was to locate riparian forest, the studies of the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties were not conducted in the same depth of detail as the ASETREK studies; nevertheless, she states that OET did conduct a characterization study of the Finca Brindis de Amor as supplementary compensation, which appears on folios 209 through 215 of the study.

Report of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento These authorities explained that the study was conducted by OET and provides that compensation for the area shall consist of incorporating 556 hectares in exchange for the removal of 113 hectares from protected status. They argue that OET recommends acquiring at least 332 hectares of the ASETREK property; however, to facilitate management and fire control, the decision was made to incorporate 444 hectares of ASETREK, thereby compensating for all the different ecosystems found within the 113 hectares of RBLB, except for the riparian forest. Consequently, they clarify that the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties were included in the compensation proposal on the recommendation of the administrator of Lomas Barbudal, based on the fact that they contain riparian forest lands in an adequate state of conservation, as well as the principal springs (nacientes) of the río Cabuyo and quebrada Amores.

Organización de Estudios Tropicales Because of their importance, the relevant passages of the report prepared by OET, which served as the technical basis for the compensation undertaken in this specific case, are reproduced below. The executive summary of that report states as follows:

“The affected site at Lomas de Barbudal contains three types of environments, each corresponding to a different type of forest cover (cobertura forestal): deciduous forest (bosque deciduo), secondary forest (bosque secundario), and mature forest (bosque maduro) associated with the streams at the site and therefore referred to here as riparian forest. Deciduous forest represents 70% of the forest cover at that site and corresponds to an early successional stage (estadío de sucesión temprano), characterized by an open canopy, pioneer species, and a low density of trees. Secondary forest has greater structural complexity and corresponds to a more advanced stage in which dominant trees persist. Finally, the riparian forest, consisting primarily of evergreen species and dominant trees, is one of the most threatened plant associations (asociaciones vegetales) in the region. Approximately 30 hectares exist at the affected site, representing approximately 11% of the cover of that type of association in the Reserva Biológica. The compensation site is also heterogeneous in terms of forest cover and contains deciduous forest, secondary forest, grassland, and non-forest areas. This site has no riparian forest.

Thus, the site in the Reserva Biológica yielded higher estimated species richness (riqueza de especies) than the estimates for the potential compensation site at ASETREK. Moreover, the species found in the Reserva Biológica are not the same as those found at ASETREK: the greatest similarities in composition were found among the amphibian community, arthropod families, and birds, with 79%, 76%, and 62% shared species, respectively, while the sites share only 55% and 50% of their woody plant and mammal species. For reptiles, fish, and herbaceous plants, the sites at Lomas de Barbudal and ASETREK share 39%, 34%, and 33% of their species. These discrepancies mean that the species composition at ASETREK represents approximately 45 % of that measured at the reference site. Our analyses reveal that, overall, the potential inundation site at Lomas de Barbudal has greater structural complexity, more dominant trees, greater biomass, and greater carbon-sequestration potential.

The contribution of the riparian forest to these indicators is undeniable, but differences were also observed between the secondary forest cover at Lomas de Barbudal and that at ASETREK, with the latter showing the lowest values. These differences indicate that the environment at the ASETREK compensation site has been more disturbed than the site at Lomas de Barbudal. In terms of environmental structure and quality, the habitat at ASETREK received a lower score than the reference site, equivalent to 51.2% of its quality. The uncertainty resulting from the heterogeneity of the environments present reduces the estimated environmental-quality score; accordingly, the minimum possible environmental-quality value estimated from our data is 34 pts. Because this environment is of lower quality, approximately 332 hectares of habitat like that observed at ASETREK would be required to compensate for the loss of the 113 hectares at the reference site.

Therefore, the potential compensation site at ASETREK is inferior in environmental quality, composition, and biodiversity to the site that would be directly affected by the Embalse Rio Piedras within the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. Following the procedure for estimating the area necessary to offset losses resulting from the impact, we recommend annexing at least 332 Ha of the type of habitat observed at the potential compensation site to offset the losses that the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal will sustain as a result of the Embalse Piedras. One proposal is to designate the forested portion of ASETREK as the compensation area. This would require subdividing (segregar) 444 Ha from that property in order to connect the available forest fragments. Even so, that land does not include riparian forest cover, and it is therefore suggested that Bridis de Amor, an 86 Ha property adjoining the northern boundary of the Reserva Biológica and containing almost 16 hectares of riparian forest, also be annexed.

The incorporation of both properties (the subdivided portion of ASETREK and Brindis de Amor) would entail annexing 530 hectares as compensation for the 113 Ha that would be lost in Reserva Lomas de Barbudal.” Regarding the petitioners’ claim that the OET study was conducted hastily and that additional properties were subsequently included without a study similar to the one conducted for the ASETREK property, they stated as follows:

“To the northeast of the Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, there are private properties containing fragments of riparian and secondary forests. In fact, a rapid assessment reveals that forested areas near Quebrada Amores may warrant protection. One of these is Brindis de Amor, a property of approximately 86 Ha that borders Reserva Lomas de Barbudal and whose forest cover has been protected by its owner, Carlos Jiménez, for the past twenty years (Figure 47). (…)

1. The results of our study, in terms of both habitat quality and community composition, reveal the need to offset the loss at Lomas de Barbudal with at least 332 Ha of forest habitat. However, to obtain that number of hectares at ASETREK, it is necessary to include part of the deciduous forest on the property’s eastern slope, which is of lower quality (because it has a steeper gradient) than the western side. Furthermore, there is no fragment of mature riparian forest, which unquestionably constitutes a shortcoming in the compensatory capacity of the ASETREK property evaluated in our study. 2. The Brindis de Amor property contains 15.87 ha of mature riparian forest. Although the analysis of the composition of this fragment was preliminary, our field observations indicate that it consists of evergreen species similar to those found in the same forest cover at RBLB and that its basal area (área basal) is comparable (Figure 49) to that of the fragment found at the potential inundation site in Lomas de Barbudal. Although the extent of the riparian forest at Brindis de Amor is smaller than the area that would be lost at Lomas de Barbudal, (…)

In fact, the area of riparian forest at Brindis de Amor represents 7.4 % of the area currently covered by that type of forest within the Reserva Biológica. 3. The riparian forest area at Brindis de Amor may serve as a core source area for species (área núcleo de especies) to repopulate other riparian environments on the property. Although this situation does not correspond chronologically to the loss at Lomas, it is a considerable advantage over the ASETREK property, which lacks such a core area. Our observations at the site show substantial recruitment of tree species typical of riparian forests, such as espavel Anacardium excelsum and terciopelo Sloanea terniflora. 4. Both the deciduous and secondary forests at Brindis de Amor have been protected for at least twenty years. In contrast to ASETREK, the Brindis de Amor property has a gentle slope and forest cover in better structural and compositional condition than that found on the ASETREK property. Unlike ASETREK, there are no records of logging or recurring fires, although there is evidence of fire entering the property from the south. 5. Although this study did not include an analysis of species composition in its secondary or deciduous forest, the protection afforded to this forest cover at Brindis de Amor could mean that it is in better condition than its counterparts at ASETREK. (…)

South of Brindis de Amor lies Rancho Wilson, which contains a protected forest fragment that may warrant protection because doing so would reduce the aforementioned peninsula (Figure 50). However, we argue that precisely because this fragment at Rancho Wilson is currently protected, annexing Brindis de Amor may be a more suitable alternative for consolidating the riparian forest block in the northern part of the Reserva. In our view, this annexation would make it possible to negotiate with Rancho Wilson for the future incorporation of the remaining forest fragment on that property. Furthermore, a segment of the río Cabuyo would be protected by safeguarding the area currently occupied by Brindis de Amor.” (In the report submitted to the Sala, they clarified that the reference to Rancho Wilson was actually to Hacienda Ciruelas).

Thus, the technical study itself substantiates what was later reported in the constitutional challenge by the person responsible for conducting the baseline study. The report submitted to the Chamber acknowledged that these two properties were incorporated for the purpose of improving the original compensation proposal, but “these areas were not analyzed with the same depth as ASETREK.” The report submitted to this Chamber states, in the relevant part, as follows:

“The use of Brindis de Amor as a foraging site demonstrates the biological importance of this property and how appropriate it would be to protect it. The addition of a portion of Hacienda Ciruelas is intended to avoid leaving a peninsula along the boundary of the RBLB if Brindis de Amor were added, which would contravene the basic principles of reserve design, which seek to minimize the edge effect and its impact on the species to be protected. Furthermore, that portion also contains a fragment of riparian vegetation cover. In our own report, we indicated that, if a choice had to be made between one of those two properties, it was suggested that Brindis de Amor be acquired, since Ciruelas is already maintaining some protection in that area of its property. Our detractors claim that the study did not evaluate those properties. That is not entirely correct because, as mentioned above, there was a vegetation assessment on the Brindis de Amor property.

The reason why other taxonomic groups (fauna) were not evaluated is that: (1) there is already evidence of the importance of that location for the fauna of the RBLB; (2) including this property complements the ASETREK property; (3) Brindis de Amor was indeed identified after the decision had been made to provide compensation through ASETREK. The fragment at Hacienda Ciruelas (mistakenly referred to as Rancho Wilson in our report) was indeed not evaluated. However, I reiterate that undertaking the protection of both this property and Brindis de Amor would provide a better service to the environment that the RBLB is intended to conserve.” (Report submitted by Dr. Mahmood Sasa Marín pursuant to the hearing granted as evidence to assist in reaching a decision).

Conclusions on this matter Based on the statements made by the authorities themselves, which appear in the case file of the constitutional challenge, it may be concluded that the compensation study conducted for this specific case was not carried out with the same degree of rigor when incorporating the ASETREK property as it was with respect to the subsequent incorporation of two other properties known as Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas.

As noted supra, the petitioners’ objection is that the final report, “Establishment of the Biodiversity Baseline for the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve (RBLB) and Adjacent Property,” fails to include studies on the biological conditions of the other two properties, meaning that it cannot be scientifically determined that they are properties whose environmental characteristics are indeed capable of replacing the ecosystem functions of the area whose protected status is to be removed.

The PGR insisted on the need for that study to be robust because, otherwise, there is a risk that the environmental impact caused by removing protected status from part of that biological reserve would not be adequately mitigated.

The Presidency of the Legislative Assembly established that the studies of the Brindis de Amor and Hacienda Ciruelas properties were indeed not conducted with the same level of detail and rigor as the study performed on the ASETREK property. The remaining authorities agreed that the comprehensive evaluation of the aforementioned property revealed a lack of compensation for riparian forest, whose environmental protection is a priority because it is nearly unique in the country. This prompted the adoption of recommendations by the Conservation Area authorities themselves to incorporate two additional properties. However, with respect to these two properties, which were subsequently incorporated into the compensation scheme, no biological and biodiversity-equivalence study was conducted using comparable standards of rigor and discipline. Furthermore, according to the OET’s own observations—the entity responsible for the study—the analysis of the Brindis de Amor property was merely preliminary, did not include an analysis of species composition in its secondary or deciduous forest, and included no fauna study.

Likewise, although the final decision to include Hacienda Ciruelas demonstrates an effort to ensure adequate compensation, it was not supported by any scientific study establishing equivalence and the required compensation of natural resources. The person responsible for the study acknowledged that “the fragment at Hacienda Ciruelas (mistakenly referred to as Rancho Wilson in our report) was indeed not evaluated.” It should also be added that, based on a ten-month study assessing fauna, flora, habitat structure, ecosystem services, and physical attributes, which included sampling during both the dry and rainy seasons, it was concluded that the ASETREK property was insufficient to compensate for the forest areas whose protected status would be removed within the RBLB. All the more reason, therefore, why it is unclear what basis exists for making last-minute additions that could genuinely satisfy the compensation requirements concerning wildlife species, forests, and carbon sequestration.

Therefore, I consider that the deficiencies identified in the studies, which were acknowledged by the authorities participating in these constitutional proceedings, violate the constitutional principles already mentioned, which generally require the State to make decisions concerning the reduction of protected wilderness areas on the basis of a duly substantiated technical study.

Conclusions

The foregoing considerations support the conclusion that there are four types of studies in this field that are not interchangeable: 1) the study justifying the removal of protected status from a protected area, 2) the study concerning compensation for the removal of protected status from a protected area, and 3) the environmental impact study for an infrastructure project. Separate from these is the feasibility study for carrying out an infrastructure project. In the case of the law under review, the first was omitted, the second was performed inadequately, and the third has yet to be conducted (as would be appropriate after completing the first two and enacting the law). The project feasibility study does not replace, either in part or in full, any of the three foregoing studies. For this reason, I consider those who argue that the challenged legislation is unconstitutional to be correct, due to its infringement of the precautionary principle, the principle of non-regression in environmental matters, the principle of irreducibility, and the principle of objective environmental protection, all of which must govern decision-making in this field.

Anamari Garro Vargas Res. Nº 2020-0013836 NOTE BY JUSTICE GARRO VARGAS On compliance with international obligations The petitioners argued that, because the Lomas de Barbudal Biological Reserve (LBLB) forms part of the Palo Verde wetland, the Regional Council of the Arenal Tempisque Conservation Area had previously advised the Legislative Assembly that it was necessary to notify the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) of the intention to carry out this project and to initiate any other procedure necessary to comply with the country’s commitments.

They allege that, despite the foregoing, the State has not notified Ramsar of the removal of protected status from the RBLB area or of the change to the boundaries of that biological reserve, which constitutes an omission that breaches our country’s international commitments and, consequently, violates article 7 of the Political Constitution.

It is necessary to quote again in this note the relevant provisions of the Ramsar Convention, article 2.5 of which states as follows:

“The Contracting Parties shall have the right to add to the ‘List’ other wetlands situated within their territory, to extend the boundaries of those wetlands already included, or, because of urgent national interests, to delete from the ‘List’ or restrict the boundaries of wetlands already included, and shall inform the organization or government responsible for the functions of the permanent Bureau specified in article 8 of these changes at the earliest possible time.” (Emphasis not in the original).

Additionally, article 4 states:

“1. Each Contracting Party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by establishing nature reserves on wetlands, whether or not they are included in the ‘List,’ and shall make adequate provision for their management and care.

2. Where a Contracting Party, because of urgent national interests, deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the ‘List,’ it shall, as far as possible, compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, shall create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same area or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of their former habitat. 3. The Contracting Parties shall encourage research and the exchange of data and publications regarding wetlands and their flora and fauna.” (Emphasis not in the original).

In other words, that provision reiterates that when a party, because of urgent national interests, deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the “List,” it must, as far as possible, compensate for any loss of wetland resources and, in particular, must establish additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for their protection, either in the same region or elsewhere.

Based on the text of the provision itself, it must be concluded that the Costa Rican State has not breached its international obligations under article 7 of the Political Constitution. This is because the international instrument under review does not specify the precise time at which compensation must be provided and the corresponding notification submitted to the Permanent Bureau established by article 8 of that instrument.

It should also be noted that, although reasons of public interest have been set out for carrying out a project intended to provide a long-term solution to the water shortage in the province of Guanacaste, it has not been established that, to date, there has actually been a formal declaration of the urgent national-interest grounds for the challenged removal of protected status from the RBLB as part of Palo Verde National Park. It is worth recalling what the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR) reported on this particular matter, stating in the relevant part as follows:

“In that scenario, the provision could be contrary to the Ramsar Convention because, although it is true that the Convention does not require States to provide prior notice of a decision to modify the area of sites of international importance, its article 4° makes that possibility contingent upon the existence of an urgent national necessity, which would not be duly justified in this particular case.” (Emphasis not in the original).

It must therefore be concluded that, although there is no deadline for notifying the competent Ramsar office, the Costa Rican State is obligated to justify its decision on the basis of “an urgent national necessity”; all of which must be carefully assessed by the Costa Rican State to avoid incurring international responsibility for failure to comply with the obligations it has sovereignly undertaken.

Regarding the Determination of the Scope of the Effects of the Challenged Legislation With regard to the effects of the challenged legislation, it is necessary to reproduce, insofar as relevant, the statements made by the PGR in its report on this constitutional challenge:

“Ley 9610 has certain particularities compared with other statutory provisions intended to reduce the size of protected wildlife areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), because, in this case, the decision to remove part of the RBLB from protected status (desafectar) is not motivated by a loss of environmental value or by the need to protect the area, but solely by the need to develop an infrastructure project as part of the implementation of the PAACUME project. In other words, the authorized removal from protected status is relevant only to the development of that project.

Based on the foregoing, the Office of the Attorney General considers that, in addition to the observations made in the preceding section, one defect in the Law that could render it unconstitutional is that it included no provision determining the scope of the effects of the removal from protected status until such time as the project is implemented, since the decision to remove the area from protected status makes sense and is justified only if that project is carried out. If, for any reason, the project is not developed, the removal from protected status would serve no purpose and, therefore, would have no justification whatsoever.

The justification for the removal from protected status depends on the project’s eventual implementation, which could be prevented for several reasons. For example, because—as the petitioners argue—the project is not granted environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental), because the necessary financing is unavailable, because interest in developing it is lost, or because, for some other reason, it is impossible to implement.

Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the guarantee against harm to the RBLB rests on the proposed mitigation measure (medida de compensación). The fact remains, however, that the challenged law removed part of the Reserve from protected status and, although the mitigation area was included within its boundaries, those lands are privately owned properties that have not been expropriated. Under Article 37 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, until those properties are expropriated or purchased, they cannot become part of the protected wildlife area and, therefore, the proposed mitigation has not materialized. In other words, through the enactment of Ley 9610, the area of the RBLB was reduced, and the harm caused by that reduction has not been mitigated, in contravention of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) and preventive principle (principio preventivo).

If, for any reason, the project is not developed and the expropriations necessary to carry out the proposed mitigation are not undertaken either, Ley 9610 would have removed the RBLB from protected status in vain, without any valid justification and without having offset and mitigated the effects caused by that reduction. This would constitute a violation of the principle of non-reduction of protected wildlife areas (principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas), the non-regression principle (principio de no regresión), the precautionary principle, and the preventive principle, and even a violation of the Convención Ramsar, because no reason of urgent necessity would exist to justify reducing the area of one of the sites of international importance.

Therefore, without prejudice to what may be established regarding the sufficiency of the studies and technical criteria identified above, the Office of the Attorney General considers that, for the reason just stated, Ley 9610 could be unconstitutional unless it is interpreted to mean that the authorized removal from protected status will take effect only when the project is implemented and the lands necessary for the proposed mitigation to become effective are expropriated.” (Emphasis not in the original).

These statements are highly relevant and demonstrate that the competent legislature did not include any determination of the scope of the effects of the legislation examined in this constitutional challenge.

Likewise, in light of the PGR’s statements, it must be noted that, although there was agreement with the majority opinion that there was no standing (legitimación) to consider a possible infringement of the right to private property, enshrined in Article 45 of the Constitución Política, it remains true that the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation depends on the expropriation of the lands designated for that purpose and the corresponding compensation paid to the petitioners. In other words, the proposed mitigation can materialize only if the lands covered by the mitigation study are actually expropriated. At present, until the expropriation has been completed, the lands are not subject to an environmental protection regime (a form of interim measure (medida cautelar)), nor has the mitigation offered as a benchmark for the legitimacy of the provision removing protected status been secured.

The legislature’s failure to determine the scope of the effects makes the legitimacy of this mitigation rest on an expropriation that has not occurred and jeopardizes the constitutionality of the legislation under review. Indeed, it shows that the coordinates have already been changed, thereby removing the RBLB from protected status, but that no condition subsequent (condición resolutoria) or provisions concerning the consequences of the project not being carried out were included. In other words, the question arises as to what happens to the removal of this important biological reserve from protected status if the infrastructure project cannot be implemented.

With all due respect, I consider the solution offered by the majority of this Chamber—that this is a conditional law—insufficient, because the corresponding change in coordinates has already been made, without providing clarity as to the effects if the proposed infrastructure project is not implemented.

Anamari Garro V.

Res. Nº 2020-0013836 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las quince horas treinta minutos del veintidós de julio de dos mil veinte.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por MARÍA DEL MILAGRO GAMBOA MIRANDA , mayor, soltera, empresaria, vecina de San José, con cédula de identidad 1-1433-0357, y GARY DOUGLAS STEWART POSTEL , mayor, casado, empresario, vecino de Bagaces, con cédula de identidad 1-0466-0672; contra la ley n.º 9610 de 17 de octubre de 2018, denominada “Modificación de límites de la Reserva Bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras”.

Resultando:

1. 1Por escrito recibido en la Sala Constitucional a las 12:32 horas de 9 de enero de 2019, los accionantes interponen acción de inconstitucionalidad contra la ley n.º 9610 del 17 de octubre de 2018, “Modificación de límites de la Reserva Bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para l a Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras ”, en defensa de un interés que atañ e a la colectividad en su conjunto: el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado . Manifiestan que, por lo anterior, no se requiere lesión individual y directa. Estiman lesionados los artí culos 7, 11, 45, 50 y 176 de la Constitución Política y los principios constitucionales de no regresividad en materia ambiental, in dubio pro natura, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, e conomía y eficiencia, equilibrio pr esupuestario y seguridad jurídica. Afirman que se violentó el procedimiento establecido en el numeral 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa.Indican que la ley impugnada tiene por objeto desafectar 113 hectáreas de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB), que tiene un nivel de protección absoluta similar al de un parque nacional, y cambiar su uso para proceder a inundar tal terreno y ahí construir el e mbalse Río Piedras, lo que llevaría agua a la cuenca m edia del río Tempisque y las comunidades costeras. Ese proyecto, co nocido como PAACUME, contempla un embalse con un espejo de agua de 850 hectáreas, así como ampliació n y mejoras al Canal Oeste y la construcción de 300 kilómetros de canales para conducir y distribuir el agua en los cantones de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya. Con la l ey impugnada se pretende, además, compensar el área de la RBLB que se reducirí a con otros terrenos privados adyacentes a la reserva biológica pertenecientes a las sociedades ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. y 3-101-734726 S.A. (conocida co mo Brindis de Amor o Brindis de Amor en Liberia).Refieren que, en cumplimiento de la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuá ticas (Convención RAMSAR), el Estado costarricense incluyó el p arque n acional Palo Verde y el refugio de vida silvestre Caño Negro en la lista de humedales de importancia internacional. Aseveran que ese parque forma parte del Área de Conservación de Tempisque y esta área incluye el refugio de vida s ilvestre Caballero, el p arque nacional Barra Hond a y la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB). Añaden que, en el sitio oficial de RAMSAR en internet, en la sección denominada “Servicio de informac ión sobre sitios RAMSAR”, puede obs ervarse la ficha técnica para ampliación del sitio “ RAMSAR Palo Verde, Costa Rica” , en el que claramente se menciona a la RBLB como parte de ese humedal internacional. Agregan que dado que la RBLB forma parte del humedal de Palo Verde, el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque a dvirtió a la Asamblea Legislativa, en su momento, que era necesario que se comunicara a la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuá ticas la intención de realizar este proyecto y activar cualquier otro procedimiento para cumplir con los compromisos del país (ver oficio SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018); sin embargo, no se notificó a RAMSAR sobre la desafectación del área de la RBLB ni el cambio en los límites de esa reserva biológica, lo que supone una omisión que infringe los compromisos internacionales de nuestro paí s y, por ende, una violación al artículo 7 de la Constitución Polí tica.Mencionan que el numeral 4 inciso 2) del Convenio de RAMSAR establece, que c uando una Parte Contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, retire de la lista o reduzca los límites de un humedal incluido en ella, deberá compensar, en la medida de lo posible, la pérdida de recursos de humed ales y, en particular, crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuá ticas y la protecció n de una porción adecuada de su hábitat original, en la misma regió n o en otro lugar. Manifiestan que la modificación de los límites de la RBLB no ha sido declarada de urgente interé s nacional. Alegan que en ese mismo oficio (n.º SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018) se consignó qu e era necesario analizar si el proyecto PAACUME podía tener algún impacto indirecto en el sitio patrimonio mundial Área de Conservación Guanacaste y va lorar la activación de los mecanismos pertinente para comunicar al Centro de Patrimonio Mundial esta iniciativa; sin embargo, eso no se hizo.Reclaman que, en consecuencia, también se violentó la Convención de Patrimonio Mundial de la UNESCO. Afirman que, de acuerdo con diversos pronunciamientos de la Sala Constitucional, el ordinal 50 constitucional introduj o la ciencia y la técnica en las decisiones ambientales, sean estas legislativas o administrativas, de tal manera que las actuaciones estatales en materia ambiental deben fundarse y no p ueden contradecir las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica en aras de lograr el goce pleno y universal a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado , amén de un mayor bienestar para todos los habitantes del país ( a esto se le ha denominado el principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental). Acusan que la Ley n.º 96 10 violenta el citado artículo 50 constitucional, ya que no incorpora un estudio serio, integral y objetivo, sobre las consecuencias de la desafectación de 113 hectá reas de la RBLB y la sustitución o compensación con unas 500 hectá reas de propiedades privadas que se pretenden incorporar a la reserva biológica.Remiten al informe del Dr. Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura –comisionado por la Escuela de Biologí a de la Universidad de Costa Rica para responder a un requerimiento de información de la Secretarí a Técnica N acional Ambiental (SETENA) atinente al proyecto PAACUME-, en donde con respecto al estudio de la Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET) -mediante el cual pretenden justificar la referida desafectación y compensación- se conclu ye que es “insufici ente para definir el cambio de límites de Lomas de Barbudal, y no demuestra que este cambio será plenamente compensado por áreas adicionales en otros sectores de la Reserva. La finca ASETREK, es tudiada con más detalle por los consultores, al final se reconoce como insuficiente para justificar el canje de tierra, y se acude precipitadamente a otras fincas cercanas para balancear la compensación, a mi parecer un ejercicio poco serio porque no está debidamente fundamentado”.En el citado informe s e dice también que “e l desconocimiento de los impactos ambientales del embalse Río Piedras sobre la Reserva Biológica y sobre todos los ecosistemas de humedales del Bajo Te mpisque debe ser conocido antes de aceptar la inundación de un sector de la Re serva de Lomas de Barbudal y de en general de los ecosistemas afectados por el futuro embalse de PAACUME ”. Alegan que tal violación al artículo 50 de la Constitución se complemen ta con la lesión a los principios de no regresividad en materia ambiental y de in dubio pro natura. Insisten que el estudio realizada por la OET no es completo, objetivo, científico, ni técnico, ya que adolece de muchas omisiones y debilidades. Reiteran que tal estudio se centra prácticamen te en una porción de una de las tres propiedades privadas con las que se pretende n compensar las 113 hectáreas desafectadas con la ley ; empero, omite incorporar estudios sobre las condiciones biológicas de las otras dos propiedades, por lo que no se puede determinar de manera científica , que se trate de propiedades que efectivamente cuenten con características medioambientales que reemplacen las funciones eco sistémicas del área por desafectar.A ñaden que tampoco se analizó la afectación que podría ocasionarle al parque nacional de Palo Verde , que e s un humedal con protección internacional brindada por la Convención de RAMSAR, del cual forma parte la RBLB. Acusan que se promulgó la ley impugnada, pero aú n no se ha aprobado el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental para realizar el proyecto PAACUME, pese que tal proyecto implica construi r un embalse con un espejo de agua de 850 hectáreas en una zona de bosque seco, lo que en definitiva afectaría el Río Piedras y el humedal de categoría internacional de Palo Verde. Alega n que, en consecuencia, en la tramitación del proyecto de ley que dio origen a la normativa impugnada se procedió a “poner la carreta delante de los bueyes ”. Aducen que la ley n.º 9610 violenta el artículo 45 de la Constitució n Política, ya que se priva de propiedad privada a tres personas jurídicas para incorporarle a la RBLB casi 500 hectáreas de propiedades privadas como compensación de una desafectación de 113 hectáreas pertenecientes al Estado y que son parte de la RBLB.Sostienen que tal privación de la propiedad privada se hace sin que haya u n interés pú blico que hubiere sido legalmente comprobado y sin indemnización previa. Expresan que el informe n.º AL-DESTCJU-068-2018 del Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa señala que el proyecto que finalmente derivó en la ley n. º 9610 modificó los límites originales de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, subsumiendo en sus límites propiedad privada; además, que al “modificarse los límites originales de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barb udal se está frente a la intervención de la propiedad privada, siendo omiso el proyecto en indicar que tales propiedades serán adquiridas por expropiació n, quedando los fundos privados en sus nuevos límites bajo limitaciones ambientales ”. Agregan que es claro que el párrafo segundo del artículo 45 de la Constitución Política establece que, por motivos de necesidad pública, la Asamblea Legislativa podrá imponer a la propiedad limitaciones de interés social; sin embargo, dichas limitaciones de interés social demanda n el cumplimiento de varios requisitos para materializarse.En primer lugar, la aprobación de la ley que impone tales limitaciones requiere de 38 votos; en cuyo caso, si bien es cierto la ley impugnada se aprobó por má s de 38 votos, lo cierto es que buena parte del procedimiento parlamentario se realizó mediante un procedimiento abreviado basado en el artículo 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, lo que implica la inconstitucionalidad de la ley por violació n al procedimiento parlamentario, ya que ese procedimiento abreviado e stá ved ado para proyectos que requieren para su aprobación el voto de una mayoría calificada de diputados. Asimismo, el artículo 45 constitucional estatuye que podrá expropiarse o afectarse la propiedad privada si hubiera indemnización previa. Ese requisito tamp oco se ha cumplido, ya que en ningún momento se han expropiado las propiedades privadas mencionadas. Tampoco se elaboró o se ha elaborado un avalúo de las propiedades privadas afectadas, ni había una partida presupuestaria antes de aprobarse el proyecto de ley para cancelar la indemnizació n correspondiente.Acusan que, a partir de la entrada en vigencia de esta ley impugnada, la cual involucra propiedades privadas pertenecientes a tres personas jurídicas (ASETREK, Hacienda Ciruelas S.P. S.A. y Brindis de Amor), estas quedan afectadas, lo cual claramente violenta el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, ya que esa afectació n se hace sin previa indemnización y, además, la forma en que se decide expropiar la p ropiedad de Brindis De Amor para incorporarla a la RBLB, deja por fuera y enclavada dentro de la reserva una propiedad de aproximadamente 14 hectáreas perteneciente a la sociedad Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa Rica Pacifico del Mar CMP S.A., pero que forma parte de todo el proyecto de Brindis de Amor (pr opiedad que queda enclavada dentro de los nuevos límites de la RBLB, sin acceso a calle pú blica). Reiteran que la ley que se está impugnando mediante esta acción de inconstit ucionalidad fue tramitada en una buena parte mediante un procedimiento abreviado basado en el numeral 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa.Acusan que con esto se infringieron las limitaciones establecidas en esa norma, que establece que la Asamblea Legislativa podrá estable cer procedimientos especiales para tramitar las reformas a su reglamento y proyectos de ley cuya aprobación requiera mayoría absoluta; en cuyo caso, el proyecto de ley de marras, que posteriormente se convirtió en la Ley n.º 9610, requirió de mayorí a calificada para su votació n, ya que claramente afectaba propiedades privadas al incorporarlas dentro de la RBLB como compensació n del área que se desafectaría. Exponen que, sobre este tema, el Departamento de Servicios Té cnicos, en el citado informe AL-DESTCJU-068-2018, indicó: “En virtud de lo anterior, se aprecia un vicio en la tramitación del Proyecto de Ley por medio de la Comisión Especial creada por moción de orden y regulado bajo el artículo 208 bis, el que preceptúa que sólo se pueden tramitar proyectos cuya aprobació n requiera mayoría absoluta, y para el caso concreto el Proyecto de Ley requiere de una votación de los dos tercios de los diputados del Plenario Legislativo…” .Acotan que ese vicio en el procedimiento, señalado por el Departamento de Servic ios Técnicos, es claro y evidente. Destacan una nota que el Instituto Geográ fico Nacional (IGN) envió a la Asamblea Legislativa (oficio DIG-0388-2018) en respuesta a la consulta que se le hizo mediante oficio AL-DSDI-OFI-0313-2018, de la que se deriva una violació n al principio de seguridad jurídica; por cuanto se constata la existencia de inconsistencias y errores en las coordenadas incluidas en la ley finalmente aprobada. Argumentan que con la aprobación de la ley n.º 9610 se han co nfigurado violaciones al principio de legalidad (ordinal 11 de la Constitución Polí tica). Añaden que se ha infringido la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (ley n.º 7554), en sus artí culos 32, 34, 36, 37 y 38, pues en el proceso para modificar los lí mites de la RBLB para desafectar 113 hectáreas e incluir aproximadamente 500 de terrenos privados dentro de l os nuevos límites de la reserva biológica, se irrespetaron re querimientos contemplados en esa normativa; por ejemplo, no se desarrollaron estudios p reliminares fisiogeográficos de diversidad biológica de todas las propiedades pri vadas que se le incorporan a la RBLB; tampoco se hicieron estudios socioeconó micos que justificasen, por un lado, la desafectació n y, por otro, el aumento de la RBLB con casi 500 he ctáreas de terrenos privados; nu nca se hizo un estudio de factibilidad técnica y tenencia de la tierra de todos los potenciales terrenos que podrían haberse considerado para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectan de la RBLB; tampoco estaba el financiamiento mí nimo para adquirir el área (ni siquiera existe un avalúo sobre las propiedades a expropiar) , protegerla y manejarla.Exponen que los terrenos privados incorporados a la RBLB no se indemnizaron de previo. Arguyen que no se efectuaron estudios té cnicos sobre dos de las tres propiedades que finalmente se incorporaron a la RBLB, lo que vul nera el artí culo 50 de la Constitución Política y los principios de no regresividad en materia ambiental e in dubio pro natura. Consideran que también se ha infringido el numeral 58 de la Ley de la Biodiversidad (ley n.º 7788), ya que no hubo informe técnico con las recomendaciones y justificaciones para incluir dentro de la reserva biológica a dos de las tres propiedades que finalmente quedaron dentro de los nuevos lí mites de la RBLB. Explican que se han infringido los ordinales 71 y 72 del Reglamento a la Ley de Bi odiversidad, dado que el informe de la OET no consigna que se hubiesen hecho las consultas obligatorias a las comunidades que podrían ser perjudicadas por la desafectació n de 113 hectáreas de la reserva biológica y la creación de un gran embalse con un esp ejo de agua de aproximadamente 850 hectáreas.Menciona que no se hizo un aná lisis de la tenencia de la tierra alrededor de la RBLB para determinar cuá l área era la idó nea para compensar el área desafectada de esa reserva biológica, sino que fue el SENARA e l que determinó con qué terrenos compensar. Refieren que lo anterior no fue producto de un estudio pormenorizado de la tenencia de la tierra. Manifiestan que se incumplió el requisito de verificar la existencia de recursos financieros suficientes para adquirir los terrenos del área propuesta. Añaden que, como puede observarse de la revisión del informe té cnico de la OET, ese informe no estuvo coordinado por la instancia respectiva del SINAC, en clara violación a lo regulado en el artí culo 71 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad. Plantean que se violentó adicionalmente la Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales (ley n.º 6084), cuyo numeral 8 deja claro el tipo de limitaciones a la propiedad que experimentan aquellas propiedades que son declaradas reserva biológica.Argumenta que en este caso no se hicieron estudios técnicos sobre dos de las tres propiedades que se incluyeron en la reserva biológica y, además, del área de expropiació n se dejó por fuera un fundo enclavado dentro de la reserva biológica. Relatan que el ordinal 36 de la Ley del Ambiente establece que para crear nuevas áreas silvestres protegi das propiedad del Estado, cualquiera que sea la categoría de manejo que é l establezca, deberá cumplirse previamente, entre otros requisitos, con el financiamiento mí nimo para adquirir el área, protegerla y manejarla. Sostienen que es a condición se incumplió en el caso de la ley n.º 9610. Indican que el presupuesto ordinario del año 2018, en ejecució n para cuando se aprobó la ley n.º 9610, carecí a de una partida presupuestaria para pagar las expropiaciones de las propiedades privadas incorporadas a la RBLB. Agregan que ese incumplimiento violenta el principio de equilibrio presupuestario (artículo 176 de la Constitución Polí tica), ya que mediante esa ley se asumen nuevas obligaciones de pago sin que estuvieran previstas en la ley de presupuesto, lo que es requisito para ampliar á reas protegidas.Expresan que la ley n.º 9610 desafecta 113 hectáreas de la RBLB para inundarlas. Acotan que, para poder hacer esa desafectación, se compensa con más de 500 hectáreas de terrenos privados; sin embargo, surge el cuestionamiento de por qué se escogieron esas y no otras propiedades colindantes con la RBLB, incluso terrenos de menor valor o terrenos que ya pertenecen al Estado colindantes con la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal y que tienen una categoría de protección muy inferior a la de una reserva bioló gica (más de 300 hectá reas). Alegan que, en consecuencia, se está ante una violación del principio constitucional de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, ya que no se justifica una erogación de dinero de miles de millones de colones para compensar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB que se desafectan mediante la ley impugnada, cuando existen opciones que van desde cero costos para el Estado a un cost e mucho más reducido.Aducen que el principio de economía y eficiencia guarda una estrecha relació n, en el contexto de esta ley que se impugna, con el principio constitucional de razonabilidad y proporcion alidad previamente mencionados. Acusan que se está ante una violación al principio constitucional de economía y eficiencia, cuando la ley obliga a expr opiar más de 500 hectáreas par a compensar 113 que se están desa fectando, cuando perfectamente podrían incorporársele a la RBLB más d e 300 hectáreas del Estado que tienen una categoría de manejo y protección inferior a la de un parque nacional o reserva biológica, sin costo alguno para el erario . Sostienen que tampoco se hizo el trabajo para revisar todas las propiedades adyacentes a la RBLB con el fin de encontrar la manera de compensar con el menor costo posible , ni un análisis d e costo-beneficio con todas las propiedades adyacentes a la RBLB. En virtud de lo expuesto, solicitan que se declare inconstitucional la norma impugnada.
2. 2Mediante providencia de las 15:16 horas de 10 de enero de 2019, la Presidencia de la Sala previno a los accionantes aclarar: “a) si tienen algú n tipo de relación jurídica o de interé s económico respecto de las sociedades ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., 3-101-734726 S.A. (conocida como Brindis de Amor o Brindis de Amor en Liberia), Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa Rica Pacífico del Mar CMP S .A. u otra persona j urídica eventualmente afectada por la normativa impugnada, así como la prueba documental que acredite su dicho; y b) en cuanto a la acusada infracción a los derechos e intereses de tales sociedades, incluidas las alegadas violaciones a los artículos 11 y 4 5 de la Constitución Política y 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, si existe un asunto base en el que se haya invocado expresamente –con anterioridad a la interposición de la acción- la inconstitucionalidad de la normativa impugnada y, de ser así, deberá n aclarar en qué fase o estado procesal se encuentra este asunto base y aportar copia certificada del escrito en que se invocó tal inconstitucionalidad”.

3 .- Por escrito recibido a las 10:19 horas de 16 de enero de 2019, se apersonan los accionantes María del Milagro Gamboa Miranda y Gary Douglas Stewart Postel. Indican que la primera es representante legal de 3-101-734726 S.A. y el segundo de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. Señalan que ambos no tienen participación accionaria ni representación legal de las sociedades Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. e Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa Pacífico del Mar CPM S.A. Mencionan que recurren en su condición personal y no como representantes de tales sociedades. Acotan que no hay ningún asunto previo en el que se esté disputando la constitucionalidad de la ley aprobada.

1. 4Mediante resolución de la Presidencia de las 11:05 horas de 23 de enero de 2019, se dio curso a la acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Marí a Del Milagro Gamboa Miranda y Gary Douglas Stewart Postel , por su orden representantes legal es de 3-101-734726 S.A. y HACIENDA CIRUELAS SP S.A., en contra de la ley n.º 9610 de 17 de octubre de 2018 denominada “ Modificación de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras ”, respecto de lo cual se confirió audiencia al Procurador General de la República, al Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa, al Ministro de Ambiente y Energí a y al Gerente General del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento. Asimismo, se dispuso que la acción se admitía por reunir los requisitos contemplados en los numerales del 73 al 79 de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y que la legitimación de los accionantes provenía del párrafo 2 del ordinal 75 de e se mismo cuerpo normativo, en tanto se acciona en defensa de intereses difusos en resguardo del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
2. 5Los edictos indicados en el párrafo segundo del artículo 81 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional fueron publicados en las ediciones del Boletín Judicial n.os 35, 36 y 37 de los días 19, 20 y 21 de febrero de 2019, respectivamente.
3. 6Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 11:07 horas de 15 de febrero de 2019, se apersona Julio Jurado Ferná ndez, en su condición de Procurador General de la República. Indica que, con el fin de esquematizar y facilitar el análisis de la acción, agrupará los puntos por exp oner según su contenido, de la siguiente manera: “1) Alegatos referidos a la violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. a) Violación al artículo 50 de la Constitución Polí tica. Haciendo referencia a la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, los accionantes indican que la Ley 9610 violenta el principio de objetivació n de la tutela ambiental, porque fue emitida sin contar con un estudio serio, integral y objetivo sobre las consecuencias de desafectar 113 hectáreas de l a RBLB y sobre la sustitución o compensación con 500 hectáreas de propiedades privadas.Con base en un estudio de la Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica que aportan como prueba, indican que el estudio de la Organizació n para Estudios Tropicales (OET ) que fue utilizado para la aprobación de la Ley ("Establecimiento de la línea de base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente") es insuficiente para definir el cambio de lí mites, que éste no demuestra que el á rea desafectada será compensada plenamente, que incluye pre cipitadamente otras fincas cercanas sin un adecuado fundamento y no toma en cuenta los impactos ambientales del embalse río Piedras sobre la Reserva y sob re t odos los ecosistemas de humedales del Bajo Tempisque. b) Violación al artí culo 7º de la Constitución Política. Los accionantes estiman que la Ley 9610 violenta el artículo 7° de la Constitución, porque es contraria a la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuátic as (Convención Ramsar, aprobada mediante Ley No. 7224 de 9 de abril de 1991) y la Convenció n para la Protección del Patrimonio Mundial Cultural y Natural de la Organización de las N aciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (aprobada mediante Ley No. 5980 de 16 de noviembre de 1976).Indican que esa Reserva está ubicada al norte del Parque Nacional Palo Verde y que en el año 2001 se incluyó dentro del área geográfica d el Sitio Ramsar Palo Verde Verde ( sic). Por esa razón, con base en varios oficios del Área de Conserva ción Arenal Tempisque, estiman que el proyecto debió ser comunicado a la Convención, pues de lo contrario, el país está desatendiendo los compromisos adquiridos al suscribirla . Concretamente, estiman quebrantado el artículo 4 inciso2) de la Convención Ram sar que establece que "cuando una parte contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional retire o reduzca una zona humedal inscrita en la “Lista”, de berá compensar, en la medida de lo posible, cualquier pérdida de recursos en los humedales y, en especial deberá crear nuevas Reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y para la protecció n, en la misma región o en otro sitio, de una parte adecuada de su h ábitat anterior ”. Indican, además, que la modificació n de los límites de la RBLB no ha sido declarada de urgente interés nacional . Por otra parte, con base en los oficios del Área de Conservació n Tempisque aportados, afirman que el Área de Conservación Guanaca ste es un sitio de patrimonio mundial que se encuentra en constante monitoreo por parte de la UNESCO y que recientemente el Comité de Patrimonio Mundial solicitó al país una evaluación ambiental estraté gica de la zona, que permita prever los posibles impactos directos o indirectos de los proyectos, aunque éstos se encuentren fuera de los lí mites del sitio declarado como patrimonio. Indican que si bien la RBLB no está dentro del área de ese sitio, colinda con el Corredor Biológico Morocochas, que a su vez, colinda con el Parque Nacional Rincón de la Vieja, que sí forma parte del Patrimonio Mundial. Por e sa razón, indican, es necesario analizar si el PAACUME tiene algú n impacto sobre ese sitio. Argumentan que el estudio de la OET que sirve de base a la Ley impugnada no menciona el Humedal Palo Verde ni detalles de cómo compensar el área afectada. Asimismo, indican que ese estudio tampoco menciona la Convención de Patrimonio Mundial de la UNESCO, que da una especial protección al Área de Conservación Guanacast e. c) Violació n al principio de no regresión en materia ambiental. Los accionantes transcriben varios votos de la Sala Constitucional referidos al principio de no regresión en materia ambiental y la aplicación de ese principio al tema de la disminución de medidas de las á reas silvestres protegidas, e indican que al emitirse la Ley impugnada se incumplió con el requisito exigido por la Sala Constitucional de contar con un criterio técnico y científico que justifique la reducción de la medida del área prote gida. Basándose en el criterio de la Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica que aportan y transcriben, afirman que el estudio de la OE T que sirvió de base a la Ley 9610 no es un estudio completo, objetivo, científico y técnico y que adolece de muchas omisiones y debilidades. E mpiezan por decir que el primer defecto del estudio es que fue el Se rvicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) quien determinó cuál finca debía utilizarse para la compensació n del área a desafectar de la RBLB, sin justificació n técnica alguna . Luego, indican que el estudio de la OET incluye dos fincas má s que finalmente fueron utilizadas para compensar el área desafectada, sin hacerse un estudio de línea base de biología que permita determinar científic amente que se trata de propiedades que efectivamente cuenten con caract erísticas medioambientales que reemplacen las funciones ecosistémicas del área desafectada. Además, reprochan que ese estudio no contempló la posible afectación al Parque Nacional Palo Verde, que es un sitio Ramsar del cual tambié n forma parte la RBLB. Por lo anterior, consideran que el estudio que justifica la desafectación de 113 hectáreas de la RBLB es incompleto y no determina técnica ni científicamente cuál será el impacto sobre el ambiente de esa desafectación y de la inundación de esos terrenos. Y, con ello, a su juicio, se incumplen los requisitos exigidos por la Sala Constitucional para la reducción de límites de áreas silvestres protegidas, como se indicó en el voto No. 13367-20 12 referido al proyecto de ley de reconocimiento de los derechos de los habitantes del caribe sur. En apoyo de lo dicho, transcriben la nota de la Escuela de Biologí a de la Universidad de Costa Rica, suscrita por Jorge Arturo Lobo, en la cual se indica que la propuesta de compensación planteada por la OET es insuficiente en relación con los dañ os ambientales que el embalse de 850 hectáreas generará sobre la integridad ecológica de un área protegida de bosque seco tan importante. En dicha nota se cuestiona la metodología utilizada por la OET y se indica que para determinar el área de terreno que debía ut ilizarse para compensar los terrenos desafectados se asignó un valor numé rico a diferentes variables ecosistémicas del área inundable de la RBLB y de la finca "ASETREK", luego se contabilizaron los puntajes de cada á rea y se obtuvieron los totales. Se explica que en varios aspectos la finca ASETREK tuvo un puntaje menor que el obtenido por el ecosistema de la RBLB, que por ello se calcula el área necesaria de la finca de compensación para nivelar el puntaje, y que, con base en ese cá lculo se llega al resultado final de cantidad de hectáreas necesarias para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se inundarán de la RBLB. Adicionalmente, se cuestiona que al realizarse la contabilizació n de los servicios ecosistémicos no se consideraron los s ervicios de polinización, protección del suelo, protección de acuí feros y control de plagas; se señalan limitaciones del muestreo de campo, pues, por ejemplo, no se llevó a cabo un muestreo de aves en la época de ll egada de especies migratorias; y se indica que existen limitaciones en el sistema de puntuación pues no se valoró adecuadamente la diferencia de pendientes entre ambos sitios ni se cuantificó la importancia de las fuentes de agua. En el Informe transcrito se reprocha el resultado final del estudio de la OET, pues se indica que los autores, al considerar que la finca ASETREK no posee bosques riparios, proponen la incorporació n de otros terrenos que no fueron estudiados y a los que no se les asignó puntaje so bre el valor ecosistémico. También, se cr itica la recomendación final de considerar el embalse Rio Piedras que se desarrollará, como parte de la compensación del área inundada de la RBLB al indicar que puede declararse com o un humedal bajo la categoría de Refugio de Vida Silvestre. Sobre ese ú ltimo punto se indica que “se tratarí a de un intercambio entre dos ecosistemas formalmente diferentes (un ecosistema boscoso por uno de humedal), y además se cuestiona que no se valoraron los impactos ambientales que g enerará el embalse. Con base en lo anterior, los accionantes reiteran que el estudio de la OET no cumple los requisitos exigidos por la Sala Constitucional para desafectar parte de un área silvestre protegida y adicionan c omo falencias que el mismo estudio señala que por la forma y ubicació n de la finca "Brindis de amor" su anexión extendería el extremo norte de la RBLB formando una península boscosa que no contribuiría a la formació n de un bloque compacto y que ello contraviene nociones básicas de diseño de Reservas. También acusan que la Hacienda Ciruelas (mencionada en el estudio como Rancho Wilson) fue incorporada a la RBLB sin ser estudiada , pues en el estudio de la OET se hace referencia a ella de manera tangencial y, ade más, la propuesta formal de su incorporación fue planteada por el SENARA mediante oficio No. SENARA-INDEP-441-2017, después de elaborado el estudio de la OET, según los mapas y el conocimiento del sitio de los funcionarios de SENARA y del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía. d) Violació n al principio precautorio. Los accionantes estiman que se viola el pri ncipio precautorio, en virtud de que al aprobarse la Ley ya fueron desafectadas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB con el fin de inundarlas y constituir el embalse Río Piedras, sin haberse aprobado el estudio de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Té cnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) del proyecto PAACUME. Por lo tanto, consideran que se modificaron los límites de una Reserva Biológica, que tiene un alto nivel de protecció n, sin que exista certeza de que el proyecto obtendrá la viabilidad ambiental y podrá ser ejecutado. e) Violación al principio de seguridad jurídica. El oficio del Instituto Geográfico Nacional No. DIG-388-2018 que aportan los accionantes, hace r eferencia al contenido del proyecto de ley No. 20645 y señala varias imprecisiones en cuanto a las coordenadas y la delimitación geográfica dispuesta en el artí culo 1° del proyecto. Con base en ello, los accionantes consideran que se violenta el princip io de seguridad jurídica porque no es posible saber a ciencia cierta cuá ntas hectáreas deben expropiarse y cuáles son los límites definitivos de la RBLB . f) Violación al principio de legalidad. Otro de los argumentos de los accionantes es que la Ley es contraria a varias disposiciones de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, de la Ley de Biodiversidad y su Reglamento y de la Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales, que fijan los requisitos para crear o modificar las áreas silvestres protegidas. Por esa r azón, opinan que se violenta el principio de legalidad dispuesto en el artículo 11 de la Constitución Polí tica.2) Alegatos relacionados con la infracció n al principio de equilibrio presupuestario. Los accionantes exponen que del artí culo 176 de la Constitución Política se deriva el princ ipio de equilibrio presupuestario o principio de contenido necesario del presupuesto, y que la Ley 9610 es contraria a ese principio porque, desatendiendo el requisito que dispone el artí culo 36 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente de contar con el financiamient o mínimo para la creación de las áreas silvestres protegidas, incluy e propiedades privadas dentro de la RBLB sin que el presupuesto del año 2018 contemplara alguna partida presupuestaria para pagar las expropiaciones necesarias . En línea con lo anterior, estiman violentado el principio de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad porque, a su juicio, la Ley obliga al Estado a destinar una gran cantidad de recursos para expropiar los terrenos que compensará n el área desafectada de la RBLB, cuando la compensación pod ía realizarse con terrenos propiedad del MINAE o con terrenos menos costosos que los elegidos. Consideran que, en el entorno actual de finanzas públicas deficitarias, no existe justificación para que el Estado destine sumas millonarias a la expropiación de esos terrenos, cuando existían otras opciones más favorables. Por esa misma razón, estiman violentado el principio de economía y eficiencia ya que existía la opción de compensar el á rea desafectada con una propiedad del MINAE, sin costo alguno para el Estado. Cuestionan, ademá s, que no se estudiaron todas las propiedades adyacentes a la Reserva para determinar la manera de compensar el área desafectada al menor costo posible.3) Alegatos relativos a la transgresión del derecho de propiedad privada. A juicio de los accionantes, la Ley 9610 afecta la propiedad privada de tres personas jurídicas y las somete al á rea de la RBLB, sin que exista un interés público legalmente comprobado y sin indemnización previa. Ello, a su criterio, constituye una violación al a rtículo 45 Constitucional. En estrecha relación con ese ú ltimo argumento, los accionantes indican que al tratarse de una norma que restringe el derecho de propiedad, la Ley fue votada por mayoría calificada, y, por esa razón, no podía tramitarse utilizando el procedimiento que dispone el artículo 208 bis el Reglamento de Orden, Dirección y Disciplina Interior de la Asamblea Legislativa, que está concebido como un procedimiento para la tramitación de proyectos de ley que se aprueben por mayorí a absoluta. Indican que, tal y como lo señaló el Departam ento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea, el proyecto de ley fue tramitado, en parte, a través de ese procedimiento, y que ello constituye una violación a las limitaciones que fija el artí culo 208, el cual, a su juicio, es un parámetro de constitucionalidad de las normas. Por tanto , estiman que la ley es inconstitucional por violación al procedimiento parlamentario” . Al respecto, la Procuradurí a considera que los accionantes se encuentran legitimados para interponer esta acción de conformidad con el párrafo segundo del artí culo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, únicamente en cuanto a los reclamos concernien tes a la violación al derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológ icamente equilibrado y los referidos a la violación al principio de equilibrio presupuestario. Ac ota que la Sala Constitucional ha reconocido la legitimación por la defensa de intereses difusos en materia ambiental en mú ltiples ocasiones (por ejemplo, en los votos n.os 18360-2017 de la s 10:50 horas de 15 de noviembre de 2017, 9201-2009 de las 9 horas 7 minutos de 12 de junio de 2009 y 2699-2009 de las 15 horas 6 minutos de 2 de marzo de 2011, entre muchos otros) y también en los asuntos en que se defiende el buen manejo de los fondos pú blicos (votos n.os 472-2018 de las 9:15 horas de 17 de enero de 2018, S798-2014 de las 16:33 horas de 30 de abril de 2014 y 14348-2009 de las 15:19 horas de 16 de setiembre de 2009). Menciona que no existe un interés difuso para defender la alegada violac ión al derecho de propiedad privada y, en el sub iudice , no se comprueba la existencia de un asunto previo en el que se invoque la inconstitucionalidad alegada como medio para amparar el derecho o interés reclamado. Estima que l a acción es admisible únic amente en cuanto a los alegatos atinentes a la violació n del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y al principio del equilibrio presupuestario y, en consecuencia, son inadmisibles los reproches relativos a la violació n al derecho de propie dad privada. En relación con el fondo de la acción manifiesta lo siguiente. 1) Alegatos referidos a la violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecoló gicamente equilibrado. A. La reducción de las áreas silvestres protegidas. Arguye que la Sala Constitucion al ha reconocido, en múltiples ocasiones, que la validez de la disminución de la cabida de un á rea silvestre protegida depende de si se ajusta o no a lo dispuesto en el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgá nica del Ambiente. Expone que, en otras palabras, reducir el terreno de un área silvestre protegida no resulta inconstitucional si se res petan dos requisitos esenciales: que la medida se adopte mediante una ley, y que de previo se justifique con estudios té cnicos suficientes. Cita parcialmente el voto n.º 1056-2009 de las 14:59 horas y en igual sentido remite a las sentencias n.os 11155-2007, 14772-2010 y 2375-2017. Refiere que este Tribunal, en el voto n.º 12887-2014 de las 14:30 horas de 8 de agosto de 2014, añadió un tercer requisito: "Un área protegida sol o se puede reducir si se hace mediante ley, si hay estudios técnicos y científic os que descartan el daño ambiental y si se da una compensación del área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño. Así se desprende de lo que esta Sala ha resuelto en anteriores oportun idades en los votos números 2012-13367 y 2009-1056… no cabe duda que tod as aquellas normas en las cuales hay reducción de las áreas protegidas sin el respaldo de estudios técnicos ni compensación alguna, son inconstitucionales”. Sobre el estudio técnico que de be justificar la medida, transcribe parcialmente la sentencia n.º 13367-2012 de las 11:33 horas de 21 de setiembre de 2012:“En este sentido, la exigencia de estudios técnicos que justifiquen la aproba ción de los proyectos de ley tendientes a la reducció n o desafectació n de un área ambientalmente protegida, debe ser satisfecha con anterioridad o durante el desarrollo del procedimiento legislativo. Además, el requerimiento de estudios técnicos no es una mera formalidad, sino que se trata de un requisito material, es decir materialmente se tiene que demostrar mediante un análisis cientí fico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, plantear recomendaciones orientad as a menguar el impacto negativo en este y demostrar cómo tal medida implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades". Remite en igual sentido al voto n.º 10158-2 013. Añade que el desarrollo j urisprudencial anterior configura el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, según el cual este tipo de espacio no puede verse disminuido o modificado si no se cumplen los requisitos fijados. Agrega que lo anterior guarda una rela ción clara con los principios de no regresión en materia ambiental, objetivació n de la tutela ambiental, preventivo y precautorio. En cuanto al principio de no regresión cita parcialmente la sentencia n.º 13367-2012 y res pecto del pr incipio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental transcribe de forma parcial el voto n.º 2063-2007 de las 14:40 horas de 14 de febrero de 2007. Explica que el principio preventivo, contemplado en el numeral 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad (n.º 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998), exige la adop ción por parte de los poderes públicos de aquellas medidas destinadas a evitar, mitigar o corregir los efectos adversos que generan las actividades o acciones humanas al ambiente. Aduce que el principio precautorio encuent ra sustento en el artículo 15 de l a Declaración de Río sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo y en el artíc ulo 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, e implica que cuando exista peligro de producirse un daño al ambiente, aunque no exist a certeza científica de su concre ción, deben paralizarse las activi dades o proyectos o improbar o suspender el otorgamiento de las autorizaciones que puedan generar esas afectaciones. Menciona, en sustento de lo anterior, el voto n.º 6322-2003 de las 14:14 horas de 3 de julio de 2003. B. Sobre el fundamento técnico de la ley impugnada. Asevera que en el expedien te legislativo n.º 2046, do nde se tramitó la ley impugnada, consta el estudio “Establecimiento de la Línea base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y Finca Adyacente ” de la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (folios 268-504), que tuvo como objetivo determinar las características bioló gicas y geofísicas del área de la RBLB que sería sustituida por el área del embalse y ev aluar los componentes de biodiversidad en una finca adyacente propiedad de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., con el fin d e valorar su potencial para compensar el área afectada de la RBLB; es decir, tal estudio estuvo destinado a determinar la posibilidad de compensar el área de la RBLB que sería desafectada. Relata que en ese estudio se determinó que, para compensar el área, dentro de la Reserva debí an incluirse 444 hectáreas de la finca ASETREK y 86 hectáreas de la finca Brindis de Amor, amén de utilizar el embalse Río Piedras como parte de la compensació n. Sostiene que, con base en el criterio del Comité Técnico del Área de Conservació n Arenal Tempisque (minuta n.º 5 de 30 de junio de 2017, folios 1478-1491 del expediente legislativo), el c onsejo regional de es a área de conservación v aloró el estudio de la OET e indicó: “ ... salvo las consideraciones realizadas en el objeto de conservación denominado bosque ripario; técnicamente se puede afirmar que: a) los objetos de conservación que fundamentan la creación de la Reserva Biológica Lom as Barbudal no están siendo afectados y b) Que el área es compensada por otra de igual tamaño que cumple con los mismos fines y semejantes condiciones ecosisté micas. III- Que se ha verificado que el informe técnico remitido a esta instancia para su consideración ha cumplido con el contenido requerid o por los numerales 71 y 72 del Decreto Ejecutivo 34433-MINAE “Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad"." (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497)”. Indica qu e, como en el estudio de la OET se constató un faltante del área de bosque ripario para compensar el área afectada d e ese tipo de ecosistema, e l Comité Técnico y el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación, en los documentos citados, recomend aron: “Identificar un área de bosque ripario que permi ta compensar el faltante en hectáreas para este tipo de ecosistema” . Señala que el Consejo Regional, e n la nota aludida, refirió: “Existen algunos oficios enviados por SENARA, por ejemplo, SENARA-GG-0374-2017, SENARA-GG-0257-2017 y SENARA-INDER-172-2017 que indican que dentro de la propiedad de ASETREK existen 6,14 has (sic ) de b osque ripario. No obstante, este dato no es mencionado en el estudio realizado por la OET, o respaldo por algún estudio al respecto, con las mismas características del estudio inicial. Respecto a la finca Brindis de Amor, también este Consejo estima que lo s estudios no se realizaron con la misma profundidad de aná lisis con respecto al estudio inicial, ni en el tiempo suficiente que sustente té cnicamente la calidad de los componentes abordados desde el inicio de la investigació n. Es necesario que se profundice más los estudios en esta propiedad o cualquier otra que se considere como propuesta de compensación, para que este Consejo pueda emitir un criterio fundamentado”. Acota que el Co nsejo Nacional de Áreas de Conserva ción recomendó la elaboració n de un proyecto de ley con fundamento técnico, que incluyera las recomendaciones dadas por el Comité Té cnico y por el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque. (Oficio No. SI NAC-CONAC-SA-226 de 14 de agosto de 2017, folios 1476-1478). Manifiesta que, considerando el faltante del área de bosque ripario señ alado por el Comité Técnico y el Consejo Regional, la propuesta final de compensación se definió en el oficio n.º SENARA-INDEP-441-2017 de 17 de julio de 2017 (folios 141-149), en el que se indicó qu e para compensar el área desafectada y cubrir el faltante de bosque ripario se incluirían 444,04 hectáreas de la finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., la totalidad de la Finca Brindis de Am or en Liberia S.A. con un área de 86,96 hectáreas, y un á rea de 40 hectáreas de la finca Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A.. Afirma que el Consejo Regional del Á rea de Conservación Tempisque, después de aprobado en segundo debate el proyecto de ley, indicó que lo que SENARA propuso fue básicamente una compensació n de 5 a 1, o sea, compensar con área 5 veces mayor a la que se desafectaría (oficio n.º SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644). Refiere que, puesto que la Procur aduría funge como asesor jurí dico, técnicamente no puede valorar el estudio de la OET ni la forma en que se definió la propuesta final de compensación del á rea desafectada de la RBLB. Menciona que esa valoración debe tomar en cuenta los criterios de las demás instituciones, a las que se les dio audiencia e n esta acció n de inconstitucionalidad. Manifiesta que, si el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación del área silvestre proteg ida técnicamente resultaren insuficientes, la ley impugnada sería inconstitucional por violación al principio de objetivació n de la tutela ambiental. Asevera que, en la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley y a lo largo del expediente legislativo, se ha justificado la desafectación de una parte de la RBLB con el argumento de que la compensación propuesta garantiza, que los objetos de conservación que fundamentaron la creación de la RBLB no estarían siendo afectados y que el área desafectada sería compensada por otra de igual tamaño que cumpliere con los mismos fines y semejantes condiciones ecosistémicas. Explica que la garantía de que no se vaya a afectar al área silvestre protegida y que el impacto de la desafectación de una parte de esta sea mitigado, directamente recae en la compensación propuesta. Añade que si se concluye que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación son insuficientes y adolecen de falencias técnicas, la ley impugnada violentaría el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, pues no se estaría garantizando que la variación de los límites aprobada no afecte la integridad de la RBLB y no se estaría mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectación de una parte de esa reserva biológica. Agrega que en consecuencia se violentarían los principios precautorio y preventivo, amén de que no existiría respaldo técnico de que la medida legislativa adoptada no lesiona el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Sostiene que lo anterior también podría resultar contrario a la Convención Ramsar, en cuanto a la obligación que establece el artículo 3° de favorecer la conservación de las zonas húmedas inscritas en la lista de humedales de importancia internacional, de la cual forma parte la RBLB al estar integrado Palo Verde al sitio Ramsar. Asevera que, aun cuando se constate la suficiencia del estudio de la OET y de la propuesta final de compensación, debe advertirse que ese estudio técnico únicamente justificaría la validez de la compensación practicada y, como tal, no es un estudio técnico que justifique directamente la decisión de desafectar una parte de la RBLB. Refiere que, de acuerdo con la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, el estudio que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para justificar la reducción de un área silvestre protegida debe ser un estudio que determine la necesidad y conveniencia de adoptar ese tipo de medida. Señala que, en este caso, sería aquel estudio que fundamente técnicamente la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB; es decir, uno que determine que la única alternativa para desarrollar el proyecto PAACUME y el embalse Río Piedras, es desafectar parte de la reserva biológica. Acota que el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, al referirse al estudio de la OET, indicó: “esta instancia considera que aún no se ha demostrado que existan otras alternativas del proyecto PAACUME, sin que necesariamente se tenga que desafectarse un área de la actual RBLB. Si efectivamente estas alternativas no son viables, será necesario valorar la tercera medida que es la compensación" (oficio n.° SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo). Menciona que, el propio consejo, después de aprobado el proyecto de ley en segundo debate, expuso: “es necesario que existan los estudios técnicos ambientales, jurídicos y financieros suficientes que justifiquen la selección adecuada tanto del área a desafectar, como de las áreas que servirán como compensación. Debe verificarse la existencia de estos estudios dentro del expediente de este proyecto de ley, ya que a la fecha este Consejo no cuenta con tal información" (oficio n.° SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644). Manifiesta que en el documento " Perfil del Proyecto PAACUME", elaborado por el SENARA (folios 505-621), se parte de que "una de las propiedades dentro del área del embalse pertenece a la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, con un área aproximada a las 112 ha”; además, se señala que el “ área debe de ser compensada con un área aledaña de similares características ecológicas para lo cual se requiere la elaboración de un estudio de línea base de biodiversidad que demuestre la equivalencia de las áreas de compensación". Agrega que se consigna que tal estudio fue elaborado por la OET (folio 557). Expresa que algunos de los funcionarios que comparecieron a las sesiones de la comisión legislativa que tramitó el proyecto expusieron que, técnicamente, el proyecto PAACUME no podía desarrollarse sin desafectar e inundar parte de la RBLB y en el documento denominado "Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal" (folios 622-726), ante una de las preguntas formuladas por uno de los participantes, se contestó que “si no se logran obtener las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, el proyecto cambia totalmente, ya que sin estas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB las condiciones de la presa, la cantidad de agua a embalsar, el costo del proyecto y el diseño tendría que cambiar totalmente" (folio 661). Aduce que, con base en el criterio de las instituciones a las que se les dio audiencia en esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, debe valorarse si existe sustento técnico suficiente para justificar la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB a los efectos de la ejecución del proyecto PAACUME. Arguye que, si no se constata ese sustento, la ley n.° 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión. Sostiene que, en ese supuesto, la norma podría resultar contraria a la Convención Ramsar, porque si bien esta no obliga a los Estados a comunicar de previo la decisión de modificar el área de los sitios de importancia internacional, su artículo 4° sujeta esa posibilidad a la existencia de un motivo de urgente necesidad nacional, lo que no estaría debidamente justificado en este caso particular. Asevera que también resulta importante que se constate si el texto de la ley impugnada consideró las imprecisiones señaladas por el Instituto Geográfico Nacional (oficios que constan a folios 1890-1914 y 2604-2608) en cuanto a las coordenadas y la localización geográfica, así como si esas imprecisiones tienen alguna consecuencia en la delimitación adecuada del área desafectada y de las áreas que se incluyen en la reserva que deben ser expropiadas, pues eso podría impedir, en alguna medida, que se materialice la compensación propuesta. Sugiere que se pida el criterio técnico del Instituto Geográfico Nacional. Indica que los alegatos de los accionantes relativos a la violación al principio de legalidad, merced al incumplimiento de requisitos legales y reglamentarios para disminuir o modificar la cabida de las áreas silvestres protegidas, se encuentran inmersos en el análisis efectuado al respecto y, por ello, no son examinados de manera separada. Señala que lo tiene que ver con la posible violación de la Convención para la Protección del Patrimonio Mundial Cultural y Natural de la UNESCO y los posibles efectos del proyecto PAACUME sobre el sitio declarado como Patrimonio Mundial en el Área de Conservación Guanacaste, es un asunto que debe ser valorado en el proceso de evaluación de impacto ambiental del proyecto que se encuentra en trámite. Sobre los efectos de la ley impugnada. Acota que la ley n.° 9610 presenta ciertas particularidades con respecto a otras normas legales que pretenden disminuir la medida de áreas silvestres protegidas, pues, en este caso, la decisión de desafectar parte de la RBLB no está motivada en la pérdida de valor ambiental o en la protección de la zona, sino, exclusivamente, en la necesidad de desarrollar una obra de infraestructura como parte de la ejecución del proyecto PAACUME. Añade que la desafectación autorizada interesa únicamente al desarrollo de ese proyecto. Con base en lo expuesto, la Procuraduría estima que, aparte de las observaciones apuntadas en el segmento anterior, un defecto de la ley que podría causar su inconstitucionalidad está referido a que no se contempló alguna disposición que dimensione las consecuencias de la desafectación hasta que el proyecto se ejecute, pues la decisión de desafectar tiene sentido y justificación únicamente si aquel se lleva a cabo. Agrega que, si por alguna razón el proyecto no es desarrollado, la desafectación practicada no tendría sentido alguno y, por ende, carecería de justificación. Insiste en que la justificación de la desafectación depende de la eventual ejecución del proyecto, que podría verse impedida por varias razones, tales como: porque no se otorgue la viabilidad ambiental al proyecto, no exista financiamiento necesario, se pierda interés en desarrollarlo, o sea imposible ejecutarlo. Expone que la garantía de la no afectación a la RBLB yace en la medida de la compensación propuesta, pero lo cierto es que con la ley impugnada se desafectó una parte de la reserva y, pese a que se incluyó dentro de sus límites el área de compensación, esos terrenos son propiedades privadas que no han sido expropiadas. Explica que, con base en lo dispuesto en el numeral 37 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, mientras esas propiedades no sean apropiadas o compradas, no pueden pasar a formar parte del área silvestre protegida, de modo que la compensación propuesta no se ha materializado. Refiere que, en otras palabras, con la emisión de la ley n.° 9610, el área de la RBLB se disminuyó y la afectación generada por esa disminución no ha sido compensada, lo que contraviene el principio precautorio y preventivo. Manifiesta que, si por alguna razón el proyecto no es desarrollado y tampoco se ejecutan las expropiaciones necesarias para efectuar la compensación propuesta, la ley habría desafectado la RBLB en vano, sin existir una justificación válida y sin haber compensado ni mitigado los efectos generados por esa disminución. Menciona que lo anterior constituiría una violación al principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, de no regresión, precautorio y preventivo e, incluso, una violación a la Convención Ramsar al no existir un motivo de urgente necesidad para justificar la disminución del área de uno de los sitios de importancia internacional. Arguye que, sin perjuicio de lo que se constate en cuanto a la suficiencia de los estudios y criterios técnicos antes señalados, la Procuraduría estima que, por lo recién indicado, la ley n.° 9610 podría resultar inconstitucional, a menos que se interprete que la desafectación que autoriza surtirá efectos hasta el momento en que el proyecto se ejecute y se expropien los terrenos necesarios para que opere la compensación propuesta. 2) Sobre la infracción al principio de equilibrio presupuestario. Indica que el artículo 176 de la Constitución Política establece que el presupuesto ordinario comprende todos los ingresos probables y todos los gastos autorizados de la Administración Pública, durante todo el año económico, y que el monto de los gastos presupuestados no puede exceder el de los ingresos probables. Señala que, con base en esa disposición se ha desarrollado el principio de equilibrio presupuestario, que indica: “Lo que el constituyente previó fue simplemente un equilibrio de tipo contable, en el sentido de que el total de las erogaciones previstas nunca podrían superar el total de los ingresos proyectados” (voto n.° 481-2002 de las 14:42 horas de 23 de enero de 2002, y en similar sentido votos n.os 2794-2003 y 15712-2016). Acota que la discusión acerca de si se ha incluido en el presupuesto ordinario la partida específica destinada a cubrir las expropiaciones que se requieren para la compensación de la RBLB no está referida a la violación del principio de equilibrio presupuestario. Refiere que la falta de ejecución de esas expropiaciones podría constituir, más bien, una afectación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, según lo expuesto. Menciona que la escogencia de un terreno para compensar la disminución de la cabida de un área silvestre protegida no debe responder únicamente a un criterio económico, sino que debe hacerse en función de los atributos ecológicos del terreno, con el fin de que reúna condiciones ambientales equivalentes al área desafectada y así la compensación cumpla su objetivo final. Aduce que la Sala Constitucional ha dispuesto que los derechos a la salud y a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado son derechos fundamentales y que "cualquier criterio económico que se quiera aplicar en un caso concreto debe ceder en importancia ante los primeros" , y, además, que no es válido "el criterio de contraponen dándole mayor valor, a cuestiones puramente económicas…” (voto n.° 5906-1999 de las 16:15 horas de 28 de julio de 1999). Asevera que el hecho de que existieran otros terrenos menos costosos para realizar la compensación no constituye una violación a los principios de razonabilidad, proporcionalidad, economía y eficiencia, en los términos narrados por los accionantes; salvo que se comprobara técnicamente que existían otros terrenos menos onerosos con las mismas o mejores condiciones ambientales y que eran totalmente aptos para compensar el área desafectada de la reserva. Concluye lo siguiente: “ 1. La acción es admisible únicamente en cuanto a los alegatos relacionados con la violación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y al principio de equilibrio presupuestario, y, en consecuencia, son inadmisibles los reproches relativos a la violación al derecho de propiedad privada. 2. En caso de determinarse que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación de la RBLB son insuficientes técnicamente, la ley impugnada resultaría inconstitucional por violación a los principios de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, precautorio, preventivo y de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, pues no se estaría garantizando que la variación de los límites aprobada no afecta la integridad de la RBLB y no se estaría mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectación de una parte de dicha Reserva Biológica. También, ello resultaría contrario a la obligación que establece el artículo 3° de la Convención Ramsar de favorecer la conservación de las zonas húmedas inscritas en la lista de humedales de importancia internacional. 3. Debe valorarse si existe sustento técnico suficiente para justificar la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB para ser utilizada en la ejecución del proyecto PAACUME. Si no se constata ese fundamento, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión, y por no comprobarse el motivo de urgente interés nacional al que la Convención Ramsar sujeta la posibilidad de modificar el área de los sitios de importancia internacional. 4. Es recomendable requerir el criterio del Instituto Geográfico Nacional en cuanto a si la Ley impugnada consideró las imprecisiones hechas sobre las coordenadas y la localización geográfica y si esas imprecisiones tienen alguna consecuencia en la delimitación adecuada del área desafectada y de las áreas que se incluyen en la Reserva y que deben ser expropiadas, pues ello podría impedir que se materialice la compensación propuesta. 5 . Si por alguna razón el proyecto no es desarrollado y tampoco se ejecutan las expropiaciones necesarias para efectuar la compensación propuesta, la Ley 9610 habría desafectado la RBLB en vano, sin existir una justificación válida y sin haber compensado y mitigado los efectos generados por esa disminución. Ello constituiría una violación al principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, precautorio, preventivo y de no regresión, e, incluso, una violación a la Convención Ramsar al no existir un motivo de urgente necesidad para justificar la disminución del área de uno de los sitios de importancia internacional. Lo anterior, a menos que se interprete que la desafectación que autoriza surtirá efectos hasta el momento en que el proyecto se ejecute y se exploren los terrenos necesarios para que opere la compensación propuesta. 6. La inclusión o no de la partida específica destinada a cubrir las expropiaciones que se requieren para la compensación de la RBLB en el presupuesto ordinario, no implica la violación del principio de equilibrio presupuestario. 7 . El hecho de que existieran otros terrenos menos costosos para realizar la compensación no constituye una violación a los principios de razonabilidad, proporcionalidad, economía y eficiencia. A menos que se comprobara técnicamente que esos terrenos poseen las mismas o mejores condiciones ambientales que los seleccionados y que eran totalmente aptos para compensar el área desafectada de la Reserva”.
4. 7Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 11:02 horas de 15 de febrero de 2019, se apersona Carolina Hidalgo Herrera, en su condición de presidenta de la Asamblea Legislativa. Indica que la acción fue planteada por Gary Douglas Stewart Postel y María del Milagro Gamboa Miranda, quienes justificaron su legitimación en la regulación provista en los artículos 11 y 50 constitucionales, en el tanto se pretende la tutela de intereses difusos, pues según criterio de ellos, la norma cuestionada lesiona el derecha a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado así como los principios de legalidad, principios pro natura, precautorio y de no regresión en materia ambiental. Cita parcialmente el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional en relación con los intereses difusos. Señala que, a la luz del párrafo segundo de la norma anterior, no es necesario un caso previo pendiente de resolución cuando por la naturaleza del asunto no exista lesión individual y directa, o bien, se trata de la defensa de intereses difusos que atañen a la colectividad en su conjunto.Transcribe parcialmente el voto n.° 8239-2001 de la Sala sobre los parámetros de los intereses difusos. Acota que, en la posición jurisprudencial, los intereses difusos son aquellos cuya titularidad pertenece a grupos de personas no organizadas formalmente, pero unidas a partir de una determinada necesidad social, una característica física, su origen étnico, una determinada orientación personal o ideológica, entre otros. Refiere que la Sala ha señalado reiteradamente que cuando se trate de la protección jurídica del ambiente, resulta de particular relevancia la legitimación de los particulares, para actuar judicialmente y lograr la aplicación de normas que tienen esa finalidad, o bien, solicitar la tutela jurisdiccional para restablecer los derechos que se estimen conculcados. Menciona que, en el presente asunto, los accionantes justificaron su proceder en que la norma impugnada, lesiona -a su criterio- el derecho de toda persona para disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, previsto en el numeral 50 de la Carta Fundamental; es decir, no fundamentan su legitimación en la afectación a algún sujeto privado en particular o a ellos mismos, sino a la sociedad en su conjunto sea intereses colectivos, razón por la cual no se cuestiona su legitimación.En cuanto a los humedales y su régimen jurídico. Manifiesta que la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas (Convención de RAMSAR), incorporada al ordenamiento jurídico costarricense a través de la ley n.° 7224 de 9 de abril de 1991, define humedales de la siguiente manera: “En el sentido de la presente Convención, los humedales son extensiones de marismas, pantanos, turberas o aguas de régimen natural o artificial, permanentes o temporales, estancadas o corrientes, dulces, salobres o saladas incluyendo las extensiones de agua marina cuya profundidad en marea baja no exceda de seis metros. A los efectos de la presente convención, las aves acuáticas son aquellas que, ecológicamente, dependen de las zonas húmedas". Aduce que, a partir de esa definición, la Convención RAMSAR establece que las partes definen dentro de su territorio los humedales que consideran son de importancia internacional de conformidad con lo que la propia convención establece, lo cual da lugar a una lista de humedales.Arguye que, tal y como lo establece el artículo 2 de la Convención RAMSAR, la importancia internacional de un humedal se define a partir de criterios ecológicos, botánicos, zoológicos, limnológicos o hidrológicos, con especial atención a la importancia que estos tienen para las aves acuáticas a lo largo de todo el año. Agrega que ese numeral señala lo siguiente en relación con la posibilidad de añadir o reducir lista de zonas de humeral: “Las partes contratantes tendrán derecho a añadir a la "Lista" otras zonas húmedas situadas en su territorio, a ampliar las que ya están inscritas o, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, a retirar de la “Lista" o a reducir los humedales ya inscritos e informarán de estas modificaciones, lo más rápidamente posible, a la organización o al gobierno responsable de las funciones de la Oficina permanente especificados en el artículo 8". Asevera que el artículo 3 de la Convención RAMSAR manda a los Estados parte a elaborar planes de gestión que favorezcan la conservación y explotación racional de los humerales: “Artículo 3.- Las partes contratantes deberán elaborar y aplicar sus planes de gestión de forma que favorezcan la conservación de las zonas húmedas inscritas en la "Lista" y, siempre que ello sea posible, la explotación racional de los humedales de su territorio.Cada parte contratante tomará las medidas para ser informada, lo antes posible, de las modificaciones de las condiciones ecológicas de las zonas húmedas situadas en su territorio e inscritas en la "Lista", que se hayan producido o puedan producirse como consecuencia de las evoluciones tecnológicas, de la contaminación o de cualquier otra intervención del hombre. Las informaciones sobre dichas modificaciones se transmitirán sin pérdida de tiempo a la organización o al gobierno responsable de las funciones de la Oficina permanente especificada en el artículo 80” . Sostiene que, tal y como lo indica el numeral anterior, el desarrollo tecnológico como elemento a ser tomado en cuenta, resulta relevante e importante resaltarlo, por cuanto no prohíbe la intervención siempre y cuando se garantice la sostenibilidad del ecosistema. Acota que el artículo 4 de la Convención RAMSAR insta a los Estados parte a que establezcan en los humedales regímenes jurídicos de conservación, pero lo hace en términos generales sin referencia a ningún tipo en especial y, además, recomienda la compensación en los casos en que se reduzcan humedales incluidos en la lista: “Articulo 4.- Cada parte contratante fomentará la conservación de las zonas húmedas y de las aves acuáticas creando reservas naturales en los humedales, estén o no inscritos en la “Lista", y atenderá de manera adecuada su manejo y cuidado...Cuando una parte contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, retire o reduzca una zona húmeda inscrita en la “Lista", deberá compensar, en la medida de lo posible, cualquier pérdida de recursos en los humedales y, en especial, deberá crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y para la protección, en la misma región o en otro sitio, de una parte adecuada de su hábitat anterior". Sostiene que la filosofía de la Convención Ramsar gira en torno al concepto de uso racional de los humedales, el cual se define como " el mantenimiento de sus características ecológicas, logrado mediante la implementación de enfoques por ecosistemas, dentro del contexto el desarrollo sostenible ". Asevera que la conservación de los humedales, así como su uso sostenible y el de sus recursos, se hallan en el centro del "uso racional”, en beneficio de la humanidad. Indica que, respecto del régimen jurídico de los humedales en Costa Rica, conforme lo dispuesto en el artículo 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, estos se definen como: “ecosistemas con dependencia de regímenes acuáticos, naturales o artificiales, permanentes o temporales, lénticos o tráficos, dulces salobres o salados incluyendo las extensiones marinas hasta el límite posterior de fanerógamas marinas o arrecifes de coral o, en su ausencia, hasta seis metros de profundidad en marea baja".Indica que, desde esa perspectiva jurídica, los humedales son ecosistemas definidos por sus características biológicas, donde prevalece o es exclusivo el recurso agua (artículo 1.1 de la Convención de RAMSAR, numerales 40, 51 y 52 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambienta y 5, 6 y 7 del decreto ejecutivo n.° 35803 de 7 de enero de 2010). Señala que a los humedales le son aplicables otras disposiciones como las contenidas en la Ley de Aguas, la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre y la Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Acota que la legislación nacional no contiene un régimen jurídico propio de los humedales (como ecosistema) y, por ende, se ha admitido que sea posible realizar ciertas actividades sin que ello implique una desmejora en el nivel de tutela jurídicamente establecida. Aclara que la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal no es propiamente un humedal, pero sí forma parte del sitio Ramsar Palo Verde, porque cuando se definen los sitios Ramsar, no solo se consideran los ecosistemas por sí solos, sino las interrelaciones existentes que impactan para bien o mal los humedales, entre ellos esa área silvestre protegida.Menciona que “La Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas (Convención RAMSAR), pues si bien es cierto ese Convenio insta a compensar, en la medida de lo posible, la pérdida de recursos de humedales mediante la creación de nuevas reservas naturales, en aquellos casos en los que se retire un humedal de la lista de humedales de importancia internacional o se reduzcan los límites de uno de ellas y de igual manera el tema de comunicación con respecto a la modificación de zonas húmedas situadas en su territorio e inscritas en la "Lista"; resulta conveniente puntualizar que el objetivo de la Ley N 9610 es el (sic) para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume) consta en la exposición de motivos (expediente legislativo numero 20.465) tema considerado de vital importancia, de igual manera la Convención no señala un momento preciso para que el Estado contratante realice tal comunicación y realizar las acciones de compensación requeridas; siendo que en el caso concreto la aprobación de la Ley N° 9610 es el momento a partir del cual tal acción podría darse en virtud que de los efectos de la misma se generen, y no antes, por ende no existe violación a dicha Convención ni vulneración al numeral 7 constitucional ya que el Estado costarricense puede realizar la comunicación respectiva de manera paralela a las acciones que a nivel interno se realicen en tutela de los humedales por parte del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía como ente competente, específicamente en relación a (sic) la categoría de manejo a asignar al Embalse Río Piedras, de conformidad al numeral 6 de la citada ley”.Principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental. Manifiesta que este principio también llamado principio de vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica, o bien, principio de razonabilidad en relación el derecho ambiental. Expone que ha sido reconocido por la jurisprudencia constitucional y consiste en la obligación de acreditar, mediante estudios técnicos y científicos, la toma de decisiones en materia ambiental ya sea en relación con actos administrativos individuales o disposiciones de carácter general tanto legales como reglamentarias. Añade que, en virtud de lo anterior, siempre se debe contar con estudios técnicos y científicos serios, exhaustivos y comprehensivos que garanticen el menor impacto ambiental posible. Cita parcialmente el voto n.° 2063-2007 de las 14:40 horas de 14 de febrero de 2007. Refiere que este principio se encuentra ligado al principio preventivo contenido en el artículo 15 de la Declaración de Río y en el artículo 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, el cual exige la adopción por parte de los poderes públicos de aquellas medidas destinadas a evitar, mitigar o corregir los efectos adversos para el ambiente que generan las actividades o acciones humanas.Explica que, en relación con el trámite de la ley n. ° 9610 (expediente legislativo 20.465), visible del folio 268 al folio 728, consta el estudio denominado “Establecimiento de línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas del Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente ”, elaborado por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET). Agrega que en ese documento se definió la línea base que permite determinar la integridad ecológica, relevancia y fragilidad de los ecosistemas presentes, así como la biodiversidad existente en el área de la RBLB al ser impactada directamente por el Embalse Río Piedras y, además, se efectuó un análisis comparativo entre la reserva y terrenos aledaños previamente selecciones para conocer las condiciones de similitud y factibilidad de utilizarse como remplazo y que sea ecológicamente equivalente (exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley). Añade que ese estudio utilizó el “método de hábitat-hectárea” desarrollado en Australia, el cual emplea un set de indicadores que describen la condición del lugar (composición de estadios, estructura, potencial de reclutamiento, especies invasivas, etc) y su contexto a nivel de paisaje.Menciona que esos indicadores son ponderados y combinados en una puntuación de hábitat, todo cual está explicado con detalle (páginas 296 y 297 del expediente legislativo 2/10). Sostiene que después de aplicar esa metodología, la OET pudo comprobar que el área de la RBLB que se pretendía desafectar estaba en mejores condiciones ecológicas que las áreas que se proponían para compensar, en una proporción de 3 a 1, o sea que, por cada hectárea que se desafectara se debería compensar 3. Asevera que, aun así, cuando se revisa en detalle se determina que uno de los objetos de creación de la RBLB, precisamente el bosque ripario, no estaba representado dentro de la finca ASETREK, la cual era la propuesta para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarían. Indica que fue por lo anterior que se dio la necesidad de buscar otros terrenos aledaños que tuvieran bosque ripario para compensar el faltante de ese ecosistema en la propuesta de compensación.Señala que, debido a que lo que se requería era únicamente buscar el bosque ripario, los estudios en las fincas Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas no profundizaron con el mismo detalle que los estudios de ASETREK; sin embargo, aun así, la OET sí realizó un estudio de caracterización de la Finca Brindis de Amor, como complemento de compensación, lo cual se encuentra visible en los folios del 209 al 215 del Estudio de la Línea Base. Acota que el Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (ACAT) del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, en su carácter de competente técnico, realizó el análisis en relación con el estudio denominado "Establecimiento de la Línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y Finca Adyacente ", según consta a folios 126 al 131 del expediente legislativo, en virtud de lo que emitió las siguientes recomendaciones de mejora: “... De modo que, salvo las consideraciones realizadas en el objeto de conservación denominado bosque ripario; técnicamente se puede afirmar que: a) los objetos de conservación que fundamentan la creación de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal con los mismos fines no están siendo afectados y b) Que el área es compensada por otra de igual tamaño que cumple con los mismos fines y semejantes condiciones ecosistémicas.III. Que se ha verificado que el Informe técnico remitido a esta instancia para su consideración ha cumplido con el contenido requerido por los numerales 71 y 72 del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 34432-MINAE "Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad". IV. Que el estudio presenta una serie de recomendaciones que han sido analizadas por este órgano colegiado y que en lo pertinente deben ser acogidas..." (Acuerdo n.° 1 de la sesión extraordinaria de 5 de julio de 2017 del Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque visible del folio 126 al folio 131 del expediente 1/10 legislativo). Refiere que los estudios técnicos fueron vistos y revisados por las instancias respectivas del SINAC: Comité Científico Técnico del ACAT, Consejo Regional del ACAT (acuerdo n.° 1 de la sesión extraordinaria celebrada el 5 de julio de 2017) y el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (sesión extraordinaria n.° 3-2017 de 11 de julio de 2017).Principio de no regresión ambiental o irreductibilidad. Menciona que la RBLB corresponde a un área silvestre protegida de categoría protección absoluta, la cual fue declarada mediante decreto ejecutivo n.° 16849-MAG de 23 de enero de 1986, posee una extensión de 2602 hectáreas y forma parte del Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque (ACAT) del SINAC. Manifiesta que la modificación de áreas silvestres protegidas está prevista en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, cuyo artículo 38 dispone: “La Superficie de las áreas silvestres protegidas, patrimonio natural del Estado cualquiera sea su categoría de manejo, solo podrá reducirse por Ley de la República, después de realizar los estudios técnicos que justifiquen esta medida”. Agrega que el legislador tiene la posibilidad de reducir las áreas, previo cumplimiento de las justificaciones técnicas. Añade que, relacionado con el principio de no regresión (garantía sustantiva de los derechos estrictamente ambientales que prohíbe al Estado adoptar medidas o políticas, o bien, aprobar o modificar normas, que empeoren, sin justificación razonable o proporcionada, los derechos alcanzados con anterioridad, derivándolo de los principios de progresividad de los derechos humanos, objetivación de la tutela ambiental e irretroactividad de las normas).Menciona el voto n.° 2012-13367 de la Sala Constitucional. Arguye que el Tribunal Constitucional ha establece que es válido ampliar por decreto ejecutivo la extensión física de las áreas de protección (principio de progresividad); sin embargo, la reducción solo se puede dar por ley, previo estudio técnico ajustado a los principios de razonabilidades y proporcionalidad, a las exigencias de equilibrio ecológico y de un ambiente sano, y al bienestar general de la población que sirva para justificar la medida. Cita parcialmente la sentencia n.° 7294-98. Remite al voto n.° 5994-2017 en cuanto a los alcances del principio de no regresión en materia ambiental: “no toda modificación de la normativa ambiental debe tenerse como violatoria del tal principio ”. Afirma que, en la sentencia n.° 2012-13367, la Sala explica en qué situaciones no se violenta el principio de no regresión, así como su vinculación con el principio de inderogabilidad singular de la normativa.Aduce que, en el caso concreto, la modificación hecha a la RBLB responde a un mejor aprovechamiento de los recursos hídricos en la provincia de Guanacaste y, por tanto, se trata de una modificación justificada y razonable en atención al principio de desarrollo sostenible conceptualizado en la sentencia n.° 763-1994 de las 16:45 horas de 13 de abril de 1994, la cual transcribe parcialmente. Asevera que ese principio, a nivel nacional, se encuentra contenido en el numeral 50 de la Constitución Política, que establece un derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Cita parcialmente la sentencia n.° 15315-2008 de las 14:59 horas de 10 de octubre de 2008. Indica que, sobre el trámite legislativo, del folio 268 al 726, consta el estudio denominado "Establecimiento de línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente ” realizado por la OET, en el que se efectuó un análisis comparativo entre la reserva y terrenos aledaños previamente seleccionados para conocer las condiciones de similitud y factibilidad de utilizarse como remplazo ecológicamente equivalente: “Así las cosas, de acuerdo con los resultados expuestos en el estudio realizado por la OET y lo planteado en la comisión de alto nivel del Piaag, la propuesta definitiva de compensación es: 1.- De la finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A un total de 444,04 hectáreas conforme al plano del área propuesta. 2.- La totalidad de la Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., con un área de registro de 86,96 hectáreas conforme al plano. 3.- Un área de la finca de 40,00 hectáreas de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. En total, la compra de 571 hectáreas, lo que representa un factor de 5 veces el área que se verá afectada en la RBLB, con una equivalencia directa en tipos de bosques, conforme a lo que se indica en la tabla 7. Tabla 7. Comparación de área por tipo de bosque entre el área afectada de la RBLB y el área propuesta para compensación

Tipo de cobertura Área afectada en la RBLB (Ha)¹ Área de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. (Ha) Área de Brindis de Amor S.A. (Ha) Área de la finca Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A.

Área total propuesta de compensación (Ha) Bosque maduro (Ripario) 24,71 6,14 16,41 8,49 31,04 Bosque secundario 9,13 59,5 6,63 2,44 68,57 Bosque deciduo 96,05 286,67 45,74 26,91 359,32 Pastos 0,79 73,23 18,18 2,16 93,57 Áreas no forestales 0,39 18,5 - - 18,5 TOTALES 131,07 444,04 86,96 40 571 ¹A pesar de que el área requerida de la RBLB es de 113 hectáreas, la OET realizó el estudio sobre 130,64 hectáreas, razón por la cual se usa este valor para realizar la comparación. Con las medidas de compensación propuestas se alcanza el objetivo de conservación y, por ende, se puede afirmar: 1.- Que los objetos de conservación que fundamentan la creación del “área protegida”: no están siendo afectados. 2.- Que el área es compensada por otra de igual tamaño que cumple con los mismos fines y semejantes condiciones ecosistémicas". Señala el Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, en su carácter de competente técnico, analizó el estudio anterior.

Acota que, con vista en lo anterior, existe un estudio previo para el caso concreto de carácter científico y debidamente fundado, con recomendaciones en cuanto al tema de mitigación de los impactos (inevitables) al generar mediante la compensación de biodiversidad equivalente. Menciona que ese estudio fue tomado como base dentro del expediente legislativo, por lo que se cumple con lo requerido tanto a nivel de parámetros normativos como constitucionales. Manifiesta que el estudio toma las previsiones para que, a nivel técnico, los objetos de conservación que fundamentaron la creación del área silvestre protegida sean efectivamente compensados. Principio constitucional in dubio pro natura o precautorio. Afirma que se encuentra contenido en el artículo 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y en el principio 15 de la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo. Cita parcialmente la opinión jurídica n.º OJ-139-2001 de 27 de setiembre de 2001 de la Procuraduría General de la República: "De todas maneras y aú n si existiese duda acerca de si se producirán las alteraciones ambientales aquí analizadas al autorizarse la titulació n en áreas silvestres protegidas, es cl aro que el Estado debe abstenerse de aprobar este tipo de leyes en aplicación del llamado pri ncipio precautorio, contenido en la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo (en el mismo sentido, el artículo 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788 de 30 de abri l de 1998): “Principio 15 Con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente, los Estados deber án aplicar ampliamente el criterio de precaució n conforme a sus capacidades.

Cuando haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en funció n de los costos para impedir la degradación de/medio ambiente" En otras palabras, ante la seria amenaza que representa para los diferentes ecosistemas permitir la inscripción en el Registro Público de terrenos a nombre de particul ares dentro de áreas proteg idas, el principio precautorio ordena la eliminación de tal posibilidad o su sustitución por una regla no perjudicial para los recursos naturales. De no hacerse así, se vulnera este principio, que es derivación directa del “ in dubio pro naturaleza", pilar básico del Derecho Ambientan". Transcribe, en lo conducente, la resolución n.º 2000-10465 de 24 de noviembre de 2000: "...Uno de los principios esenciales que componen el derecho ambiental es el "principio precautorio" o "princip io de la evitación p rudente'; el cual está contenido en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, Declaración de Rio, que literalmente indica: "Principio 15.- Con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente, los Estados deberán a plicar 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 po stergar 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 latí n "preventivo", que alude a la acción y efecto de prevenir a aquellas preparaciones y disposiciones que se hacen a nticipadamente para evitar un riesgo o ejecutar una cosa. La prevención pretende anticiparse a los efectos negativos y asegurar la protecció n, conservació n y adecuada gestión de los recursos. Consecuentemente, el principio rector de preven ción se fundamenta en la necesidad de tomar y asumir todas las medidas precautorias para evitar o contener la posible afectació n del ambiente o la salud de las personas. De esta forma, en caso de que ex ista un riesgo de daño grave o irreversible –o una duda al respecto-, s e debe adoptar una medida de precaución e inclusive posponer la actividad de que se trate.

Lo anterior debido a que en materia ambiental la coacción a posteriori resulta ineficaz, por cuanto de haberse producido ya las consecuencias bioló gicas y socialmente nociv as, la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados al ambiente". Arguye que debe diferenciarse entre el estudio requerido para el trámite de la ley n.° 9610 (sobre el cual se refirió lí neas atrás) y el estudio de impacto ambiental del “Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Cesteras (Paacume)” que de berá tramitarse ante la Secret aria Técnica Nacional Ambiental, según dispone el numeral 4 de dicha no rma: “A RTICULO 4- El Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) será le entidad responsable de realizar el estudio ambiental del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Cosieras (Pa acume), que deberá incluir las medidas de prevención, mitigación y compensación del área desafectada afecta en el artículo 2 de la presente ley, las cuales deben ser implementadas por el desarrollador.

El estudio de impacto ambiental de berá considerar la l ínea base aprobada por las entidades y avalada por el Consejo Regional de Áreas de Conservació n del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), sin perjuicio de los términ os de referencia que emita la Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena), conforme al marco jurí dico correspondiente”. Refiere que el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Bioló gica y sus anexos 1 y 2, firmado en Río de Janeiro en 1992 y aprobado mediante la ley n.° 7 416 de 30 de junio de 1994, establece en el artículo 14 el instrumento de eval uación de impacto ambiental, bajo el principio preventivo con la reducción al mínimo del impacto adverso: "Articulo 14. Evaluación del impacto y reducción al mínimo del Im pacto adverso 1. Cada Parte Contratante, en la medida de lo p osible y según proceda: a) Establecerá procedimientos apropiados por los que se exija la evaluación del impacto ambiental de sus proyectos propuestos que puedan tener efectos adversos importantes para la diversidad biológica can miras a evitar o reducir al mínimo esos electos y cuando proceda, permitirá la participación del público en esos procedimientos. b) Establecerá arreglos apropiados para asegurarse de que se tengan debidamente en cuenta las consecuencias ambientales de sus programas y políticas que puedan tener efect os adversos importantes para la diversidad biológica” .

Agrega que el numeral 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente dispone: “ Evaluación de impacto ambiental. Las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tó xicos o peligrosos, requerirán una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaria Té cnica Nacional Ambiental creada en esta ley. Su aprobación previa, de parte de este organismo, será requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o pr oyectos. Las leyes y los reglamentos indicarán cuáles actividades, obras o proyectos requerirán la evaluación de impacto ambiental". Menciona que los artí culos 92 y siguientes de la Ley de Biodiversidad exigen la Evaluación de Impac to Ambiental de todos los p royectos cuando se considere que pueden afectar la biodiversidad. Transcribe parcialmente el inciso 38 del artículo 3 del decreto ejecutivo n.º 31849: "el procedimiento administrativo científico-técnico que permite identificar y predecir cuáles e fectos ejercerá sobre el ambiente, una actividad, obra o proyecto, cuantificá ndolos y ponderándolos para conducir a la toma de decisiones.

De forma general , la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, abarca tres fases: a) la Evaluació n Ambiental Inicial, b) la confección d el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental o de otros instrumentos de evaluación ambiental que corresponda, y e) el Control y Seguimiento ambiental de la ac tividad, obra o proyecto a través de los compromisos ambientales establecidos”. Añad e que la evaluación de i mpacto ambiental refiere al desarrollo e implementación del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), tal y com o lo consigna el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Expone qu e la evaluació n de impacto ambiental debe hacerse de forma previa a toda actividad humana que pueda alterar , contaminar o dañar el ambiente: “VI.- Competencias en materia de eva luación ambiental. En desarrollo de las obligaciones estatales de defensa y preservación del ambiente establecidas en el artí culo 50 constitucional el numeral 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, nú mero 7554 de cuatro de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y seis, ha dispuesto la obligación de las personas, físicas o jurí dicas, de realizar antes de emprender actividades o proyectos que por su naturaleza puedan alterar o contaminar el medio ambiente, un estudio de impacto ambiental" (sentencia n.º 2003-06311 de 3 de julio de 2003) .

Plantea que será la EIA otorgada por SETENA, de acuerdo con el numeral 84 de la Ley Orgá nica del Ambiente, la que determinará si las actividades que se pretenden desarrollar al amparo de dicho proyecto son ambien talmente posibles, o bien, si se deben restringir las actividades sometidas a consideració n como condición previa a su aprobación y, a su vez, establecer las medidas de mitigación correspondientes. Aduce que la EIA no es requisito para la promulgación de ley de desafectació n, s egún el artí culo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Asevera que SETENA deberá considerar como uno de los insumos el estudio “Establecimiento de línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente”, sin que deba entend erse que es el único, por cuanto la misma norma señala que, de acuerdo con el marco jurí dico, deberá emitir los términos de referencia pertinentes que permitan realizar el análisis de ese proyecto en ejercicio de sus competencias técnicas y legales.

Sostie ne que lo indicado en el artículo 4 de la ley n.º 9610 es acorde con el numeral 50 constitucional y con los ordinales 17 y 43 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, por cuanto exige como requisito la EIA de manera previa al desarroll o del proyecto. Señala que el artículo 1 de la ley cuestionada tiene el siguiente contenido: “ ARTÍCULO 1- S e rectifica y se delimita el área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, creada mediante Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 16849-MAG, de 23 de enero de 1986, para el desarrollo del Proye cto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume)...". Expresa que no resulta factible, como lo pretenden los accionantes que, previo a la aprobación de la ley, se realizara el trá mite de la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto. Áreas privadas inmersas dentro de los límites de áreas silve stres protegidas (artículo 37 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y artículo 45 de la Constitución Política).

Cita el artí culo 37 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente: “Al establecer áreas silvestres protegidas, cualquiera sea su categoría de manejo, el Poder Ejecutivo, por medio del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, queda facultado para incluir, dentro de sus límites, las fincas o partes de fincas particulares necesarias para cumplir con los objetivos señalados en esta ley y para instrumentarlos de acuerdo con el respectivo plan de manejo o crear las servidumbres legales para la protección ecológica y el cumplimiento de la presente ley. Cuando se trate de parques nacionales, reservas biológicas o refugios nacionales de vida silvestre estatales, los terrenos serán adquiridos por compra, expropiación o ambos procedimientos, previa indemnización. En los casos de reservas forestales, zonas protectoras, refugios de vida silvestre mixtos y humedales, los predios o sus partes también podrán comprarse o expropiarse, salvo que, por requerimiento del propietario, se sometan voluntariamente al régimen forestal.

Esa sujeción será inscrita en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, como una afectación al inmueble, que se mantendrá durante el tiempo establecido en el plan de manejo. Las fincas particulares afectadas según lo dispuesto por este artículo, por encontrarse en parques nacionales, reservas biológicas, refugios de vida silvestre, reservas forestales y zonas protectoras, quedarán comprendidas dentro de las áreas protegidas estatales solo a partir del momento en que se hayan pagado o expropiado legalmente, salvo cuando en forma voluntaria se sometan al Régimen Forestal. Tratándose de reservas forestales, zonas protectoras y refugios de vida silvestre y en caso de que el pago o la expropiación no se haya efectuado y mientras se efectúa, las áreas quedarán sometidas a un plan de ordenamiento ambiental que incluye la evaluación de impacto ambiental y posteriormente, al plan de manejo, recuperación y reposición de los recursos”.

Aco ta que ese numeral establece la facultad del Poder Ejecutivo, por medio del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, de establecer áreas silvestres protegidas, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo, quedando facultado para incluir, dentro de sus lí mites, las fincas o partes de fincas particulares, necesarias para cumplir con los objetivos señalados por la ley y para instrumentarlos de acuerdo con el respectivo plan general de manejo. Menciona que cuando se trata de parques nacionales, reservas bioló gicas o refugios nacionales de vida silvestre estatales, los terrenos deben ser adquiridos por compra, expropiación, o ambos procedimientos, previa indemnización, pues los fines de mane jo y conservación de esas categorías de manejo las hace incompatibles c on la propiedad privada. Cita la sentencia de la Sala n.º 1019-1997:"A pesar de declaratoria de ASP ví a decreto o ley, los propietarios privados conservan todos los atributos del domini o, sujeto a los límites de la legislación ambiental ordinaria, hasta la exprop iación o pago.

Estas personas pueden continuar con sus cultivos o pastos y mantener sus construcciones pero no podrían expandir sus actividades si estas implican un cambio de uso del suelo, es decir, la tala de árboles y pé rdida de cobertura boscosa. En el caso de establecerse reservas forestales, zonas protectoras y refugios de vida silvestre, se da la opción de que el propietario consenso su tierra, ya que, siguiendo el plan de manejo puede continuar aprovechándola en términos ec onómicos. Pero la integració n será voluntaria. Pero si los afectados con las limitaciones no desean someterse al ré gimen forestal, pueden negociar con el Estado la venta del terreno o bien someterse a las diligencias de expropiación". Manifiesta que la normativa vigente prev é la posibi lidad de incluir inmuebles privados dentro de los límites de las á reas silvestres protegidas, ya que el derecho de propiedad no es absoluto y puede estar sujeto a limi taciones.

Transcribe parcialmente la resolución de la Sala n.º 2007-011359 de 10 de agosto de 2007. Afirma que la doctrina señala que se ha dado un cambio entre la intangibilidad del concepto de propiedad absoluta e ilimitada (artí culo 29 Constitución Polí tica de 1871) a un derecho funcional, elástico y adaptable a la realidad socia l que experimente la colectividad (artículo 45 supra), que prevé la autorizació n de expropiación por motivos de utilidad pública y la imposición de li mitaciones de interés social y en razón de la funció n social de la propiedad. Cita la resolución n.º 4205- 1996 de 20 de agosto de 1996: “El contenido de esta "propiedad-función", consiste en que el propietario tiene el poder del emplear el bien objeto del dominio en la satisfacción d e sus propias necesidades, pero correspondiéndole el deber de ponerla tambié n al servicio de las necesidades sociales cuando tal comportamiento sea imprescindible.

Con este nuevo concepto se ensanchan las atribuciones del legislador para determinar el contenido del derecho de propiedad, lo que logra por medie de los limites y obliga ciones de interé s social que pueda crear, poniendo fin a su sentido exclusivo, sagrado e inviolable”. Trascribe parcialmente el voto de la Sala n.º 2007-011359: "el Derecho de propiedad del artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, al igual que los demás, no son absolutos, de manera que pueden estar sujetos a restricciones, que resultan legítimas únicamente cuando son necesarias para hacer posible la vigencia de los valores democráticos y constitucionales, por lo que además de "necesaria", "útil", "razonable" y "op ortuna", la restricción debe implicarle existencia de una necesidad social imperiosa que la sustente". Arguye que la restricción al derecho de propiedad que vacíe su conte nido esencial, se convierte en una expropiación encubierta y, en consecuencia, genera la obligación de indemnizar.

Explica que la Sala, en la resolución n.° 4465-99 de 11 de junio de 1999, estableció la obligación de indemnizar cuando se trate de expropiac iones no así de limitaciones de interés que se establezcan por votación calificada. A grega que, para el caso concreto, vuelve a tomar relevancia el numeral 37 de la Ley Orgá nica del Ambiente. Añade que los terrenos privados incluidos en la declaratoria de área si lvestre protegida mantienen su condición hasta tanto el Poder Ejecutivo ejecut e los procesos expropiatorios, de conformidad con el numeral 37 supra mencionado, por lo que no se está vaciando el contenido del derecho de propiedad. Expone que el mismo artícul o 37 dispone la adquisición por compra directa o expropiación, por lo q ue no existe omisió n alguna en la ley n.° 9610. Aduce que debe integrarse el ordenamiento jurí dico de tal forma que se entienda que, por tratarse de la categoría de manejo de reserva bioló gica, existe la obligación de adquirir los inmuebles mediante los mecanismo s dispuestos para tal fin (Ley de Expropiaciones n.º 7495).

Asevera que no es factible realizar los trámites contenidos en la Ley de Expropiaciones hasta tanto se diera la afectació n por ley de los inmuebles privados. Sostiene que lo indicado con respecto al c ontenido presupuestario y avalúos administrativos tampoco debe ser un requisito previo, toda vez que para eso se disponen momentos administrativos y procesales oportunos, a los e fectos de realizar la debida indemnización de los propietarios privados en los procesos respectivos. Indica que, con respecto a lo indicado en los puntos 4 y 5 del apartado E, lo argumentado corresponde a intereses particulares (afectación al desarr ollo de un proyecto turístico y la existencia de servidumbres y fundos enclava dos) cuya defensa deben ser ejercidas por las sociedades supuestamente afectadas, por lo que no hace referencia al respecto. Señala que no hay vicios de constitucionalidad, ya que el ordenamiento jurí dico vigente contiene la regulación relativa a todos los aspect os que fueron señalados en la presente acción y son de legalidad ordinaria.

Procedimiento legislativo (numeral 208 bis de la Asamblea Legislativ a). Acota que el expediente legis lativo n.º 20.465 fue remitido a la Secretarí a del Directorio el 20 de julio del año 2017 y, en ese momento, la Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa lo asignó a la "Comisión Especial Investigadora de la Provincia de Guanacaste para que analice, estudie, dictamine y valores las recomendaciones pertinentes en r elación con la problem ática social, econó mica, empresarial, agrícola, turística, laboral y cultural de toda la provincia de Guanacaste" (comisión especial n.º 19.206). Menciona que lo anterior se dispuso de acuerdo con el procedimiento ordinario de formaci ón de ley; sin embargo , en la sesión ordinaria n.º 28 de 20 de junio de 2016, el Plenario acordó la aplicación de un procedimiento especial para su conocimiento, de co nformidad con el artículo 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa.

Manifiesta que, con base en esas reglas, el expediente legislativo n.º 20.465 fue asignado a la comisió n especial n.º 20.869, “Comisió n Especial que será la Encargada de analizar, estudiar y dictaminar el Expediente No. 20.465 “Ley para la Modificación de Límites de l a Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rí o Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras". Arguye que ese órgano dictaminó l a iniciativa. Refiere que, en consideración de esos hechos y a raí z de la argumentació n de varios Diputados y Diputadas, en la sesión ordinaria del Plenario n.º 46 de 7 de agosto de 2018, se acordó aprobar por una mayoría de 46 votos a favor y 3 en contra, una moción de orden que estableció: “Para que se deje sin e fecto el procedimiento es pecial aprobado vía artículo 208 bis al expediente legislativo No. 20.465 "LEY PARA LA MODIFICACIÓN DE LÍMITES DE LA RESERVA BIOLÓGICA LOMAS DE BARBUDAL PARA EL DESARROLLO DE PROYECTOS DE ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA PARA LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RIO TEMPISOUE Y COMU NIDADES COSTERAS", por encontrarse roces de constitucionalidad en el trámite que lo hacen incompatibles con la aplicación de un procedimiento especial y que en adelante, continúe su trá mite legislativo ordinario".

Explica que, en consecuencia, la Asamblea Legislativa desconoció todos los acuerdos tomados en razón del procedimiento especial y conoció el proyecto de ley con base en las reglas del procedimiento ordinario de formació n de ley. Agrega que se puede verificar en las actas que, luego de la aprobació n de la moción de orden, la Asamblea Legislativa retomó el conocimiento del proyecto de ley y acordó dispensarlo de todos los trámites previos, con excepció n de su publicación, d e conformidad con el artículo 177 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa (a cta de la sesión ordinaria n.º 46 de 7 de agosto de 2018). Añade que la iniciativa no fue conocida de forma pre via por ninguna comisión legislati va, sino de forma directa por el Plenario, quien actuó como comisión general. Expone que el ex pediente legislativo n.º 20.465 ingresó al orden del día del Plenario el 9 de agosto de 2018 y, en la sesión extraordinaria n.º 7 de esa fecha, fue discutido y ap robado en primer debate.

Aduce que la Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa indicó al inicio de la discusión: “ Se inicia la discusión en el trámite de primer debate. Este proyecto se encuentra dispensado de todos los trámites excepto de la publicación y cuenta, a partir de la moción de orden aprobada en la sesión ordinaria nú mero 46, celebrada el 7 de agosto del 2018". Asevera que no existe vicio sustancial en el procedimiento, pues no fue conocido ni aprobado en primero y segundo debate con base en el artículo 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, sino conforme a los numerales 135, 15 0 y 177 como un proyecto dispensando de los trámites previos de comisión. Principio de seguridad jurídica. Relata que la Sala ha indicado reiteradamente que la se guridad jurídica es un principio constitucional que, en su sentido genérico, consiste en la ga rantía dada al individuo de que su persona, sus bienes y sus derechos no será n objeto de ataques violentos, o bien, que si estos llegan a producirse, le serán ase guradas protecció n y reparación; además, es la situación del individuo c omo sujeto activo y pasivo de relaciones sociales que, sabiendo o pudiendo saber cuáles son las normas jurí dicas vigentes, tiene fundamentales expectativas de que ellas se cumplan.

Indica que e se valor jurídico pretende dar certeza y procura evitar la incertidumbre del D erecho vigente (las modificaciones jurídicas arbitrarias, realizadas sin previo estudio y consulta). Expresa que puede ser considerado tanto en sentido subjetivo y objet ivo: el primero es la convicció n que tiene una persona de que la situación que goza no será modificada por una acció n contraria a los principios que rigen la vida social y el segundo es la existencia de un estado de organización social o de un orden social. Acota que la l ey n.º 9610 cuenta con los estudios de respaldo respectivos y, por ende, no co nlleva una modificación arbitraría del ordenamiento jurídico. Menciona que en el caso concreto existe certeza absoluta de los inmuebles a nombre de Asetrek Tres Azul S.A, Finca B rindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. y Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. afectados por la ley n.º 9610 (condiciones que constan en el asiento del Registro Nacional) y que como se indicó previamente deberá n someterse al procedimiento dispuesto en la Ley de Expropiaciones para su integración efectiva en la reserva biológica Lo mas de Barbudal.

Manifiesta que los límites de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal está n debidamente señalados en el decreto ejecutivo n.º 16849-MAG de 23 de enero de 1986 y en las coordenadas esta blecidas en la ley n.° 9610. Afirma que, en caso de que surjan dudas en el cam po (de manera posterior a la adquisición de los inmuebles privados), será responsabilidad del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía dar cumplimiento a lo dispuesto en el numeral 16 de la Ley Forestal: “ARTICULO 16.- Linderos. El Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía delimitará en el terreno, los linderos de las áreas que conforman el patrimonio natural del Estado. El procedimiento de deslinde se fijará en el reglamento de esta ley” . Menciona que el Patrimonio Natural del Estado está definido en el numeral 13 de la Ley Fo restal y lo integran las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas (cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo) declaradas por ley o decreto Ejecutivo; es decir, reservas forestales, zonas prot ectoras, parques nacionales, reservas biológicas, refugios nacionales de vida silvestre, humedales y monumentos naturales.

Manifiesta que, de acuerdo con la regulación prevista en los artí culos: 1, 2, 3 inciso i) de la Ley Forestal, 31 de la Ley Orgánica de l Ambiente; 22 y 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, 3 incisos d) y f) de la Ley de Servicio de Parques Nacionales , y 82 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre. Cita parcialmente la sentencia de la Sala n.º 2003-03840 de las 14:02 horas de 2 de mayo de 2003 y remite en el mismo sentido al voto n.º 05266-200 9 de las 12:24 horas de 27 de marzo de 2009. Arguye que los aspectos señalados por los accionantes están regulados en la normativa ambiental vigente y, por ende, la ley n.º 9610 no tiene vicios de constitucionalidad. Principio de legalidad (artí culo 11 de la Constituc ión Política). Aclara que, en el caso de la ley n.º 9610, se está ante la modificación de límite de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, la cual fue establecida c omo área silvestre protegida mediante decreto ejecutivo n.º 1684 9-MAG de 23 de enero de 198 6.

Refiere que se cumplió la normativa vigente, toda vez que el artí culo 71 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad indica: “ Para la declaratoria, modificación o ca mbio de categoría de manejo de ASR deberá elaborarse un informe técnico, que estará coordinado por la Instancia respectiva de SINAC”. Agrega que, para cumplir con esos estudios, el Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterrá nea, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) contrató a la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET) para que d esarrollara el estudio “ Establecimiento de la línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente”. Explica que el objetivo del estudio consistió en el aborar y definir la línea base que permitiera determinar la integridad ecoló gica, relevanc ia y fragilidad de los ecosistemas presentes, así como la biodiversidad existente en el á rea de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal que sería impact ada directamente por el Embalse Rí o Piedras; además, un análisis comparativo entre un á rea de la RBLB y t errenos aledaños previamente seleccionados, para conocer las condiciones de similitud y factibilidad de utilizarse como zona de reemplazo ecológicamente equivalente.

Agrega que ese estudio se realizó siguiendo las especificaciones del artí culo 72 del Regla mento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, según se indica expresamente en el oficio de la Organización para Estudios Tropicales de 30 de enero del 2017 y visibl e a folio 212 del expediente 1/10 legislativo. Añade que, en relación con el pu nto h) del numeral 72 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad (decreto ejecutivo n.º 34433-MINAE), consta en el expediente legislativo documento denominado “Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales Propuesta de Compensació n para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal". Expo ne que, de igual manera, el Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservació n, en su carácter de órgano técnico competente, con respecto al estudio de la Organización Para Estudios Tropicales (OET), se ñaló lo siguiente: “… Que se ha v erificado que el informe técnico remitido a esta instancia par a su consideración ha cumplido con el contenido requerido por los numerales 71 y 72 del Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 34433-MINAE "Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad..." (acuerdo n.° 1 de l a sesión extraordinaria de 5 de julio de 2017 del Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque visible a folios 126 al 131 del expediente 1/10 le gislativo).

Principio de Equilibrio Presupuestario. Aduce que, segú n el artículo 5 de la Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos (n.° 8131), el presupuesto deberá reflejar el equilibrio entre los ingresos, los egresos y las fuentes de financiamiento . Asevera que, además de lo ya indicado con respecto al trámite contenido en la Ley de Exp ropiaciones que deberá seguirse para la adquisición por parte del Estado de los inmuebles privados afectos con la ley n.º 9610, es preciso indiciar que en el expediente l egislativo consta el oficio DM-MAG-264-2017 del 18 de abril del 2017 del Ministro A gricultura y Ganadería en el que se compromete a incluir dentro del extra lí mite presupuestario los 1.425.000.000,00 millones de colones para la adquisició n de los terrenos para la compensación de áreas de la reserva biológica Lo mas de Barbudal en el marco del proyecto PAACUME (folio 150 expediente 1/10 legislativo).

Acota que lo anterior se dispuso con base en estimaciones realizadas por SENARA: “Para cumplir con este requer imiento de ley, se hace necesario contar con un monto estimado en mil cuatroci entos veinticinco millones de colones 00/100 (1.425.000.000,00), en el entendido que, una vez aprobada la ley que autorice la compensació n, se procederá a realizar los trámites de expropiación correspondientes" Oficio SENARA-GG-023 1-2017 del 06 de abril del 201 7 lodos 214 al 218 del expediente 1/10 legislativo)”. Menciona que el requisito dispuesto en el inciso g) del numeral 72 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad fue plename nte satisfecho dentro del trámite legislativo, ya que el MAG se comprometió a contar con el contenido econó mico para atender las obligaciones dispuestas en la ley n.º 9610. Manifiesta que, a partir de la emisió n de la ley n.º 9610, surge la obligación de compra de los inmuebles privados que se encuentran den tro de la reserva bioló gica, distinto al momento efectivo en que debe contarse con los recursos correspondientes a indemnización, según la Ley de Expropiaciones.

Principio de razonabilidad y proporcionali dad. Cita el voto de la Sala n.º 732-2001: “V. DEL PR INCIPIO DE RAZONABILIDAD COMO PARÁ METRO CONSTITUCIONAL. La jurisprudencia constitucional ha sido clara y conteste en considerar que el principio de razonabilidad constituye un parámetro de constitucionalidad ... Para realizar el juicio de razonabilidad la doc trina estadounidense invita a examinar en primer término, la llamada -razonabilidad técnica" dentro de la que se examina la norma en concreto (ley, reglamento, etc.). Una vez establecido que la norma elegida es la adecuada para regular determinada mater ia, habrá que exam inar si hay proporcionalidad entre el medio escogido y el fin buscado. Superado el criterio de razonabilidad técnica" hay que analizar la "razonabilidad Jurídica”. Para lo cual e sta doctrina propone examinar: a) razonabilidad ponderativa, que es un tipo de valora ción jurí dica a la que se concurre cuando ante La existencia de un determinado antecedente (ej. ingreso) se exige una determinada prestación (ej. tributo debiendo en este supuesto establecerse si la misma es equivalente o proporcionad a; b) la razonabilidad de igualdad, es el tipo de valoración jurí dica que parte de que ante iguales antecedentes deben haber iguales consecuencias, sin excepciones arbitrarias; c) razonabilidad en el fin, en este punto se valora si el objetivo a alcanzar, no ofende los f ines previstos por el legislador con su aprobación.

Dentro de éste mismo aná lisis no basta con afirmar que un medio sea razonablemente adecuado a un fin, es necesario, ademá s, verificar la í ndole y el tamaño de la limitación que por ese medi o debe soportar un der echo personal. De esta manera, si al mismo fin se puede llegar buscando otro medio que produzca una limitación menos gravosa a los derechos personales, el medio escogido no es razonable… ". Arguye que el principio de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad cumple un rol de primer orden en el Derecho Administrativo, al proyectarse en diversos á mbitos. Refiere que es de vital importancia como límite al ejercicio de la discrecionalidad administrativa, al establecer la Ley General de la Administració n Pública que no se pueden dictar actos administrativos discrecionales contrarios a las reglas uní vocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, o a los principios elementales de justicia, lógica o convenien cia (artículos 1G, párrafo 1° , 158. párrafo 4° y 160) (Principios constitucion ales que rigen a las Administraciones Públicas, Ernesto Jinesta L).

Explica que, sobre el tema de compensació n y los inmuebles seleccionados para tal fin, la exposición de motivos del proyecto, tomando como base el estudio denominado "Establecimiento de línea Ba se de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente " señala: “ Los terrenos evaluados para el área de compensación son propiedad nombre d e ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., cédula jurídica N° 3-101-37025 9, cuyo representante es el Sr, Ramón Agilitar Facio, cé dula de identidad Nº 9-0001-0541, plano catastrado N° 5-666-1976, folio real N° 034932-000, situada en el distrito primero Bagaces, del cantón cuarto Bagaces, de la provincia de Guanacaste, con un área de registro de 751 hectáreas. El procedimiento realizado por la OET para la evaluación de la compensació n, se basa en una metodología llamada: Hábitat/Hectárea, un sistema de puntajes, desarrollado por investigadores australianos el cual identifica una serie de indica dores de calidad de ambiente y asigna valores a cada uno de los factores de los há bitats a evaluar.

Se realizaron dos evaluaciones de compensación de fo rma independiente, una basada en indicadores de calidad de hábitat y la otra basada en diversidad y comp osición de c omunidades, ambas adaptadas al bosque seco tropical. Adicionalmente, la metodología usada por la OET fue modificada con el fin de incluir otros indicadores (geofísico s, servicios eco sistémicos, entre otros). El puntaje final resulta de la suma de los valores determinados para cada indicador y representa la calidad de hábitat o la composición de comunidades en relación al hábitat de referencia (RBLB). A partir del resultado obtenido en el Estudio, fue posible estimar el número de hectáreas que se requi eren para lograr un nivel de calidad como el de la referencia y así compensar las 113 hectáreas por inundar en la RBLB. Es importante señ alar que el estudio realizado por la OET consideró un á rea en la RBLB de 131,07 hectáreas, pues fue durante la ejecució n del mismo, que el SENARA realizó el trabajo de campo en topografía para elaborar el plano definitivo sobre el área efectiva requerida para el embalse, que dio como resultado las 113 hectá reas, todas incluidas dentro de las 131,07 hectáreas estudiadas por la OET.

El Estudio realizado por la OET (sobre 131,07 hectáreas), al considerar el área establecida, determinó que este sector de la RBLB cuenta con tres tipos de cobertura fore stal: bosque deciduo en 96,05 hectáreas, bosque secundario en 9.13 hectáreas y bosque maduro en 24,71 hectáreas. Este último en adelante será llamado bosque ripario, debido a que está relacionado a los cauces de la zona y compuesto por remanentes de vegeta ción que subsisten en las riberas de los ríos y quebradas, constituido por especies siempre verdes. Además, la finca cuenta con 1,18 hectáreas en á rea no forestal y pastos. El área de bosque ripario en ASETREK, corresponde a pequeñas áreas fragmentadas, situació n que llevó a no considerar su existencia para efectos de la asignació n de puntajes en la evaluación realizada en el Estudio para determinar el área de compensación requerida. Las conclusiones del estudio revelan según la calidad de hábitat, que es n ecesario un área equivalente entre 290 y 332 hectárea s para compensar el á rea a inundar en la RBLB, debido a que la finca estudiada representa entre el 34,00 % y el 51,20 % del sitio de referencia, que corresponde a las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB.

Estas diferencias indican que la finca ASETREK Tres Azul SA ha sido má s perturbada y al no co ntar con cobertura de bosque ripario, se requerirán 332 hectá reas para la compensación, considerando el valor máximo probable que da como resultado la metodología aplicada. Por otra parte, aplicando la metodologí a para diversidad y composición de comu nidades, ASETREK contiene 30,90 % de la referencia (113 hectá reas de la RBLB), es decir, la reserva cuenta con una riqueza de especies mayor de los grupos taxonómicos estudiados, por lo que se necesitan 290 hectá reas para compensar la pérdida en la RBLB. E n conclusión, considerando el resultado obtenido por la aplicación de la metodología, tanto para calidad de hábitat como para diversidad y composició n de comunidades, el sitio de compensación ASETREK Tres Azul S.A es inferior en calid ad de ambiente, composición y biodiversidad al sitio de la RBLB que serí a inundado por el Embalse Río Piedras, razón por la cual, al considerar la condición más adecua da para la RBLB, la OET recomendó que se adquieran como mínimo 332 hectáreas de la Finca ASETREK Tres Az ul S A. para resarcir las pérdidas de la RBLB.

La finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A, como extensión para la compensación y estudiada por la OET, tiene un área total de 751 hectá reas, de las cuales, una parte importante está dedicada a la producció n agrícola y ganadera. Al considerar el área de compensación propuesta como resultado del Estudio elaborado, se realizó un análisis del sitio, para valorar la extensión que se debería proponer para la compensación de las 113 hectáreas a inundar de la RBLB, atendiendo a l os siguientes pará metros fundamentales: 1. Cumplir con el área mínima requerida para la compensación obtenida del estudio, que corresponde a 332 hectáreas. 2. Considerar que el área por adquirir para compensación cuente con la cantidad de bosque suficiente, según los tipos de cobertura que se encuentran en el área por inundar de la RBLB. 3. Que el área a comprar incluya las 189,30 hectáreas que fueron estudiadas por la OET para las respectivas comparaciones entre el sitio potencial de compensación y el sitio de referencia (RBLB). 4.

Que el área se pueda integrar adecuadamente al resto de la RBLB, respetando entre ellas el mayor porcentaje de colindancia posible. 5. Que el área propuesta para la compensación permita la conectividad de la RBLB con las áreas de protección que se considera dejar alrededor del futuro Embalse Río Piedras como anillo de protección, principalmente en la margen izquierda de este. 6- Que se limite al máximo el lindero del área propuesta con áreas con cobertura no forestal, potreros o pastos, ya que estos pueden incrementar y facilitar el riesgo de incendios dentro de la RBLB. 7- Uniformizar el lindero de la propiedad, para que el área de compensación permita el adecuado manejo por parte de la administración del SINAC en la RBLB. Una vez anali zados los parámetros anteriores, el resultado obtenido denota que el área que se debería comprar de la Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. es de 444,04 hectá reas.

De estas se estima una presencia de bosque deciduo en 286,87 hectáreas, bos que secundario en 59.50 h ectáreas, pastizales en 73,23 hectáreas y un área no forestal, es decir, un á rea de pastos con otras hierbas nativas de 18,50 hectáreas. Es impor tante indicar que el área seleccionarla de la finca cuenta además con un área de bosque ripario de 6.14 hectáreas, d istribuida en pequeñas secciones, que por su no conectividad o por encontrarse en la zona de impacto directo del embalse, no se consideraron para la aplicación de la metodología utilizada en el Estudio para determinar el área de la compensación . Si bien es cierto, que el área propuesta de 444,04 hectá reas como compensación a las 113 hectáreas que serían inundadas de la RBLB cumple con los requ erimientos establecidos con base en los resultados de la metodología de calidad de háb itat aplicada en el Estud io por parte de la OET, la realidad es que esta área solo tiene un á rea de 2,2 hectáreas de un bosque maduro o ripario con características simila res al encontrado en el área por inundar en la RBLB.

En estas circunstancias, se estimó pertinente la búsqueda de una superficie adicional, que pueda solventar esta deficiencia de bosque ripario del área de compensación en la Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S A., cumpliendo con los parámetros men cionados anteriormente, identificándose luego de un trabajo de campo conjunto entre expertos de la OET, funcionarios de la RBLB del SINAC y del SENARA, dos fincas potenciales para compensació n, ubicadas en el lindero noroeste de la RBLB. Esta propiedad se encuentra a nombre de Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A y Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. En este sentido y según las inspecciones de campo realizadas en forma conjunta de expertos de la OET, SINAC y SENARA, apoyados en imágenes aér eas tomadas con un dron volando a baja altura, se determinó que las propiedades de Brindis de Amor posee un est imado inicial de 1141 hectáreas de bosque ripario y Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. posee un estimado de bosque ripario de 8.49 hectáreas conformado por una cobertura boscosa constituida por especies siempre verdes y que es comparable en calidad con el en contrado en el sitio potencial de inundación en la RBLB.

El área de bosque ripario en Brindis de Amor representa un 7,40 % del área cubierta por ese tipo de bosque dentro la RBLB actualmente; de ahí la importancia de incorporar esta área a la RBLB. Otro aspecto i mportante, es que el área de bosque ripario en esta finca puede constituirse un área núcleo de especies para repoblar otros ambientes riparios en la propiedad. Aunque esta situación no es cronoló gicamente correspondiente a la pérdida en la RBLB, segú n la OET, si es una considerable ventaja ya que esta área núcleo permite a corto plazo una restauración e incorporació n de nuevos bosques riparios, situación que no se estaría dando en la Propiedad de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. El bosque deciduo (45,74 hectáreas), a sí como el secundario (6,63 hectáreas) en Brindis de Amor han sido protegidos, por al menos veinte años y no hay registros de talas ni fuegos recientes, por lo que están en mejor condición de estructura y composición que los encontrados en el sitio de potencial impacto en la RBLB o en la propiedad de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. Aunque no es el objetivo principal, la anexión de este tipo de bosque de Bri ndis de Amor a la RBLB implica una ganancia significativa en estas coberturas forestales tambié n. El Estudio de Lí nea Base de Biodiversidad para la RBLB, evidenció el incremento en diversidad de diferentes grupos taxonómicos como respuesta a fuentes de agua más permanentes, condició n que se ve muy favorecida en la finca Brindis de Amor que posee varias fuentes de agua p ermanentes, incluyendo el río Cabuyo y sus afluentes, lo que da un valor agregado a esta finca.

Existen estudios de la Dra. Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Angel es), los cuales señalan que tropas de monos carablanca (Cebus capuccinus) de l a RBLB utilizan los bosques dentro de Brindis de Amor como sitios de alimentació n y descanso; es decir, hay evidencia de un constante flujo de animales entre la RBLB y Brindis de Amor como sitio de forrajeo, lo que demuestra la import ancia biológica de est a propiedad para ser incorporada a la RBLB. Finalmente es importante mencionar, que el Estudio realizado por la OET establece un área de compensación que considera la cond ición actual de los terrenos que se están valorando, sin hacer referencia a las mejoras que a futuro tendrán al incorporarse a un régimen de protección como lo es la reserva. Ante ello, se procedió a identificar un área bosque ripario que permite compensar el faltante en hectá reas para este tipo de ecosistema manteniendo la conectividad eco sis témica del área protegida, concluyendo que la propiedad de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. presenta tales condiciones y permite compensar un área de 8,49 hectá reas de bosque ripario.

Adicionalmente, se concluye que la mejor opción para completar la compensación del bosque ripario es necesario adquirir un á rea de 40,00 hectáreas propiedad de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., la cual contiene 8,49 hectá reas de bosque ripario. Según las capas de cobertura mencionadas anteriormente, esta finca posee un total de 33,64 hectár eas de bosque ripario, donde la mayoría de este tipo de bosque se encuentra bordeando la quebrada Amores, donde el á rea seleccionada para compensación posee un á rea de 8,49 hectá reas de bosque ripario, 2,44 hectáreas de bosque se cundario, 26,91 hectá reas de bosque deciduo y 2,16 hectáreas de pastos. Por su parte, es de esperar que dentro de los beneficios que a futuro tendrá la regeneración da pastizales que posee ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., se encuentre la contribución al establecimiento de bosque secundario, la fijació n de carbono (CO2), protección de suelos, ganancia de cobertura, protección de la biodiversidad y de la belleza escénica del lugar, protección de fuentes de agua, a la vez que contribuye a aumentar su valor ecológico, econó mico y social.

Es decir , la nueva superficie establecida bajo el régimen de protección, tendrá una tendencia a mejorar su condición actual, tanto en calidad de há bitat como en diversidad y composición de comunidades. Segú n indica Quesada, R (2008), en su Manual para promover la regeneración natural en pastos degradados en el Pacífico Central y Norte de Costa Rica, "para revertir áreas de pastos en bosques a través de métodos de regeneració n natural, deben tener una ubicación estratégica a fuentes semill eras y cercanía a parc hes boscosos", condiciones que presenta el área propuesta en las fincas ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. y Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. Estas condiciones hacen predecir que si bien en la actualidad las 91,74 hectáreas (zona de pastizales de 73,23 hectáreas y un área n o forestal de 18,51 hectáreas) en ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. 18,18 hectá reas de pastos en Brindis de Amor y 2.16 hectáreas de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., en pocos años, bajo un régimen de protecció n como el de la RBLB y un manejo cont rolado de fuegos, estas superficies podrán incorporarse a las distintas etapas de sucesión de bosques secundarios.

Así las cosas, de acuerdo con los resultados expuestos en el estudio realizado por la OET y a lo planteado en la Comisión de Alto nivel del P IAAG la propuesta definitiva de compensación es: 1- De la finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A un total de 444,04 hectáreas, conforme al plano del área propuesta. 2-La totalidad de la Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., con un área de registro de 86,96 hectáreas conforme al plano. 3- Un área de la finca de 40,00 hectáreas de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. En total, la compra de 571 hectáreas, lo que representa un factor de 5 veces el área que se verá afectada en la RBLB, con una equivalencia directa en tipos de bosques". Acota que, de lo anteri or, se extraen las siguientes consideraciones de interés: “En el estudio sí se tomó en consideración la propiedad de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. La decisión de las fincas a elegir obedece a la aplicación del método de hábitat-hectárea y en la cual se fundamenta el estudio de la OET.

Que las consideraciones del estudio refieren a aspectos técnicos y no de carácter económico. Que no se consideró la compensación con terrenos ya afectos a un régimen de protección por el simple hecho de estado; por cuanto ello conlleva ba sobreponer un tema económico a los aspectos técnicos contenidos en el informe de la OET, el cual es el sustento para realizar una verdadera compensación -basada en las características de los terrenos a incluir con el fin de que contengan los objetos de conservación para los cuales se creó el área silvestre protegida- y no convertirse en una simple equiparación con terrenos estatales para cumplir el requisito sin sustento alguno; lo cual sí debilitaría la ley bajo análisis”. Principio de Economía y Eficiencia. Refiere que las manifestaciones de los accionantes sobre la violación de este principio resultan reiterativas. Solicita que se declare sin lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad.

1. 8Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 13:21 horas de 15 de febrero de 2019, se apersona Patricia Quirós Quirós, en su condición de Gerenta General con facultades de apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA). I. Interés Público del Proyecto PAACUME. Indica que el proyecto viene a complementar con aguas de la Laguna Arenal, la disponibilidad de recurso hídrico para distintos usos que actualmente suministran las fuentes naturales a la margen derecha del Río Tempisque (cantones de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya) y que, en definitiva, no son suficientes para suplir las necesidades cada vez mayores de recurso hídrico, tanto para uso humano (agua potable) como para uso en agricultura (riego), que permita darle sostenibilidad al suministro del agua durante todo el año. Señala que la región Chorotega en general tiene un régimen natural de precipitación que presenta más de 5 meses de déficit hídrico al año, sin considerar efectos naturales extremos, como el caso de sequías más prolongadas ocasionadas por el fenómeno del niño o el cambio climático, que son cada vez más frecuentes y recurrentes (v.g. la sequía del 2014 al 2016), que afectan severamente a las comunidades y la actividad tanto productiva como económica y que, por primera vez en Costa Rica, requirió una declaratoria de emergencia por sequía, según el decreto ejecutivo n.° 38642-MP-MAG de 30 de noviembre de 2014.Expresa que SENARA es una institución autónoma creada con la ley n.º 6877 de julio de 1983 y es la responsable de la ejecución del PAACUME. Acota que en el artículo 2 de ese cuerpo normativo se le confiaron los siguientes objetivos: "•Fomentar el desarrollo agropecuario en el país, mediante el establecimiento y funcionamiento de sistemas de riego, avenamiento y protección contra inundaciones. •Contribuir a desarrollar preferentemente aquellos proyectos de desarrollo agropecuario que se sustenten en una justa distribución de la tierra. •Procurar que en el territorio beneficiado por la creación de distritos de riego y avenamiento, se efectué una modificación racional y democrática en la propiedad de la tierra". Menciona que el PAACUME representa una excelente iniciativa de aprovechamiento de las agu as almacenadas en la Laguna Arenal y que alimentan el Sistema Hidroelé ctrico Arenal- Dengo- Sandillal (ARDESA) operado por el ICE, en actividades generadoras de valor como el riego, en la actividad de producción agropecuaria y el riego en desarrollos turí sticos costeros, así como para agua potable y generación hidroelé ctrica, lo cual lle va implícito, una gran oportunidad de crecimiento y desarrollo a la provincia de Guanacaste, con un impacto a nivel nacional.Manifiesta que para el proyecto se utilizaría la infraestructura existente para captación y conducció n de agua en el Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque operado por el SENARA (presa Miguel Pablo Dengo y Canal Oeste Tramo I) y, ademá s, se construirían obras como la presa de almacenamiento en el río Piedras, la ampliació n y mejoras en el canal oeste (desde el río Piedras hasta el r ío Tempisque; es decir, alrededor de 55 kilómetros de longitud) y las redes tanto de conducción como de distribución de agua en la margen derecha del rí o Tempisque (alrededor de 300 kiló metros de líneas de conducción por gravedad y bombeo). Arguye q ue, a partir del almacenamiento en el embalse río Piedras, el PAACUME permitirá abastecer de agua a una zona históricamente seca, que, por razones de variabilidad y cambio climático, ha aumentado su condició n de sequía, en muchos casos a seq uía extrema, limitando la sostenibilidad y desincentivando el crecimiento socioeconómico de la región y del país en general.Afirma que el PAACUME está constituido por cuatro componentes: el embalse río Piedras (el cual incluye la automatización del sistem a, la casa de máquinas y la presa y el embalse propiamente dicho), la ampliación del Canal Oeste desde el rí o Piedras hasta el río Tempisque con una longitud de aproximadamente 55 kilómetros, la constr ucción de la red de distribución en la margen derecha del rí o Tempisque (aproximad amente 300 kilómetros de longitud) y la propuesta de implementació n de un Plan de Desarrollo Regional para el área directa e indirectamen te afectada por el proyecto, proceso que está en etapa de conceptualización y formulació n. Refiere que el PA ACUME, como proyecto de inversió n pública, se encuentra vinculado, según la clasificación establecida en el decreto ejecutivo n.° 38536-MP-PLAN del Reglamento Orgánico del Poder Ejecutivo, publicado el 25 de julio de 2014, al sector Desarrollo Agropecuario y Rural (po r su importancia e impacto en la seguridad alimentaria y el desarrollo social del área de influencia) y al sector Ambiente, Energía, Mares y Ordenamiento Territorial ( por su valor como medida de adaptación al cambio climático y el efecto sobre la disponibi lidad de agua en la zona de impacto).Adiciona que el PAACUME está incluido en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo y uno de los principales proyectos conceptualizados como priorit arios para la reactivación económica del país. Agrega q ue, con la construcción del conjunto de obras que comprende PAACUME, se beneficiarán de manera directa a productores agropecuarios ubicados en los cantones de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya, así como consumidores de agua potable y de riego para zonas verdes en empresas turí sticas. Añade que, entre los beneficiarios directos se encuentran productores grandes, medianos y pequeños (en esta última categorí a se hace referencia, en su mayoría, a adjudicatarios en asentamientos campesinos que se caracterizan por una mayor necesidad de ap oyo por parte de las instituciones del sector agropecuario). Expone que el á rea de riego para la producción agropecuaria se estima en 18.639 hectáreas en donde se podrían beneficiar 746 productores entre grandes, medianos y pequeños propietarios (SENARA, 2 018 Estudio de Factibilidad PAACUME).Agrega que este proyecto reviste vital importancia para la colectividad , por cuanto se destinarán 2 me tros cúbicos por segundo de agua para consumo humano (cuyo tratamiento y distribución estar á a cargo del Insti tuto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados). Explica que, con respecto al suministro de agua para consumo humano, el caudal establecido para el sector es con una proyecció n de demanda a 50 años; asimismo, que se estima que para el 2025 habrá una población , dentro del área del proyecto, equivalente a más de 220.000 habitantes, los cuales se convierten en usuarios de los acueductos principales de la zona. Añade que los acueductos r urales atienden actualmente una población mayor a las 139.000 personas. Aduce que, además de la població n que se estará abasteciendo de agua para consumo humano (que se estima que unos 200.000 habitantes de la regió n), se beneficiará de forma indirecta a toda aquella población inserta en el sector de bienes y servicios, a las personas q ue sean contratadas para atender las nuevas áreas bajo riego en las diferentes etapas de productivas y a los nuevos actores que logren consolidar actividades de producció n y comercialización.Adiciona que otro sector beneficiado será el dedicado al tur ismo, para el cual el PAACUME procurará abastecer de agua para riego en un área estimada en 1.213 hectáreas distribuidas entre las 171 empresas turísticas debidamente iden tificados en la zona costera y que muestren su disposición de pertenecer al pr oyecto, con lo que tambié n se estará tratando de disminuir la presión que se genera en la extracción de aguas subterráneas de los acuíferos de la costa (SENARA, 2018 Estudio de Factibilidad PAACUME). Asevera que PAACUME podrá generar elect ricidad en la presa Río Piedras (7 MW por año), como un beneficio del proyecto que implica un óptimo aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico disponible. Sostiene que, como se mencionó anteriormente, la infraestructura planteada en el PAACUME contempla tres componentes principales: e l embalse en el río Piedras compuesto por el embalse propiamente dicho, la presa, el vertedor de excedencias, la obra de toma y la casa de máquinas para la generació n de electricidad, la red de p rincipal conducción que va del embalse Río Piedras al río Tem pisque (55 kilómetros de longitud) y, por último, la red distribución compuesta por la red de canales en la margen derecha del río Tempisque, donde se realizará la distribución d e los 20 m3/seg que se extraerán del embalse río Piedras provenientes d e la Laguna Arenal.Indica que la construcción de la presa río Piedras generará un embalse con una extensión (espejo de agua) de aproximadamente 85 0 hectáreas. Señala que el siti o donde se ubicará la presa corresponde al río Piedras, especí ficamente entre las coorden adas Longitud Oeste 358930, Latitud Norte 1163180 y Longitud Oeste 359690, Latitud Norte 1155330 a una elevación de nivel de agua máxima de 50.00 m.s.n.m.. Expresa que el sitio de presa se ubicará en un estrechamiento natural del cauce del río Piedras . Acota que el agua de la Laguna Arenal captada en la Presa derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B . es conducida hasta el río Piedras por medio del Canal Oeste Tramo I que tiene una long itud de 21 km y una capacidad hidráulica de 55 m3/seg. Menciona que es importa nte destacar que antes de que el Canal Oeste Tramo I interseque con el rí o Piedras se da una caída natural y es precisamente esa caída la que permite concebir el sitio de almacen amiento que genera el embalse en el río Piedras.Manifiesta que la ubicación d e la presa en el Río Piedras obedece a una condición topográfica ú nica que no permite ser trasladada a otro sitio, por tanto, esa ubicació n y diferencia de nivel entre la entrada del canal que lo abastece y la salida del canal que per mitirá llevar el agua h asta el río Tempisque, determinarán el nivel máximo de embalse y la capacidad del mismo para abastecer con 20 m3/seg al PAACUME para que sean distribuidos en la margen derecha de l río Tempisque. Afirma que, en algún momento se valoró la posibilidad de cons truir un dique para evitar la inundación de esa área de la RBLB y un túnel de má s de 2 kilómetros para evacuar las aguas; sin embargo, resultó que el sitio del dique que se debería construir coincide con una falla geológica que harí a imposible su construcci ón por el alto riesgo que genera a la obra. Concluye que no existe posibilidad de reubicar o disminuir el volumen de embalse sin afectar significativamente el alcance del PAACUME, con lo cual, se determina la urgente e indispensable necesidad de contar con las 113 hectáreas de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal para ser inundadas, resultando un elemento esencial para la construcción de la presa en el río Piedras, por lo qu e la presa en ese sitio es la única posibilidad del PAACUME de almacenar el ag ua disponible proveniente de la laguna Arenal.Arguye que la ley n.° 9610 "Modificación de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal para el Desarrollo del Proyecto Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras" es urgente y necesariamente indispensable para poder ejecutar el PAACUME. Refiere que la construcció n de la presa en el río Piedras es un elemento esencial del PAACUME que requiere la vigenci a de la ley n.° 9610 , a fin de poder satisfacer el inter és público de po der brindar soluciones a diversas necesidades tales como agrícolas, productivas y de abastecimiento de agua para consumo en una zona donde cada vez es más escaso el recurso hídrico. Explica que la ley impugnada es urgente para brindar so luciones a los poblados de la cuenca del Tempisque y las comunidades costeras de Guanacaste, como por ejemplo Sardinal, impactadas por problemas de abastecimiento y salinización de acuí feros (situaciones que ha n sido de conocimiento de la Sala Constitucional en múltiples recu rsos de amparo en procura de la defensa del recurso hídrico).Agrega que, en esos casos, el rol del SENARA ha permitido la correcta protección del recurso hí drico. Añade que en el caso co ncreto la participación del SENARA garantizará el corre cto aprovechamiento y fomen to del recurso hídrico, impactando positivamente la cuenca del Tempisque y las zonas costeras de Guanacaste. Solicita que se analice la presente acción de inconstitucionalida d considerando el interés público de los poblados costeros y de la cuen ca del Tempisque beneficiados con el proyecto PAACUME, para el cual es absolutamente necesario contar con ley n.º 9610 para su desarrollo. Aduce que se analizarán los argumentos del acc ionante en el mismo orden en que los expuso. A) Inexistente obligación de comunicar a la convención sobre la ley denominada “ Modifica límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del proyecto de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río tempisque y comunidades costeras ”.Re chaza lo expuesto por el a ccionante, ya que no existe obligación alguna de comunicar a la Convención RAMSAR los alcances de la norma impugnada. Relata que la convención estipula una obligació n de los Estados suscribientes de proteger los humedales reportados como parte de lo s sitios integrantes de los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas. Asevera que la norma impugnada no desmejora o reduce el sitio RAMSAR de interés internacional inscrito por nuestro país (parque nacional Palo Verde), sino que, por el contrario, incrementa las áreas de protección, pues los límites son aumentados al incorporar mayor cantidad de área inundada, así como una mayor cantidad de área con cobertura boscosa. Sostiene que el artículo 4 de la Convención RAM SAR establece la obligació n de fomentar la conservación de los humedales y de las aves acuá ticas creando para ello reservas naturales; a su vez instaura una obligació n concreta en el inciso 2 atinente al retiro o reducción de los límites de un humedal, regulando que, si por interés nacional urgente, se genera esa necesidad, se debe compensar en la medida de lo posible la pérdida de recursos de humedales: “Artículo 4. 1.Cada parte contratante fomentará la conservación de las zonas húmedas y de las aves acuáticas creando reservas naturales en los humedales, estén o no inscritos en la "Lista", y atenderá de manera adecuada su manejo y cuidado. 2. Cuando una parte contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, retire o reduzca una zona húmeda inscrita en la "Lista", deberá compensar, en la medida de lo posible, cualquier pérdida de recursos en los humedales y, en especial, deberá crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y para la protección, en la misma región o en otro sitio, de una parte adecuada de su hábitat anterior. 3. Las partes contratantes fomentarán la investigación y el intercambio de datos y de publicaciones relativas a las zonas húmedas, a su flora y a su fauna”. Indica que, a partir de esa norm a se desprende la obligació n, según el a ccionante de informar de previo a su aprobación la modificación de los límites de la reserva bio lógica Lomas de Barbudal.Señ ala que este argumento del accionante será abarcado de manera má s amplia por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energí a, quien refiere que, a pesar de que no se afecta ningún humedal, con la aprobación de la norma impugnada, se debe aclarar que sí se estaría cumpliendo con la Convenció n Ramsar, dado que, por la desafectación de las 113 ha se estarían incorporando 549 ha de área con un ré gimen de protección ambiental. Expresa que la ley n.º 9610 contempla que el espejo de agua del embalse a construir de aproximadamente 850 ha y la zona de protección (cuando estén consoli dadas) sea declarado un humedal con una categoría de manejo especial. Estima q ue no existe violación alguna al Derecho de la Constitución. B) El estudio de la OET garantiza el respeto del artículo 50 de la Constitució n Política. Aclara que, contrario a lo que señala el accionante, el estudio para el “Establecimiento de la línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente ”, sí se realizó y fue elaborado por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales.Acota que también se generó la participación de las comunidades, las cuales fueron consultadas. Menciona que incluso el 8 de mayo de 2017 se realizó una actividad formal en el local del CEPROMA Bagatzí, a fin de considerar las observaciones de las comunidades en cuanto al proyecto (se adjunta el informe de la consulta). Manifiesta que, de igual manera, participó el Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (ACAT). Afirma que, el 30 de junio de 2017, en reunión del Comité Técnico en la que participaron 19 profesionales del ACAT (incluyendo su departamento legal), se analizó el proyecto Embalse Río Piedras, reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal (se aporta la minuta de la reunión). Arguye que se adjunta el oficio SINAC-COACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017 remitido al Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, a fin de que conocieran sobre el acuerdo adoptado por el Consejo Regional de ACAT al conocer el proyecto de interés.Refiere que es evidente que los accionantes no tienen clara la diferencia entre el estudio elaborado por la OET (requerido para los efectos de la aprobación de la ley n.º 9610) y el denominado Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EIA). Refiere que el primero es el estudio específico y exclusivo para el área de Lomas de Barbudal a desafectar y finca adyacente como área de compensación; en cambio, el EIA contempla toda el área del proyecto PAACUME y su objetivo es incorporar los estudios técnicos necesarios para la valoración de impactos y plantear las medidas de mitigación ambiental que permitan contar con la Viabilidad Ambiental por parte de SETENA. Añade que el estudio de la OET fue preparado en coordinación con SENARA, MINAE y otras instituciones involucradas. Explica que la OET es una organización con gran prestigio y capacidad técnica para ese tipo de estudio; asimismo, posee solvencia técnica por su operación desde hace más de 50 años en consorcio con 50 universidades, colegios e instituciones de investigación de siete países en cuatro continentes.Agrega que la misión de la OET es proporcionar liderazgo en la educación, la investigación y el uso responsable de los recursos naturales en los trópicos; su objetivo es mantener los ecosistemas tropicales por la conducción del descubrimiento científico y el conocimiento, mediante el enriquecimiento de la percepción humana de la naturaleza y la mejora de las medidas de política en todo el mundo en los trópicos. Añade que la organización opera cuatro estaciones de investigación: Skukuza en África del Sur; y La Selva, Palo Verde y Las Cruces en Costa Rica. Expone que, de acuerdo con lo anterior, debe tenerse claro que para poder ejecutar el proyecto PAACUME, lo primero que se debe tener es la desafectación de las 113 ha de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal (para poder construir el embalse), ya que sin embalse no hay proyecto y, al no haber proyecto no se requiere la viabilidad, por lo tanto, son estudios y trámites totalmente independientes.Aduce que el estudio realizado por la OET, sin lugar a dudas se trata de un estudio con rigor científico, desarrollado por una organización de renombre mundial, emitido a la luz de una contratación administrativa. Asevera que, si bien la contratación la hizo el SENARA, los términos, objeto, objetivo y alcances se definieron de manera conjunta con el MINAE y demás instituciones involucradas. Sostiene que, debido a la seriedad del estudio y a la organización que lo elaboró, la Asamblea Legislativa decidió utilizarlo como base para la aprobación de la ley. Indica que el accionante olvida que esta es una acción de inconstitucionalidad y no un procedimiento de pleno conocimiento en el que se puedan discutir aspectos de legalidad, científicos o técnicos. Señala que el procedimiento establecido por la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional no contempla contradictorio para poder discutir los términos del estudio.Expresa que el procedimiento de aprobación de la ley cuestionada lo que requería no era sino la rendición de dicho estudio, el cual ya se elaboró y se aporta copia en el acto. Cita parcialmente la sentencia de la Sala n.º 3049-08. Acota que exista una necesidad de deslindar el control de constitucionalidad y legalidad en materia de protección del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Transcribe parcialmente el voto salvado del ex Magistrado Ernesto Jinesta y del Magistrado Salazar Alvarado emitido en el voto de la Sala n.º 06340-2017. Manifiesta que las discrepancias que pueda tener la parte accionante con el estudio de la OET es un tema discutible en la vía ordinaria y no en sede constitucional. Pide que se rechace la acción en cuanto a este extremo. C) Inexistente quebrant o del principio de no regresividad en materia ambiental. Afirma que la ley n.º 9610 prevé la compensación del área y como por la desafectación de 113 hectáreas se están incorporando 556, no hay disminución alguna.Arguye que la OET recomienda que se adquieran como mínimo 332 hectáreas de la Finca ASETREK; sin embargo, para facilitar el manejo y el control de incendios se tomó la decisión de incorporar 444 hectáreas de ASETREK, por lo que se compensan todos los diferentes ecosistemas que se encuentran dentro de las 113 ha de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, a excepción del bosque ripario. Refiere que, si al accionante no le complace el estudio elaborado por la OET, esta vía no es la correspondiente para discutirlo. Aclara que la incorporación de las fincas Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas a la propuesta de compensación se realiza por recomendación de Manrique Montes Obando, administrador de Lomas Barbudal, basándose en que cuentan con terrenos de bosque ripario en condiciones adecuadas de conservación, así como con las nacientes principales del río Cabuyo y quebrada Amores. Cita de la ley n.º 9610 el párrafo segundo del artículo 5: “Del canon que cobre el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (Minae) a los usuarios por concepto de uso y aprovechamiento de agua, se destinará un cincuenta po r ciento (50%) al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservació n (Sinac) para la implementación del Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional se incorporan recursos eco nómicos” y el artículo 6: "Finalizadas las obras de construcción y puesto en o peración el Embalse Río Piedras por parte del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara), el área de embalse, que incluye el anillo de protecció n, se constituirá en un ecosistema de humedal administrado por el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac) y conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 33 de la Ley N. ° 7575, Ley Forestal, de 13 de febrero de 1996.Deberá existir estricta coordinació n con Senara para la utilización del agua conforme a diversos usos requeridos. En este mis mo artículo la Ley establece: "Para la elaboración del Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional, se conformará una comisión con representación del Sinac, Senara y la Municipalidad de Bagaces". Concluye que la propuesta de compensación, según lo establecido en la ley n.º 9610, no constituye una regresión ambiental para la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, sino que, por el contrario, se está dando un fortalecimiento en materia de protección y administración en temas ambientales, ya que se incrementa el área de la reserva, se protegen e incorporan áreas con humedales naturales (río Cabuyo y Quebrada Amores), se asignan recursos económicos para la administración y manejo de recursos naturales, se integra la coordinación entre instituciones para el manejo y elaboración de los planes correspondientes en materia ambiental, y finalmente se incorporara un nuevo ecosistema de humedal, el cual, además de ser un nuevo destino para las aves acuáticas, será un ecosistema que contribuirá a la adaptación al cambio climático en toda la provincia de Guanacaste.Pide que se rechace la acción en cuanto a este extremo. D) Inexistencia de violación al principio in dubio pro natura. Refiere que la delimitación planteada en la ley n.º 9610 de los nuevos límites de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal no violenta el Derecho de la Constitución, sino que, por el contrario, la norma plantea una variación de los límites que permite desafectar 113 ha para compensarlas con otras 556 ha. Agrega que, pese a que el estudio de la OET recomendó que se adquirieran como mínimo 332 ha de la Finca ASETREK, se tomó la decisión de incluir 444 ha a fin de facilitar el manejo y el control de incendios; por otra parte, la incorporación de las propiedades Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas, posibilita contar con bosque ripario en condiciones adecuadas de conservación, asimismo poder conservar (al estar dentro del área del proyecto) las nacientes principales del río Cabuyo y quebrada Amores, que se encuentran en esas fincas.Añade que los artículos 5 y 6 de la ley n.º 9610 establecen además obligaciones para el MINAE y el SENARA respectivamente; al primero le encarga destinar el 50% del canon que cobre el MINAE a los usuarios por concepto de uso y aprovechamiento de agua, para que el SINAC implemente el Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional, mientras que a SENARA le indica que una vez se concluya con la fase constructiva y entre en operación el embalse Río Piedras, el área de embalse (que incluye el anillo de protección) se constituirá en un ecosistema de humedal administrado por el SINAC, conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 33 de la ley n.º 7575. Expone que, además, una comisión conformada por SINAC, SENARA y la Municipalidad de Bagaces, tendrá encargada la elaboración de un Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional de las áreas que incrementarán las zonas de interés por la existencia de humedales.Aduce que no se está ante una regresión ambiental, sino que se generará un fortalecimiento en materia de protección y administración en Guanacaste. E) Inexistente violación del artículo 45 de la Constitución Política. Asevera que el artículo 1 de la ley n.º 9610 redefine los límites para ampliar la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal: “ARTÍC ULO 1- Se rectifica y se delimita el á rea de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, creada mediante Decreto Ejecutivo N. ° 16849-MAG, de 23 de enero de 1986, para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento d e Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (P aacume). El á rea protegida parte de un punto ubicado en el río Cabuyo de coordenadas en el Sistema CRTM05 x 350792,224 y Y 1163050,33 y continú a por el límite con la propiedad de Invers iones y Desarrollos Costa del Pacífico del Mar CPM S.A. con las siguientes coo rdenadas: (…)”.Sostiene que, como se denota con lectura del numeral, no se está despojando a ningú n propietario de su propiedad privada. Indica que, en aplicación de la Ley de Expropiaciones, se tramitará n los procedimientos correspondientes para expropiar las propiedades requeridas para el proyecto, incluyendo el levantamiento de planos catastrados, la definición de accesos o servidumbres, la confección de avalúos, la emi sión del decreto de expropiació n donde se incluya el cará cter de interés públi co, la comunicació n del avalúo al propietario. F) Procedencia de emplear la figura del 208 bis para la aprobación de la ley n.º 9610. Señala que la ley cuestionada no dispone de normas que expresamente afecten, despojen o expropien alguna propiedad privada, de allí que el procedimiento aplicado para su aprobación sea válido. Acota que la figura del 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa es un instrumento jurídico reglado; es decir, que dispone con total claridad cuáles supuestos son aplicables y cuáles no. Expresa que esa vía no es utilizable para aprobar un proyecto de ley cuando verse sobre aprobación de contratos administrativos, venta de activos del Estado o apertura de sus monopolios y tratados y convenios internacionales sin importar la votación requerida para su aprobación.Cita el artículo 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa. Refiere que en este caso no se está ante ninguno de los supuestos que dispone la norma en cuestión como inadmisibles y tampoco están ante una norma que requiera mayoría calificada, por lo que no existía ninguna imposibilidad para que se tramitara el proyecto a través del procedimiento especial. G) Respeto del principio de seguridad jurídica. Expone que esa representación tiene que claro que en el recurso no se afirma que las coordenadas que están en la ley son incorrectas, sino que no coinciden con las registradas en el Instituto Geográfico Nacional. Añade que lo anterior no ocasiona vicio de inconstitucionalidad alguno, por cuanto las coordenadas de delimitación de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, señaladas en la ley n.° 9610 son correctas. Agrega que la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal fue establecida en el decreto ejecutivo n.° 16849-MAG, publicado en la Gaceta 45 de 5 de marzo de 1986, momento en que no se contaba con los instrumentos tecnológicos de precisión geográfica que existen en la actualidad.Expresa que en un trabajo conjunto entre el MINAE y el SENARA se realizaron los estudios y replanteamiento topográfico de campo necesarios, lo que permitió una adecuada precisión geográfica de ubicación y delimitación real del área de la reserva de interés. Explica que para la delimitación se consideraron las coordenadas establecidas en el decreto ejecutivo n.° 16849-MAG y, además, se integraron las 3 fincas incluidas como compensación conforme con los planos catastrados de cada una de ellas. Arguye que, de igual forma, se excluyeron las 113 has requeridas para el embalse río Piedras. Sostiene que las coordenadas señaladas en la ley n.° 9610 marcan el área total de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal en estricto apego a la delimitación anterior, con la inclusión y exclusión de las áreas correspondientes. Considera que no existe inseguridad jurídica que pueda calificar al proyecto de inconstitucional.H) Inexistente violación al artículo 11 constitucional. Transcribe parcialmente el artículo 4 de la Convención RAMSAR: “Artículo 4. 1. Cada parte contratante fomentará la conservación de las zonas húmedas y de las aves acuáticas creando reservas naturales en los humedales, estén o no inscritos en la "Lista", y atenderá de manera adecuada su manejo y cuidado. 2. Cuando una parte contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, retire o reduzca una zona húmeda inscrita en la "Lista", deberá compensar, en la medida de lo posible, cualquier pérdida de recursos en los humedales y, en especial, deberá crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y para la protección, en la misma región o en otro sitio, de una parte adecuada de su hábitat anterior. 3. Las partes contratantes fomentarán la investigación y el intercambio de datos y de publicaciones relativas a las zonas húmedas, a su flora y a su fauna”.Asevera que, tal y como se extrae de lo anterior, es una facultad del Estado el retiro de la lista o reducción de los límites de un humedal cuando así lo amerite el interés nacional. Afirma que para lo anterior se exige una compensación, en la medida de lo posible, de la pérdida de recursos de humedales. Indica que, de acuerdo con esa línea de pensamiento, lo requerido para la reducción de límites de un humedal es un estudio de compensación. Señala que, en el caso concreto, tales estudios fueron elaborados por la OET, así como por el MINAET, SENARA y otras instituciones. Acota que no debe confundirse ese estudio de compensación de áreas (incluido en el estudio “Establecimiento de la línea base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente”), con el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental necesario para la construcción del proyecto PAACUME, pues son diferentes.Cita, en relación con el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, el artículo 4 de la ley cuestionada: “ARTÍCULO 4- El Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) será la entidad responsable de realizar el estudio ambiental del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), que deberá incluir las medidas de prevención, mitigación y compensación del área desafectada afecta en el artículo 2 de la presente ley, las cuales deben ser implementadas por el desarrollador. El estudio de impacto ambiental deberá considerar la línea base aprobada por las entidades y avalada por el Consejo Regional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), sin perjuicio de los términos de referencia que emita la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena), conforme al marco jurídico correspondiente”. Refiere que, como se desprende de lo anterior, la ley no tiene contiene vicio alguno de inconstitucionalidad.I) Inexistencia de violación al artículo 176 de la Constitución Política. Considera que no lleva razón la parte accionante al indicar que, previo a la aprobación de la ley impugnada se debía de contar con la totalidad del proyecto, toda vez que, como se logra observar de la simple lectura de la norma en cuestión, no estipula la creación de alguna obligación que deba ser cubierta con el presupuesto de la República. Menciona que se podría decir que la ley n.º 9610 es una norma accesoria y necesaria para poder ejecutar el proyecto PAACUME, pues lo que permite es una nueva delimitación de límites de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, para que luego se adquieran esas propiedades a través de los procesos de expropiación. Manifiesta que la ley cuestionada no es la llamada a regular el proceso de expropiación, sino que, en la fase oportuna del proyecto PAACUME, el Estado iniciará los trámites respectivos para finiquitar los procesos de expropiación de todas aquellas propiedades que se hayan determinado de interés público para la ejecución del proyecto, momento en el cual los propietarios podrán hacer valer sus derechos conforme al proceso establecido en la normativa aplicable.Arguye que al no haberse iniciado la fase de ejecución del proyecto (sin ningún proceso tendente a expropiar un fundo), no existe obligación de contar con contenido presupuestario para hacerle frente al trámite y pago de las expropiaciones. Afirma que al día de hoy no se cuenta con los avalúos respectivos para determinar el monto exacto a cancelar. Aclara que el SENARA ha realizado una estimación global (dado que los avalúos específicos se realizarán una vez aprobada la ley) y, con base en ella, se realizó el presupuesto extraordinario n.° 3, aprobado mediante oficio DFOE-AE-0602 de 20 de diciembre de 2018 de la Contraloría General de la República, por un monto de ¢2.851.1 millones contenido en la ley n.° 9622 y su contraparte de gastos en la subpartida de indemnizaciones, para ser aplicados en la expropiación de tres inmuebles correspondientes a la compensación de 113 hectáreas de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal.Adjunta el oficio DFOE-AE-0602, así como certificación de contenido presupuestario SENARA-DAF-FIN-PRES-O63-2019, emitida por el jefe del Proceso de Presupuesto. Pide el rechazo de este extremo. J) Respecto a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad. Afirma que no existe violación alguna a estos principios en la tramitación de la ley 9610. Explica que, en relación con el estudio de las fincas Brindis de Amor, ASETREK y Hacienda Ciruelas, existe un estudio técnico que demuestra que sí cumplen como áreas de compensación y así fueron mencionadas en el estudio de la OET, en el cual se determinan cuáles parámetros fueron empleados para poder determinar la razonabilidad y proporcionalidad. Aduce que la determinación de las propiedades a expropiar no entraña una discusión de constitucionalidad, sino más bien de legalidad sobre la posibilidad de que otras áreas cumplieran con los parámetros para considerarlas aptas para compensar.Arguye que existe un estudio científico de nivel elaborado por una organización internacional reconocida, que tuvo por acreditado que las propiedades de Brindis de Amor y Asetrek eran idóneas por sus condiciones para ser utilizadas como compensación. Asevera que no se trata de una decisión discrecional (donde la Administración a su arbitrio escogió uno u otro bien), sino que medió un análisis científico de los inmuebles a fin de poder determinar la procedencia de utilizarlos como área útil para la compensación. Sostiene que la propuesta de compensación planteada (Asetrek y Brindis de Amor) se remitió al Ministro de Ambiente y Energía para que se le diera el trámite correspondiente, de acuerdo con lo establecido en el artículo 71 y 72 del reglamento de la Ley de Biodiversidad. Añade que el CORACAT, según acuerdo n.° 1 tomado en la sesión extraordinaria celebrada el 5 de julio de 2017 y, posteriormente, el CONAC, en sesión extraordinaria n.° 3 de 11 de julio de 2017, consideraron que la suma de áreas propuestas de bosque ripario era de 18,07 hectáreas; es decir, un área menor que el fragmento que se perdería en el sitio de inundación de la RBLB (24,71 hectáreas).Agrega que, por lo anterior, tales instancias plantearon la identificación de un área adicional para la propuesta de compensación que contemplara bosque ripario y que permitiera así resarcir el faltante en hectáreas para este tipo de ecosistema. Aduce que el faltante identificado era alrededor de 6,64 hectáreas de bosque ripario, debido a que el área debía ser compensada por otra de igual tamaño (24,71 hectáreas) que cumpliera con los mismos fines y tuviera semejantes condiciones ecosistémicas; es decir, en una relación mínima de 1:1. Sostiene que, después de analizar las propuestas de posibles áreas de compensación del bosque ripario faltante y en conjunto con los funcionarios del SINAC, se consideró adicionar una parte de la finca Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., cédula jurídica n.° 3-101-290749, plano catastrado n. ° 5-734177-2001, folio real n.° 034930-000, situada en el distrito primero Bagaces del cantón cuarto Bagaces de la provincia de Guanacaste, con un área total de 1299 hectáreas (1699.15 m2).Asevera que, después de un análisis de campo realizado por funcionarios de la Dirección de Aguas y del SENARA, se propuso la adquisición de 25,00 hectáreas. Indica que esa propuesta colinda al norte con la finca Brindis de Amor, al este con el resto de la finca de Hacienda Ciruelas, al sur con la quebrada Amores y al oeste con la RBLB. Señala que se efectuó un análisis preliminar de las 25,00 hectáreas de la finca, las cuales presentan 7,16 hectáreas de bosque ripario, 2,42 hectáreas de bosque secundario, 13,13 hectáreas de bosque deciduo y 2,28 hectáreas de pastos. Expone que, para efectos de la tramitación de la ley 9610, se consideró el documento denominado "Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal” , del cual se aporta copia. Menciona que, al existir ese criterio científico que respalda la decisión administrativa, resulta razonable y proporcional lo actuado en el proceso de aprobación de la ley.K) La ley 9610 y la determinación de los inmuebles de interés para el proyecto PAACUME son acordes a los principios de economía y eficiencia. Manifiesta que ha quedado acreditado que la escogencia de los inmuebles que posteriormente serán expropiados se deriva de un estudio técnico científico preparado por la Organización de Estudios Tropicales, de ahí que resulta irrelevante, ante el rigor científico, cuestionarse por qué no se escogió otro inmueble, cuando la determinación se encuentra debidamente motivada. Refiere que los inmuebles que se afectaron son idóneos para la correcta protección de las áreas en la zona. Menciona que discutir sobre la procedencia de escoger una finca u otra como área compensable, no resulta un aspecto de constitucionalidad, sino más bien una discusión propia de la vía ordinaria contencioso administrativa. Solicita el rechazo de la acción de inconstitucionalidad en cuanto a este extremo.Requiere que se celebre una comparecencia oral para formular conclusiones antes del dictado de la sentencia de la presente acción. Pide que se declare sin lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta en contra de la ley n.° 9610.
2. 9Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 15:04 horas de 18 de febrero de 2019, se apersona Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, en su condición de Ministro de Ambiente y Energía. Sobre el Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (PAACUME). Indica que el proyecto tiene como objetivo potenciar el desarrollo socioeconómico de la provincia de Guanacaste por medio de un aprovechamiento sostenible de los recursos hídricos provenientes del Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal-Dengo-Sandillal (ARDESA) y demás fuentes disponibles como medidas de adaptación al cambio climático en un marco de sostenibilidad y equidad. Señala que contiene la automatización de la Presa Derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B y Canal Oeste Tramo I hasta el embalse río Piedras, contemplando la construcción de un embalse de almacenamiento en el río Piedras, ampliación y construcción del Canal Oeste Tramos II y III desde este hasta el río Tempisque.Expresa que, además, las líneas de conducción secundarias y terciarias para riego agropecuario y áreas de desarrollo turístico, obras de entrega de agua para las poblaciones que será administrada por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, todo desde la planicie del río Tempisque hasta la zona costera. Acota que el proyecto igualmente integra la construcción de casa de máquinas para generación eléctrica en el punto de presa. Menciona que el objetivo fundamental es la provisión de agua, accesible en cantidad, calidad y oportunidad -de 20 metros cúbicos por segundo- para diferentes usos potenciales. Manifiesta que se proyecta beneficiar al menos a 204 mil personas y cubrir al menos 17 mil hectáreas bajo riego. Afirma que de ese caudal quedará disponible 2 metros cúbicos por segundo para el abastecimiento de largo plazo de comunidades de cantones de Santa Cruz, Nicoya y Carrillo, lo cual será administrado por el ICAA.Arguye que el proyecto contempla al menos 1.5 metros cúbicos por segundo de agua para riego como apoyo a la actividad turística en la zona costera y con ello beneficiar las comunidades costeras con la liberación de aguas subterráneas hoy usadas en riego. Refiere que este proyecto no solo permitirá el acceso sostenible al agua por parte de las comunidades y el sector productivo, sino que, además , pretende armonizar y regular la explotación racional de los principales recursos subterráneos en acuíferos en la margen derecha de la cuenca media del río Tempisque, pues permitirá al Estado la regulación del uso máximo de pozos para estas actividades. Agrega que la construcción de la presa sobre el río Piedras implica un embalse con un espejo de agua de aproximadamente 850 hectáreas, de la cuales, conforme al levantamiento de campo realizado por el SENARA, 113 hectáreas se encuentran dentro de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal.Añade que el sitio de presa se ubicará en un estrechamiento natural de cauce de este río entre las coordenadas Longitud Oeste 358930, Latitud Norte 1163180 y Longitud Oeste 359690, Latitud Norte 1155330, a una elevación de nivel de agua máxima de 50.50.m.s.n.m. Expone que la presa tendrá como función crear un represamiento para el almacenamiento del agua, que será captada por el SENARA en la presa Miguel Pablo Dengo ubicado en el Rio Santa Rosa. Aduce que desde ese sitio el agua será conducida por medio del Canal Oeste, Tramo I, que tiene una longitud de 21 km y una capacidad hidráulica de 55 metros cúbicos por segundo. Asevera que antes que el Canal Oeste Tramo I interseque con el río Piedras, se da una caída natural que permite concebir un sitio de almacenamiento. Menciona que el proyecto se ubicará en la región Chorotega, provincia de Guanacaste; además, su área de influencia comprende los cantones de Bagaces, Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya.Sostiene que el área de riego solo cubre algunos distritos de Filadelfia, Palmira, Belén y Sardinal del cantón de Carrillo, los distritos de Santa Cruz, Bolsón, Cartagena y Diriá del cantón de Santa Cruz y el distrito de San Antonio del cantón de Nicoya. Indica que la ubicación de la presa en el río Piedras obedece a una condición topográfica única que no permite ser trasladada a otro sitio, por lo que la ubicación y diferencia de nivel entre la entrada del canal que lo abastece y la salida del canal que permitirá llevar el agua hasta el río Tempisque, determinan el nivel máximo de embalse y la capacidad del mismo para abastecer con 20 metros cúbicos por segundo al PAACUME. Señala que en algún momento se valoró la posibilidad de construir un dique para evitar la inundación de esa área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal y un túnel de más de 2 kilómetros para evacuarlas aguas; sin embargo, el sitio del dique coincide con una falla geológica que haría imposible su construcción por el alto riesgo que genera a la obra.Expresa que, por lo anterior, no existe la posibilidad de reubicar o disminuir el volumen del embalse sin afectar significativamente el alcance del PAACUME y con ello los beneficios para la población guanacasteca, con lo cual se determinó la necesidad de contar con 113 hectáreas a de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal para ser inundadas. Acota que resulta de vital importancia que este embalse se desarrolle a plenitud, para lo cual es indispensable tener como área inundable esa extensión. Menciona que SENARA, a través de múltiples estudios ha demostrado que esa extensión de embalse, incluida la zona dentro de la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal (113 hectáreas), es la única vía para hacerlo con el fin de atender la demanda hídrica en el ámbito del proyecto de forma sostenible. Manifiesta que el proyecto fue pensado para aprovechar las aguas del Sistema Hidroeléctrico ARDESA que ya está construido y utilizando infraestructura que se tiene ya instalada en el Distrito de Riego que administra SENARA.Afirma que el documento del perfil de proyecto que elaboró SENARA recoge varios temas que fueron posteriormente desarrollados, partiendo de estudios realizados en junio de 2016 por parte del ICE a petición de SENARA. Arguye que, según los accionantes, no fueron valorados en el estudio base: identificación del proyecto, antecedentes, identificación del problema del agua y valoraciones de posibles embalses. Beneficiarios del proyecto. Refiere que con PAACUME se beneficiarán con riego tres cantones de la provincia de Guanacaste (Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya) y d estinará 2 metros cúbicos por segundo de agua para consumo humano (cuyo tratamiento y distribució n estará a cargo del ICAA), lo que implica solucionar el déficit con un horizonte de 50 añ os de aproximadamente 500.000 personas (incluyendo el abasteci miento de agua a las poblaciones de los cantones citados). Agrega que también se prevé la generación hidroeléctrica en sitio de presa que producirá n 7 MW por año y, en materia de riego, además del destinado para el sector productivo agr ícola, se pretende cubrir u n área estimada en 1.875 ha en el sector turístico de la zona costera, lo cual liberarí a el agua subterránea hoy usada con ese fin.Resalta que en la factibilidad del proyecto (e tapa en la que se encuentra) no solo rigen los principios de la Política Hí drica Nacional -PHN- en particular el 5.1 .1.4 prioridad del uso del agua para consumo humano, el 5.1.1.1 Derecho humano fund amental de acceso al agua potable y saneamiento básico; y el 5.1.1.7 de aprovechamiento sostenible del agua , pues no solo se gestiona el proyecto para el abastecimiento señalado, sino que además como se informa, se busca que exista agua en la costa de forma alternativa que permita la liberación del uso del agua subterrá nea en riego. Agrega que lo anterior con el fin de dejar esa agua solo para ingesta y de tal forma mejorar la presión sobre ese recurso en la zona costera que es la más vulnerable al déficit hí drico y las altas demandas. Afirma que los beneficiarios potenciales del proyecto están compuestos por la población general d e la provincia de Guanacaste.Explica que, según datos del Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), al 2016 la población proyectada era de 371.375 habitantes, más la població n flotante que está compuesta por el turismo nacional y extranjero, esti mándose en má s de un millón de personas al año, a lo cual se le debe sumar otra población compuesta por trabajadores de las diferentes empresas que incluyen el turismo y que permanecen entrando y saliendo del á rea. Expone que el ICAA ha estimado que para el 2025 habrá una población, dentro del área del proyecto, equivalente a más de 220.000 habitantes como usuarios de los acueductos principales de la zona (Senara, 2006). Aduce que, en cuanto al sector turismo, en 2002 se registró el ingreso de 1.113.359 turistas y la tendencia al crecimiento es constante ya que para el 2014 se duplicó el número de visitació n al país. Relata que, contrario al panorama de pobreza de la región Chorotega, est a es una de las zonas que mayor desarrollo turístico ha experimentado; en sus costas se asientan los principales complejos hoteleros que existen en el país.Asevera que en 2015 se estimó que la capacidad instalada en los hoteles de la zona del proyecto era para 140.812 personas en temporada alta y se proyectaba que para el año 2025 alcanzará las 230.900 personas (Senara, 2006). Sostiene que el recurso con mayor presió n en la actualidad es el agua, debi do a la extracción en los acuíferos para consumo humano y otros usos, aspecto que se agrava aú n más en las z onas turísticas por la amen aza de salinización de los pozos. Indica que, en el 2005, la demanda promedio de agua potable (con la capacidad instalada) se estimó en 570 l/s y con el crecimiento sostenido al 202 5 alcanzaría los 935 l/s. Señala que el área de rie go agropecuario se estima en 17000 ha en donde se podrían beneficiar 1067 productores agropecuarios (grandes, medianos y pequeños). Tabla 1. Distribución de productores por cantó n (fuente: SENARA, 2017):

Cantón Número de beneficiarios Nicoya 84 Santa Cruz 482 Carillo 505 Total 1067 Tabla 2. Distribució n del uso actual del suelo en el área de influencia del PAACUME. Por cantó n en hectáreas (fuente: SENARA, 2016) Uso actual del suelo Carrillo (ha) Nicoya (ha) Santa Cruz (ha) Total (ha) Total (%) Áreas de protección 962 188 2396 3546 8.5 Áreas protegidas 327 269 596 1.4 Arroz 874 507 1380 3.3 Bosque 659 448 1355 2462 5.9 Caña de Azúcar 11282 616 1612 13510 32.6 Charral 90 203 293 0.7 Forestales 1 9 33 52 0.1 Frutales 257 95 352 0.8 Industria 3 2 32 0.1 Melón 39 1 391 0.9 Pacas 1814 1814 4.4 Palma 46 46 0.1 Pastos 4945 1464 9960 16370 39.5 Sorgo 37 37 0.1 Urbano 328 268 596 1.4 ÁREA TOTAL 20166 2716 18595 41477 100 ÁREA REGABLE 17749 2080 14071 33900 81.7 Acota que la tabla 2 r efleja el área total de cob ertura del proyecto que corresponde a 41.477 hectáreas y el área regable, en la que se excluyen para los tres cantones las áreas de protecció n, áreas protegidas, bosque, charral, forestales, industria, y la zona urbana, suma un t otal de 33.900 hectáreas.

U so propuesto del suelo. Expresa que a partir de la oferta de agua que introduce el PAACUME, se identifica el á rea que efectivamente se va a regar. Arguye que para las áreas que no sea posible de abastecer con el proyecto se deberá buscar y analizar posteriormente la opció n que resulte factible y viable dentro de las potenciales alternativas de solución. Manifiesta que, en el caso del abastecimiento de agua para consumo humano, lo que se está proponiendo es una reserva a futuro sob re un uso que es prioritario. Afirma que, con base en la determinación de los cultivos que se ubican dentro del á rea regable del proyecto y considerando que el área potencial de riego supera el área posible de regar con el agua disponible, se determinará una propuesta de cultivos a regar a partir del uso del suelo, la cual se utilizará como referencia para la determinación de la demanda de agua y para la valoración financiera y económica del proyecto.

Menciona que en la tabla 3 se presenta el uso propuesto del suelo ajustado segú n la disponibilidad de la oferta de agua para uso agropecuario. Añade que, de acuerdo con el caudal disponible, la demanda de agua puede variar según las épocas de siembra prop uestas, eficiencia del método de riego y disponibilidad de agua. Tabla 3. Uso propuesto del suelo, é pocas de siembra y cosecha según la oferta de agua disponible (fuente: SENARA, 2017):

Cultivos Época siembra Época cosecha Total (has) Total (%) Arroz Enero-Julio Abril, Noviembre 1400 8.2 Caña de Azúcar Dic-Abril 8500 50 Forrajes Mayo Enero-Dic 600 3.5 Frutales Febrero-Abril 400 3.5 Hortalizas Enero-Mayo, Jul, Set, Nov, Dic Enero-Setiembre Nov 400 2.4 Melón Nov-Enero Enero-Mayo 600 2.4 Pacas Mayo Enero-Dic 4000 23.5 Raíces y tubérculos Noviembre-Febrero Febrero-Abril Junio-N oviembre 700 4.1 Sandía Nov, Marzo, Abril En, Feb, Marzo, Mayo, Jun, Jul, Agosto 400 2.4 TOTAL 17.000 100 Uso potencial del suelo. Expone que la tabla de uso potencial del suelo refleja una propuesta de cultivos en un tiempo estimado de tres años plazo después de iniciada la operación del sistema de riego, en la cual se mantienen los mismos cultivos y las épocas de siembra. Aduce que hay un aumento de área de producción, porque se considera que se optimiza la operación del sistema de riego y aumenta la eficiencia de los métodos de riego utilizados.

Asevera que en la tabla 4 se desglosa el área de siembra de cada uno de los diferentes sistemas de producción y se observa que se incrementan las áreas sembradas de caña de azúcar, frutales, pacas, raíces y tubérculos y sandía. Tabla 4. Cultivos potenciales, épocas de siembre, cosecha y áreas potencialmente regables (fuente: SENARA, 2017) Cultivos Época siembra É poca cosecha Total (has) Total (%) Arroz Enero-Julio Abril, Noviembre 1400 7.5 Caña de Azúcar Dic-Abril 8500 45.2 Forrajes Mayo Enero-Dic 1000 5.3 Frutales Febrero-Abril 1000 5.3 Hortalizas Enero-Mayo, Jul, Set, Nov, Dic E nero-Setiembre Nov 400 2.1 Melón Nov-Enero Ener o-Mayo 1000 5.3 Sandía Nov, M arzo, Abril En, Feb, Marzo, Mayo, Jun, Jul, Agosto 500 2.7 Pacas Mayo Enero-Dic 4000 21.3 Raíces y tubérculos Noviembre-Febrero Febrero-Abril Junio-Noviembre 1000 5.3 TOTAL 18.800 100 Sostiene que las 18.800 hectáreas tienen su máxima demanda en abril con un total de 16.35 m³/s.

Respecto de la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional, especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas (Convención Ramsar). Indica que la Convención Ramsar (1971) es un tratado intergubernamental cuya misión es la conservación y el uso racional de los humedales mediante acciones locales, regionales y nacionales y gracias a la cooperación internacional, como contribución al logro de un desarrollo sostenible en todo el mundo. Señala que, al adherirse a la convención, los países se comprometen a agregar sitios a una lista de humedales de importancia internacional (La lista Ramsar). Acota que esos sitios son reconocidos a nivel internacional por su valor ecológico para la humanidad. Expone que la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal es parte de Palo Verde, designado por Costa Rica en la lista de sitios Ramsar. Aduce que, mediante acuerdo 3 de la sesión extraordinaria n.º 4-2017 del Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (CONAC), se acordó que es necesario que se comunique a la Convención Ramsar, la intención de realizar este proyecto y activar cualquier otro procedimiento para cumplir con los compromisos país.

Relata que el humedal Palo Verde, junto con Caño Negro, fueron los primeros humedales declarados sitios Ramsar para Costa Rica en 1991; asevera que es un complejo de humedales estacionales y permanentes formado por un grupo de pantanos, marismas, lagos, ríos y arroyos de la cuenca media y baja del río Tempisque, el cual, junto a sus afluentes, son los principales sistemas fluviales de la cuenca. Asevera que, como consecuencia de los cambios marcados en la precipitación entre las estaciones seca y lluviosa, el flujo varía considerablemente produciendo desbordamientos que inundan zonas aledañas a los cauces. Ubicación del sitio. Indica que se encuentra ubicado en los cantones de Nicoya y Bagaces de la provincia de Guanacaste e incluye las siguientes áreas silvestres protegidas: parque nacional Palo Verde; reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal; refugios nacionales de vida silvestre Mata Redonda y Cipancí; Humedales Corral de Piedra, Laguna Madrigal y Zapandí; y los ecosistemas de humedal de El Tendal y Sonzapote.

Señala que ese humedal es administrado por las Áreas de Conservación Tempisque y Arenal-Tempisque. Expresa que algunas de las comunidades localizadas en las inmediaciones del humedal son: Bagaces, Bagatzi, Bebedero, Bolsón, Ortega, Playitas, Pijije, Llanos del Cortés, Falconiana, Pozo de agua, Charco, Colorado, Puerto Humo, Raizal, Roblar, Rosario y San Antonio. Acota que, en 2002, el sitio sufrió una ampliación y su limitación continúa de la siguiente manera (según Rodríguez y Alvarado, 2014): “El nuevo límite parte de un punto ubicado en la margen izquierda del cauce del Río Bebedero (coordenadas 25 74 20 N y 40 37 80 O) y continúa por un camino público, atraviesa una matriz de paisaje compuesto por vegetación menor, pastos y cultivos cerca del sector denominado Asentamiento Tamarindo, luego se utilizan las márgenes de la quebrada La Mula como límite natural, se utiliza también el límite de la margen del canal de riego del oeste, hasta encontrarse con el límite de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal.

Continúa utilizando límites físicos como caminos que conducen a diferentes asentamientos campesinos y canales de drenaje, hasta llegar al antiguo cauce del Río Tempisque, allí intercepta el antiguo límite del Parque Nacional Palo Verde hasta cerrar con el cauce actual del Rio Tempisque. Fuente: Ficha de información Técnica actualizada 2018”. Menciona que, para la ubicación geográfica, las siguientes coordenadas que corresponden a un punto medio en el sitio Ramsar y “están en el sistema oficial para Costa Rica CRTM05 con Datum WGS84 y proyecció n Tranversal Mercato r 357269 y 11431 26”. Refiere, en cuanto al área de sitios Ramsar en Costa Rica, lo siguiente: “Palo Verde 27/12/1991 Guanacaste 24,519 ha 10º20´ N 085º 20´W ”. Manifiesta que los manuales Ramsar recogen tema tras tema, las diversas orientaciones pertinentes adoptadas por las partes, a las que se han añadido material de los documentos de informació n de las conferencias de las partes, estudios de caso y otras publicaciones per tinentes, a fin de ilustrar los aspectos esenciales de los lineamientos.

Afirma que el manual Ramsar n.º 17, 4a. edición, denominado “ Designación de sitios Ramsar: Marco estratégico y lineamientos para el desarrollo futuro de la Lista de Humedales de Importancia Internacional-HPII-”, establece los criterios para la identificació n de humeda les de importancia internacional, lineamientos para aplicarlos y metas a largo plazo. Criterios de justificació n que definieron la inclusión de Palo Verde como sitio Ramsar. Refi ere lo siguiente: “ El criterio de Ramsar y su justificación especí ficamente ut ilizado para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. Criterio 1: Tipos de humedales representativos, raros o únicos n aturales o casi naturales. El Humedal Palo Verde se ubica en una regió n representativa del bosque seco tropical, por lo que los hume dales ubicados en la cuenca media y baja del Río Tempisque, se consideran cómo representativo e importante. Esta es una cuenca muy extensa dentro del territorio costarricense y s e encuentra interconectada a una red fluvial con todas sus características, como lo son las áreas de recolección de lluvias, llanuras de inundación, bosques y estuarios.

Los Ríos Tempisque y Bebedero son los principales afluentes dentro de la cuenca y son esenciales para los humedales. Estos presentan variaciones en sus caudales y durante la época lluviosa pueden desbordarse (Rodríguez y Alvarado, 2014). Los humedales de las partes bajas de la cuenca y que conforman este sitio Ramsar son considerados islas o parajes para la diversidad de especies distribuidas en esta región. Esto es motivo de la pérdida de ecosistemas a los que fue y es sometido los humedales de Guanacaste (50%) para ser transformados en campos agrícolas y ganaderos especialmente (Convención sobre los Humedales Ramsar, 1998). Caso suscitado para l as lagunas de Cañ as, humedal es de Filadelfia y Liberia, Hacienda el Viejo y Pelón y de otras en Bagaces. En los alrededores de los humedales son comunes las prácticas como la siembra de arroz, caña de azúcar y meló n reduciendo los espacios y disponibilidad de recursos para la biota, sumado a má s de 60000 ha dedicadas a ganado y plantaciones forestales.

Esta ausencia de ecosistemas de humedales es especialmente crítica si se considera el largo y pronunciado periodo seco que se presenta en esta parte del paí s durante la é poca seca. En este sentido, los humedales lacustres, palustres, manglares, bosques inundados, esteros, rí os, entre otros, que forman parte de las diferentes áreas protegidas del Humedale s de Importancia Internacional - HPII-, mantienen ecosistemas importantes para la vida en general durante el año y en especial durante las condiciones secas (Rodríguez et al. 2012; UNED-SINAC, 2012; SINAC, 2013a; SINAC, 2013b, SINAC, 2013c), además por poseer sus á reas boscosas naturales permite la movilidad de la fauna entre las áreas par a aprovechar los cuerpos de agua. De igual manera, se pueden encontrar ojos de agua, fuentes naturales durante la escasez, en Palo Verde existen los llamados Guayacá n, Alm endro, Coyol, Espíritu Santo, Saíno, Bejuco, Avellanal, C erritos, Oropopo (SINAC,2013b)”.

Sobre lo establecido en la Convención sobre Humedales RAMSAR en cuanto al anuncio de la desafectació n del área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. Aduce que ta nto la Convención Ramsar como sus manuales se dirigen a orientar el “ uso racional” de los ecosistemas. Asevera que el uso racional de los humedales se define como: “el mantenimiento de sus características ecoló gicas, logrado mediante la implementación de enfoques por ecosistemas, dentro del contexto el desarrollo sostenible”. Expone que el inciso 5 del artí culo 2 de la convención señala: "Toda Parte Contratante tendrá derecho a añ adir a la Lista otros humedales situados en su territorio, a ampliar los que y a están incluidos o, por motivos urgentes de interés naci onal, a retirar de la Lista o a reducir los límites de los humedales ya incluidos, e informarán sobre estas modificaciones lo más rá pidamente posible a la organización o al gobierno responsable de las funciones de la Oficina permanente especificado en el Artí culo 8".

Agrega qu e el instrumento internacional prevé que, por razones de urgencia e interés nacional, se reduzca o retiren humedales de la lista y, en este caso, la necesidad urgente de agua para atend er a la población, prever opciones de desarrollo para la zona de Guanacaste y asegurar el acceso al recurso hídrico a las futuras generaciones constituye un tema de interés público, que fue decla rado por los decretos de conveniencia e interés nacional mencionados en el apartado del proyecto. Afirma que el manual 19 denominado “ Cómo abordar la modificación de las características ecológicas de los humedales” (4ª. edición), establece: “La promoción d e la conservación de los Humedales de Importancia Internacional designados ("Sitios Ramsar") (Artículo 3.1 de la Convenció n), a través del mantenimiento de sus características ecológicas, es uno de los principios fundamentales de la Convención de Ramsar sobre los Humedales.

Por lo tanto, se espera que las Partes Contratantes en la Convención establezcan mecanism os de planificación y supervisi ón del manejo de los humedales para mantener las caracterí sticas ecológicas de todos los humedales que hayan designad o para la Lista de Humedales de Importancia Internacional”. Añade que ese manual indica lo siguiente: "D. Retir ada o reducción de los límit es de un Sitio Ramsar de la Lista: interpretación de la expresión "motivos urgentes de interé s nacional" en el Artí culo 2.5 de la Convención 35. El Artículo 2.5 de la Convención de Ramsar establece que "Toda Parte Contratante tendrá derecho... por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, a retirar de la Lista o a reducirlos límites de los humedales ya incluidos". 36. A raí z del Artículo 2.5, el Artículo 4.2 de la Convención in dica que "Cuando una Parte Contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, re tire de la Lista o reduzca los límites de un humedal incluido en ella, deberá compensar en la medida de lo posible, la pérdida de recursos de humedales”. 37.

Sin embargo, en la COP8 (2002) las Partes Contratantes reconocieron a travé s de la Resolución VIII.20 que ni el Artículo 2.5 ni Artículo 4.2 proporcionan ninguna orientación con respecto a la interpretación de la expresió n "motivos urgentes de interés nacional" ni a la manera en que se debe determinar la compensación, y adopt aron orientaciones generales sobre estas cuestiones, como Anexo a la Resolución VIII.20. 38. A continuación se proporcionan esas orientaciones pa ra interpretar la expresió n "motivos urgentes de interés nacional" en el Artículo 2.5, y en la Sección G del presente Manual se ofrece la disposició n sobrecompensación en virtud del Artículo 4.2. Orientación general para interpretar la expresión "motivos urgentes de interé s nacional" en el Artículo 2.5 de la Convenció n (párrafos 1 a 3 y 5 a 7 del Anexo a la Resolución VIII.20) Propósit o 39. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el Artículo 2.3 de la Convención en el sentido de que "la inclusión de un humedal en la Lista se realiza sin prejuicio de los derechos ex clusivos de soberanía de la Parte Contratante en cuyo territorio se encuentra dicho humedal”, la determinación de los "motivos urgentes de interés nacional" incumbe exclusivamente a la Parte Contratante .

La orientación siguiente puede ayudar a las Partes Contratantes a interpretar el Artículo 2.5 y el Artículo 4 .2. Esta orientación podrá s er utilizada por las Partes Contratantes si así lo desean. 40. Esta orientación general no impide que una Parte Contr atante mantenga o introduzca una reglamentación más es tricta para la aplicación de la cláusula relativa a los "motivos urgentes de interés nacional" y a las disposiciones relativas a la compensación cuando se ha invocado esa cláusula. 41. Cuando invoque su derecho a tenor del Artículo 2.5 para retirar de la Lista de Humedales de Importancia Internacional (Sitios Ramsar) o reducir los límites de un humedal incluido en ella, en el caso de motivos urgentes de interés nacional, una Parte Contratante podrá tener en cuenta, entre otras cosas, lo siguiente: i) los beneficio s nacionales de mantener la integridad del sistema de humedales y sus b eneficios conexos; ii) si el mantenimiento del statu quo amenaza un interé s nacional; iii) si el cambio propuesto es compatible con las políticas nacionales; iv) si se requiere una acció n inmediata para evitar una amenaza significativa; v) si un interé s nacional sufre una amenaza creciente; vi) las demás alternativas razonables a la acció n propuesta, incluida la opción "sin proyecto", la bú squeda de una ubicación alternativa, la introduc ción de zonas de amortiguamiento, etc.; vii) los valores económicos, sociales y ecológicos y las funciones existentes del sitio en cuestión.

(Cuanto más importantes sean los valores y las funciones del sitio, más elevados deberán ser los beneficios sociales, económicos o ecoló gicos del proyecto propuesto); viii) el valor part icular de los há bitats que alberguen especies endémicas, amenazadas, raras, vulnerables o en peligro; ix) si la acción propuesta proporciona beneficios a una amplia base de receptores; x) si, a largo plazo, la acció n propuesta ofrece beneficios mayores; xi) la al ternativa que reduzca al mí nimo el daño al sitio en cuestión; y xii) los efectos transfronterizos". L a ley n.º 9610 e stablece que al embalse Río Piedras se le debe dar una categoría de manejo que permita regular de form a sostenible sus actividades. Menciona que lo anterior, sin perder su objetivo de creación, constituye la alternativa razonable que se plantea en inciso 41 anterior del manual 19 que contempla la introducción de zonas de amortiguamiento, ubicació n alternativa, contemplació n de beneficio s sociales, entre otros.

Cita el artículo 6 de la ley n.º 9610: “ARTÍCULO 6- Finalizadas las obras de construcción y puesto en operación el Embalse Río Piedras por parte del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara), el área de embalse, que incluye el anillo de protección, se constituirá en un ecosistema de humedal administrado por el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac) y conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 33 de la Ley N.° 7575, Ley Forestal, de 13 de febrero de 1996. Deberá existir estricta coordinación con Senara para la utilización del agua conforme a diversos usos requeridos. El Poder Ejecutivo, mediante el Sinac, realizará los estudios necesarios para otorgar a dicho espacio una categoría de manejo, que no deberá contraponerse al uso que se le dé al agua producto del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume).

Para la elaboración del Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional, se conformará una comisión con representación del Sinac, Senara y la Municipalidad de Bagaces”. Expone que se han considerado criterios importantes sobre la categoría de manejo especial de ese embalse y sus beneficios ecosistémicos: “•S e definiría con mayor claridad las competencias de cada institució n y se definirían mejor los mecanismos y procedimientos para el ordenamiento y uso de los recursos. • Bajo la categoría de oficial de Humedal se tendrí a mayores oportunidades de ordenar el uso para que la socied ad local, nacional e internacional logren contar con bienes y servicios de calidad producidos por el recurso bien conservado entre ellos: educación, investigación, agua, recreación y tu rismo. • Permitirá prevenir y controlar con mayo r eficiencia y rigurosidad diferentes actividades ilícitas como invasión de tierras y tala ilegal, cacería y pesca furtiva e incendios forestales. • Al asignar una categorí a de manejo al Embalse e incorporarlo como sitio Ramsar, el paí s estaría cumpliendo responsablemente con los compr omisos internacionales como país signatario de la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de importancia Internacional; Convenci ón Ramsar aprobada mediante Ley número 7224 del 02 de abril de 1991. • El otorgar el estatus oficial como Humedal facilitará el proc eso de ordenamiento de la actividad turística donde grupos locales y microempresarios de la zona podrí an integrase a desarro llar un turismo rural sostenible, como alternativa socieconómica. • Con la creación de esta área protegida se estarí a fortaleciendo u na importante zona que funge como Corredor Biológico entre la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, Parque Nacional Palo Verde y el Corredor Biológico Nambiral. • Se estaría i ntegrando la sociedad civil local e instituciones locales relacionadas para coordinar y efectuar una planificación y gestión ambiental integral a través del Consejo Local del Humedal, aprovechando de manera eficiente los recursos y capacidad instalada de cada una de las instituciones relacionadas. • La categoría de Humedal permitirá planificar, ordenar y efectuar un uso armonioso y sostenible de los recursos naturales con un nivel de fricción o conflicto bajo, como si posiblemente ocurriría si se asignara una cate goría de Parque Nacional o Reserva Biológica. • El contar con un á rea silvestr e núcleo, servirá de justificación y motivación a instancias locales, regionales y entes internacionales a cooperar té cnica y financieramente para promover el desarrollo de acciones orientadas a la conservació n y actividades socio productivo de carácter so stenible en el territorio de la cuenca en general. • El asignar una categorí a de manejo para el ordenamiento y el uso sostenible de Embalse, estaría contribuyendo de forma significativa para la conservació n de los ecosistemas y especies de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, ya que ademá s de favorecer la conectividad y desplazamiento de las especies, fungirá también como zona de amortiguamiento y disminución de presión hac ia los recursos de la Reserva”.

Aclara que, con respecto al cuestionamiento de las comunicaciones a Ramsar, existe un procedimiento. Aduce que Costa Rica, luego de la aprobación de la ley n.º 9610, se encuentra en una fase de recopilación de la información para d etectar los cambios probables, dado que la modificación del sitio opera en fu nción del desarrollo del proyecto del embalse y parte de esa información se encuentra inmersa en el proceso de Evaluación ambiental de la Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambien tal; todo amparado al tenor del artículo 2.5 para modificar los lí mites del humedal P ato Verde incluido en la lista, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, por la amenaza sobre la disponibilidad el recurso hídrico y los beneficios humanos sociales y económicos del proyecto. Sostiene que, la Viceministra de Aguas y Mares, mediante oficio n.º VAM-068-2019 de 11 de febrero de 2019, con respecto al proyecto PAACUME, solicitó al Consejo Nacional Asesor de Humedales "la colaboración para dar fiel cumplimiento a las obligaciones contraídas por el paí s acorde con los procedimientos establecidos en la Convención RAMSAR".

Sobre las inconsistencias en las coordenadas incluidas en la ley n.º 9610. Asevera que la reserva bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal fue declarada el 23 de enero de 1986, por medio del decreto ejecutivo n.º 16 849-MAG publicado en la Gace ta n.º 45 de 5 de marzo de 1986, momento en el cual no se contaba con los instrumentos tecnoló gicos de precisión geográfica como hoy. Indica que, en un trabajo conjunto entre el MINAE y el SENARA, se realizaron los estudios y re planteamientos topográficos de campo necesarios, que permitieron una adecuada precisión geográfica de ubicación y delimitació n real del área de la RBLB. Señala que, para la modificación aprobada en la ley impugnada, se consideraron las coordenadas establec idas en para la reserva bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal en el decreto ejecutivo n.º 16849-MAG y, además, se integraron las 3 fincas incluidas como compensación conforme con los planos catastrados de cada una de ellas; asimismo, se excluyeron las 113 has requeridas para el embalse Rí o Piedras.

Expresa que las coordenadas señaladas en la ley n.° 9610 delimitan el á rea total de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal en estricto apego a la delimitación anterior, con la inclusión y exclusión de las áreas correspondi entes. Sobre los alegatos referidos a la violació n de principios constitucionales. • Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecoló gicamente equilibrado. Acota que el artículo 50 de la Carta Magna establece el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, así como el deber del E stado de garantizar, preservar y defender ese derecho. Menciona que del mismo modo establece como mandato, la obligación del Estado de procurar el mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del paí s, organizando y estimulando la producción y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza. Refiere que ese precepto constitucional es la base para el desarrollo de esa obra pú blica. Manifiesta que una de las obligaciones fundamentales del Estado Co starricense es procurar el bienestar de sus habitantes a través del desarrollo y la producció n; sin embargo, no existirá un verdadero desarrollo si este no se despliega en armoní a con el ambiente.

Arguye que se está en presencia de dos conceptos que lejos de yuxtaponerse, se complementan y precisamente es en esa instancia en la que surge el concepto de desarrollo sostenible, el cual ha sido definido desde diferentes puntos de vista, prevaleciendo a nivel mundial el consignado en el Informe Bruntlandz "Nuestro Futuro Común", redactado por la Comisió n Mundial para el Medio Ambiente y D esarrollo (1987): "… el desarrollo sostenible es un proceso de cambio en el cual la explotació n de los recursos, la orientación de las inversiones, del desarrollo tecnoló gico y d el cambio institucional, están en armonía y mejoran el p otencial corriente y f uturo para satisfacer las necesidades humanas. El concepto supone límites, que se imponen a los recursos del medio ambiente, el estado actual de la tecnologí a, de la organización social y la capacidad de la biosfera para absorber los efectos de las actividades hu manas, pero tanto la tecnología como la organización social pueden ser ordenadas y mejoradas de manera que preparen el cam ino a una nueva era de crecimiento económico".

Refiere que el artículo 50 constitucional, impone el desarrollo y la producción, en armoní a con el ambiente, de tal forma que se está en presencia de dos mandatos constitucionales de idé ntico rango, cuyo cumplimento es de carácter obligatorio. Explica que en ese ar tículo se plasma la obligación del Estado de proveer de forma eficiente a la colectividad, la prestació n de los servicios públicos, en franco equilibrio con el ambiente. Agrega que lo expuesto constit uye un parámetro fundamental que enmarca las actuaciones del Estado, equiparando de forma idéntica las potestades que ostenta en el plano del desarrollo del país, para beneficio de la colectividad y la protección ambiental. Cita el artículo 26 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y numeral 1 1 del Protocolo de San Salvador. Plantea que la conjugación de los artí culos citados de estos dos instrumentos internacionales nos lleva a un desarrollo sostenible en armonía con el medio ambiente, al progre so de los pueblos y a un cumplimiento de otros derechos económicos y sociales, situación que en el cas o de Costa Rica y especialment e en la Provincia de Guanacaste operaría para mejorar la condición de vida de los habitantes de la zona. • In dubio pro natura.

Cita la resolución de la Sala n.º 2000-10465 de 24 de noviembre de 2000. Aduce que no existe ningu na violación a este princ ipio, por cuanto las instituciones involucradas en este proyecto han realizados los estudios correspondientes, así como las acciones que compensan las áreas en las que se desarrollará el proyecto. • No regresividad en materia ambiental e irreductibilidad. Asevera que el principio de no regresión o de prohibición de retroceso dispone que la normativa y la jurisprudencia no deberían ser modificadas si eso implica retroceder respecto a los niveles de protecció n ambiental alcanzados con anterioridad, por lo que la nueva norma o sentencia no debe ni puede empeorar la situación del derecho ambiental preexistente en cuanto a su alcance, amplitud y efectividad. Sostiene que el Estado se encuentra facultado para aprobar la reducción de áreas silvestres protegidas de confo rmidad con el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente.

Transcribe parcialmente la resolución de la Sala n.º 2012-13367. Detalla que, en enero de 2016, el SENARA suscribió el "Convenio entre la Organizació n para Estudios Tropicales (OET) para realizar el Estudio para el establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal y finca adyacente". Indica que el objetivo del estudio consistió en elaborar y definir la línea base que permita determinar la integridad e cológic a, relevancia y fragilidad de los ecosistemas presentes, así como la biodiversidad existente, en el á rea de la reserva bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal, a ser impactada directamente por el embalse Río Piedras. Señ ala que a la vez se hizo un aná lisis comparativo entre un área de la RBLB y terrenos aledaños previamente seleccionados, para conocer las condiciones de similitud y factibilidad de utilizarse como zona de reemplazo ecológicamente equivalente; es decir, se contó con criterios científicos y una polí tica de desarrollo sostenible que lo ampara desde el punto de vista de acceso al agua como Derecho Humano. • Inviolabilidad de la propiedad privada.

Cita los numerales 37 y 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Acota que a los accionantes se les garantiza la pr opiedad de sus bienes inmuebles hasta que se instaure el proceso de expropiació n. Transcribe parcialmente la sentencia de una sentencia de Sala Primera que identifica con el n.º 356. Refuta que con el artículo primero de la ley n. º 9610 se haya despojado a los accionantes de sus propiedades, por lo que no es obligación del Estado cancelar alguna indemnización sino hasta el proceso expropiatorio. • Sobre el fundamento técnic o de la ley n.º 9610. Cita parcialmente las sentencias n.° 7294-98 y n.°6322-2003, así como remite al voto n.° 18665-20 12. Expone que: “ El Estudio para el establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal -RBLB- y finca adyacente realizado por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales -OET- constituye el insumo técnico considerado para la aprobación de la Ley N° 9610.

El procedimiento realizado por la OET para la evaluación de la compensación se basa en una metodología l lamada: Hábitat/Hectárea, un sistema de puntajes, desarrollado por inve stigadores australianos el cual identifica una serie de indicadores de calidad de ambiente y asigna valores a cada uno de los factores de los hábitats a evaluar. Se realizaron dos evaluaciones de compensación de forma independiente, un a basada en indicadores de calidad de há bitat y la otra basada en diversidad y composición de comunidades, ambas adaptadas al bosque seco tropical. Adicionalmente, la metodología usada por la OET fue modificada con el fin de incluir otros indicadores (geofí sicos, servicios ecosistémico s, entre otros). El puntaje final resulta de la suma de los valores determinados para cada indicador y representa la calidad de hábitat o la composició n de comunidades en relación al hábitat de referencia (RBLB).

A partir del resultado obtenido en el Estudio, fue posible estimar el nú mero de hectáreas que se requieren para lograr un nivel de calidad como el de la referencia y a sí compensar las 113 hectáreas por inundar en la RBLB. Es importante señ alar que el estudio realizado por la OET consideró un áre a en la RBLB de 131,07 hectáreas, pues fue durante la ejecución del mismo, que el SENARA realizó el trabajo de campo en topografía para elaborar el plano definitivo sobre el área efectiva requerida para el embalse, que dio como r esultado las 113 hectá reas, todas incluidas dentro de las 131,07 hectáreas estudiadas por la OET. El Estudio realizado por la OET (sobre 131,07 hectáreas) , al considerar el área establecida, determinó que este sector de la RBLB cuenta con tres tipos de cobertura forestal: bos que deciduo en 96,05 hectáreas, bosque secundario en 9.13 hectáreas y bosque maduro en 24,71 hectáreas.

Este último en adelante será l lamado bosque ripario, debido a que está relacionad o a los cauces de la zona y compuesto por remanentes de vegetación que subsist en en las riberas de los ríos y quebradas, constituido por especies siempre verdes. Además, la finca cuenta con 1,18 hectáreas en área no forestal y pastos. Los terrenos e valuados para el área de compensación son propiedad de la soc iedad ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., cédula jurí dica N° 3-101-370259, cuyo representante es el Sr. Ramó n Aguilar Facio, cédula de identidad N° 9-0001-0541, plano catastrado N° 5-666-1976, folio real N° 034932-000, situada en el distrito primero Bagaces, del ca ntón cuarto Bagaces, de la provincia de Guanacaste, con un á rea de registro de 751 hectáreas. El área de bosque ripario en ASETREK, corresponde a pequeñas á reas fragmentadas, situación que llevó a no considerar su existencia para efectos de la asignació n de puntajes en la eva luación re alizada en el Estudio para determinar el área de compensació n requerida.

Las conclusiones del estudio revelan según la calid ad de hábitat, que es necesario un área equivalente entre 290 y 332 hectáreas para compensar el área a in undar en la RBLB, debido a que la finca estudiada representa entre el 34,00 % y el 51,20 % del sitio de referencia, que corresponde a las 113 hectá reas de la RBLB. Estas diferencias indican que la finca ASETREK Tres Azul SA ha sido más perturbada y al no contar con cobertu ra de bosque ripario, se requerirán 332 hectáreas para la compensació n, considerando el valor máximo probable que da como resultado la metodología aplicada. Por otra parte, aplicando la metodología para diversidad y composición de comunida des, ASETREK contiene 30,90 % de la referencia (113 hectáreas de la RBLB), es decir, la reserva cuenta con una riqueza de especies mayor de los grupos taxonómicos estudiados, por lo que se necesitan 290 hectáreas para compensar la pérdida en la RBLB.

En co nclusión, considerando el resultado obtenido por la aplicació n de la metodología, tanto para calidad de hábitat como para diversidad y composición de comunidades, el sitio de compensación ASETREK Tres A zul S.A es inferior en calidad de ambiente, composición y biodiversidad al sitio de la RBLB que sería inundado por el Embalse Río Piedras, razón por la cual, al considerar la condición más adecuada para la RBLB, la OET recomendó que se adquieran como mínimo 332 hectáreas de la Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S A. para resarcir las pérdidas de la RBLB. La finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A, como extensión para la compensación y estudiada por la OET, tiene un área total de 751 hectá reas, de las cuales, una parte importante está dedicada a la producción agrí cola y ganadera. Al considerar el área de co mpensación propuesta como resultado del Estudio elaborado, se realizó un análisis del sitio, para valorar la extensión que se deberí a proponer para la compensación de las 113 hectáreas a inundar de la RBLB, atendiendo a los sigui entes parámetros fun damentales: 1.

Cumplir con el área mínima requerida para la compensación obtenida del estudio, que corresponde a 332 hectáreas. 2. Considerar que el área por adquirir para compensación cuente con la cantidad de bosque suficiente, según los tipos de cobertura que se encuentran en el área por inundar de la RBLB. 3. Que el área a comprar incluya las 189,30 hectáreas que fueron estudiadas por la OET para las respectivas comparaciones entre el sitio potencial de compensación y el sitio de referencia (RBLB). 4. Que el área se pueda integrar adecuadamente al resto de la RBLB, respetando entre ellas el mayor porcentaje de colindancia posible. 5. Que el área propuesta para la compensación permita la conectividad de la RBLB con las áreas de protección que se considera dejar alrededor del futuro Embalse Río Piedras como anillo de protección, principalmente en la margen izquierda de este. 6- Que se limite al máximo el lindero del área propuesta con áreas con cobertura no forestal, potreros o pastos, ya que estos pueden incrementar y facilitar el riesgo de incendios dentro de la RBLB. 7- Uniformizar el lindero de la propiedad, para que el área de compensación permita el adecuado manejo por parte de la administración del SINAC en la RBLB.

Una vez analizados los parámetros anteriores, el resultado obtenido denota que el á rea que se debería comprar de la Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. es de 444,04 hectá reas. De estas se estima una presencia de bosque deciduo en 286,87 hectáreas, bosque secundario en 59.50 hectár eas, pastizales en 73,23 hectáreas y un á rea no forestal, es decir, un área de pastos con otras hierbas nativas de 18,50 hectá reas. Es importante indicar que el área seleccionarla de la finca cuenta además con un á rea de bosque ripario de 6.14 hectáreas, distribuida en pequeñ as secciones, que por su no conectividad o por encontrarse en la zona de impacto directo del embalse, no se consideraron para la aplicación de la metodología utilizada en el Estudio para determinar el área de la compensación. Si bien es cierto, que el área propuesta de 444,04 hectá reas como compensación a las 113 hectáreas que serían inundadas de la RBLB cumple con los requerimientos establecidos con base en los resultados de la metod ología de calidad de hábitat aplicada en el Estudio por parte de la OET , la realidad es que esta área solo tiene un área de 2,2 hectáreas de un bosque maduro o ripario con características similares al encontrado en el área por inundar en la RBLB.

En estas circunstancias, se estimó pertinente la búsqueda de un a superficie adicional, que pueda solventar esta deficiencia de bosque ripario del área de compensació n en la Finca ASETREK Tres Azul S A., cumpliendo con los pará metros mencionados anteriormente, identificándose luego de un trabajo de campo conjunto entre expertos de la OET, funcionarios de la RBLB del SINAC y del SENARA, dos fincas potenciales para compensación, ubicadas en el lindero noroeste de la RB LB. Esta propiedad se encuentra a nombre de Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A y Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. En este sentido y s egún las i nspecciones de campo realizadas en forma conjunta de expertos de la OET, SINAC y SENARA, apoyados en imágenes aé reas tomadas con un dron volando a baja altura, se determinó que las propiedades de Brindis de Amor posee un estimado inicial de 1141 hectáreas de bosque ripario y Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. posee un estimado de bosque ripario de 8.49 hectáreas conformado por una cobertura boscosa constituida por especies siempre verde s y que es comparable en calidad con el encontrado en el sitio potencia l de inundació n en la RBLB.

El área de bosque ripario en Brindis de Amor representa un 7,40 % del á rea cubierta por ese tipo de bosque dentro la RBLB actualmente; de ahí la importancia de incorporar esta área a la RBLB. Otro aspecto import ante, es que el área de bosque ripario en esta finca puede constituirse un área núcleo de especies para repoblar otros ambientes riparios en la propiedad. Aunque esta situación no es cronológicam ente correspondiente a la pérdida en la RBLB, según la OET, s i es una considerable ventaja ya que esta á rea núcleo permite a corto plazo una restauración e incorporación de nuevos bosques riparios, situación que no se estaría dando en la Propiedad de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. Es decir, si se está tomando en consideración la propiedad de Hacie nda Ciruelas SP S.A. El bosque deciduo (45,74 hectáreas), así como el secundario (6,63 hectá reas) en Brindis de Amor han sido protegidos, por al menos veinte añ os y no hay registros de talas ni fuegos recientes, por lo que están en mejor condición de estructura y composició n que los encontrados en el sitio de potencial impacto en la RBLB o en la propiedad de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. Aunque no es el objetivo principal, la anexió n de este tipo de bosque de Brindis de Amor a la RBLB implica una ganancia signific ativa en estas coberturas forestales también.

El Estudio de Línea Base de Biodiversidad para la RBLB, evidenció el incremento en diversidad de diferentes grupos taxonómicos como respuesta a fuentes de agua má s permanentes, condición que se ve muy favorecid a en la finca Brindis de Amor que posee varias fuentes de agua permanentes, incluyendo el río Cabuyo y sus afluentes, lo que da un valor agregado a esta finca. Existen estudios de la Dra. Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Angeles), los cuales señalan que tropas de monos carablanca (Cebus capuccinus) de la RBLB utilizan los bosques dentro de Brindis de Amor como sitios de alimentació n y descanso; es decir, hay evidencia de un constante flujo de animales entre la RBLB y Br indis de Amor como sitio de forrajeo, lo que demuestra la importancia bioló gica de esta propiedad para ser incorporada a la RBLB. Finalmente es importante mencionar, que el Estudio realizado por la OET establece un área de compensació n que considera la condición actual de los terren os que se están valorando, sin hacer referencia a las mejoras que a futuro tendrá n al incorporarse a un régimen de protección como lo es la reserva.

Ante ello, se procedió a identificar un área bosque ripario que permite compensa r el faltante en hectá reas para este tipo de ecosistema manteniendo la conectividad eco sistémica del área protegida, concluyendo que la propiedad de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. presenta tales condiciones y permite compensar un área de 8,49 hectá reas de bosque ripario. Adicionalmente, se concluye que la mejor opción para completar la compensació n del bosque ripario es necesario adquirir un área de 40,00 hectá reas propiedad de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., la cual contiene 8,49 hectáreas de bosque ripario. Según las capas de cobertu ra mencionadas anteriormente, esta finca posee un total de 33,64 hectáreas de bosque ripario, donde la mayoría de este tipo de bosque se encuentra bordeando la quebrada Amores, donde el área seleccionada para compensació n posee un á rea de 8,49 hectá reas de bosque ri pario, 2,44 hectáreas de bosque secundario, 26,91 hectáreas de bosque deciduo y 2,16 hectáreas de pastos.

Por su parte, es de esperar que dentro de los beneficios que a futuro tendrá la regeneración da pastizales que posee ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., se encuentre la contribución al establecimiento de bosque secundario, la fijació n de carbono (CO2), protección de suelos, ganancia de cobertura, protecció n de la biodiversidad y de la belleza escénica del lugar, protección de fuentes d e agua, a la vez que contribuy e a aumentar su valor ecológico, económico y social. Es decir, la nueva superficie establecida bajo el ré gimen de protección, tendrá una tendencia a mejorar su condición actua l, tanto en calidad de hábitat como en diversidad y composición de comu nidades.

Según indica Quesada, R (2008), en su Manual para promover la regeneración natural en pastos degradados en el Pacífico Central y Norte de Costa Rica, "para revertir áreas de pastos en bosques a travé s de métodos de regeneración natural, deben tener una ubicación estraté gica a fuentes semilleras y cercanía a parches boscosos", condiciones que presenta el área propuesta en las fincas ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. y Brindis de Amor en Li beria S.A. Estas condiciones hacen predecir que si bien en la actualidad las 91,7 4 hectáreas (zona de pastizales de 73,23 hectáreas y un á rea no forestal de 18,51 hectáreas) en ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. 18,18 hectáreas de pastos en Brindis de Amor y 2.16 hectáreas de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., en pocos años, baj o un régimen de protección como el de la RBLB y un manejo controlado de fuegos, estas superficies podrán incorporarse a las distintas etapas de sucesión de bosques secundarios.

Así las cosas, de acuerdo con los resultados expuestos en el estudio realiz ado por la OET y a lo planteado en la Comisió n de Alto nivel del PIAAG la propuesta definitiva de compensación es: 1- De la finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A un total de 444,04 hectáreas, conforme al plano del área propuesta. 2-La totalidad de la Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., con un área de registro de 86,96 hectáreas conforme al plano. 3-Un área de la finca de 40,00 hectáreas de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. En total, la compra de 571 hectáreas, lo que representa un factor de 5 veces el á rea que se verá afecta da en la RBLB, con una equivalencia directa en tipos de bosques, conforme lo que se indica en la Tabla 6. Tabla 6. Comparación de área por tipo de bosque entre el área afectada de la RBLB y el área propuesta para compensación.

Tipo de cobertura Área afectada en la RBLB (Ha)¹ Área de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. (Ha) Área de Brindis de Amor S.A. (Ha) Área de la finca Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A.

Área total propuesta de compensación (Ha) Bosque maduro (Ripario) 24,71 6,14 16,41 8,49 31,04 Bosque secundario 9,13 59,5 6,63 2,44 68,57 Bosque deciduo 96,05 286,67 45,74 26,91 359,32 Pastos 0,79 73,23 18,18 2,16 93,57 Áreas no forestales 0,39 18,5 - - 18,5 TOTALES 131,07 444,04 86,96 40 571 ¹A pesar de que el área requerida de la RBLB es de 113 hectáreas, la OET realizó el estudio sobre 130,64 hectáreas, razón por la cual se usa este valor para realizar la comparación. FUENTE: Estudio de Línea base de Biodiversidad para la RBLB realizado por OET. Con las medidas de compensación propuestas se alcanza el objetivo de conservación y por ende se puede afirmar que se está en claro cumplimiento que la normativa señala cuando se trata de intercambiar áreas que han sido sometidas a una categoría de manejo específica y deben desafectarse. Entonces en este tema podemos concluir: 1.- Que los objetos de conservación que fundamentan la creación del “área protegida”: no están siendo afectados. 2.- Que el área es compensada por otra de igual tamaño que cumple con los mismos fines y semejantes condiciones ecosistémicas, según el Establecimiento de la línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente elaborado por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET).

El Proyecto implica una transformación económica y social de la zona. Una mejora en cómo hacer las cosas, y hacerlas de manera diferente de cómo hasta ahora se han hecho. Se debe de educar a la población en general, a los agricultores y al área hotelera, sobre el buen y eficiente manejo del agua, lo que constituye parte del esfuerzo que se ha venido realizando por parte de esta Administración, desde el momento mismo en que dio inicio la primera Mesa de Trabajo para Guanacaste. No resultando cierto lo señalado desde un inicio por la parte accionante, sobre que las comunidades no han tenido participación. Como ya se anticipó en líneas arriba, se está ejecutando por parte de la presente Administración el Programa Integral de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste-Pacífico Norte (PIAAG) incorporado al Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2015-2018 e incluido en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo y de Inversión del Bicentenario 2019-2022, y que busca asegurar el aprovechamiento óptimo del recurso hídrico en la provincia de Guanacaste para satisfacer las demandas del recurso por parte de las distintas actividades.

Dentro de este programa se ejecuta tal y como se indicó en líneas arriba, el proyecto cuestionado por los accionantes, el cual es estratégico y cuyos alcances son abastecer de riego un área de aproximadamente 18.8000 hectáreas beneficiando a más de 1000 productores, permitir el acceso a largo plazo de agua de las comunidades del cantón de Santa Cruz y Nicoya. Además, el suministro de agua para apoyar el riego en desarrollos turísticos costeros e incluye generación de electricidad. Un aspecto importante del PIAAG ha sido la participación ciudadana que se ha dado durante su construcción e implementación. Este programa ha sido validado por diversas organizaciones de la provincia y ciudadanía en varios espacios como la mesa de trabajo para Guanacaste. Entonces no existen esas únicas 7 empresas que se verán beneficiadas con el proyecto. De formar particular y como requisito cumplido según lo dispuesto en el artículo 25, numeral 3 de la Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788, se realizó un proceso de consulta a las comunidades locales tanto del proyecto PAACUME como la propuesta de desafectación y compensación de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal.

Lo cual se adjunta al proyecto de ley y que debe tenerse constancia en el expediente legislativo correspondiente”. • Economía y eficiencia. Asevera que los accionantes han manifestado que existen otros terrenos propiedad del MINAE aledaños a Lomas Barbudal que pudieron haberse agregado a la Reserva Biológica (lo cual admite en cuanto a la existencia de los terrenos); sin embargo, según su criterio, no es viable compensar una parte de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal con Patrimonio Natural del Estado que, precisamente, ya está bajo un esquema de conservación y en cuyo caso podría cuestionarse si realmente existe o no compensación alguna. Sostiene que por esa razón se realizaron los estudios de la Organización de Estudios Tropicales, los cuales se basaron en hechos científicos y determinaron cuáles eran las fincas aptas para la compensación a la zona protegida. • Principio de legalidad.

Cita parcialmente la sentencia de la Sala n.º 16202-2010 de 28 de setiembre de 2010. Indica que no se ha violentado este principio, por cuanto no existe obligatoriedad de realizar el aviso a la Convención Ramsar, ya que el país se encuentra en la etapa de recolección de datos. Sobre el incumplimiento al procedimiento establecido en el reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad. Señala que el contenido de los estudios realizados por la OET es acorde con el reglamento. Expresa que en sus archivos consta un documento que sistematiza una "consulta obligatoria a las comunidades locales" respecto de la propuesta de compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, por lo que no es cierto que la consulta no se realizara. Acota que los estudios mencionados fueron coordinados con el SINAC, ya que, según se desprende de múltiples documentos, ha existido desde mucho antes que se iniciaron los estudios, una buena coordinación entre el SINAC y el SENARA.

Menciona que entre las consideraciones técnicas que fundamentaron la creación de la Reserva Biológica Lomas del Barbudal se encontraron: “• Que el sitio conserva muestras muy valiosas de la flora y fauna de la sabana seca arbolada de bajura, del bosque ripario de tierras bajas y del bosque caducifolio de tierras bajas, que en el pasado cubrieron extensas áreas de la provincia de Guanacaste. • Que el sitio posee al menos 10 nacientes y parte de la cuenca del Río Cabuyo, de importancia para la producción agrícola y ganadera de la región. • Que el tipo de suelo no presenta condiciones para un desarrollo agropecuario sostenido pero que desde el punto de vista de la investigación y del turismo, el área es importante por presentar una fauna entomológica única y por contener sabanas secas que no se encuentran protegidas en otra unidad de conservación”. Manifiesta que la asesoría legal de la Asamblea Legislativa había indicado, ante una iniciativa similar (de compensación), que, tratándose de una zona de protección, la autorización, de acuerdo con la normativa, no puede ser otorgada en tanto no cuente con el estudio técnico requerido por la ley.

Arguye que el Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad consigna en su artículo 71: “Para la declaratoria, modificación o cambio de categoría de manejo de ASP, deberá elaborarse un informe técnico, que estará coordinado por la instancia respectiva de SINAC”. Refiere que, a efectos de lo anterior, SENARA contrató a la Organización para Estudios Tropicales con el fin de que desarrollara el estudio "Establecimiento de la línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente", el cual inició en enero de 2016 y concluyó en diciembre de ese mismo año. Explica que una de las opciones exploradas y que dio origen al estudio fue la compensación del impacto a partir de su reemplazo por una superficie con características similares que permitiera la continuidad en biodiversidad de la RBLB. Agrega que originalmente se identificó que el área que potencialmente podía servir de compensación se ubicaba dentro de la finca ASETREK propiedad de Tres Azul S.A. Añade que algunas de las condiciones definidas antes del desarrollo de los estudios fueron: “• Considerar que el área por adquirir cuente con la cantidad de bosque suficiente, según los tipos de cobertura existentes en la RBLB. • Que el área se pueda integrar adecuadamente al resto de la Reserva. • Uniformizar y ajustar el lindero de la propiedad a adquirir para que el área de compensación permita el adecuado manejo de la Reserva por parte de la administración”.

Expone que “Es así como se desarrolla el estudio en ambos sitios, (en el potencial a inundar y el potencial a reemplazar), y los resultados en términos muy generales, en relación a los tipos de coberturas en ambos sitios, determinan que están presentes las siguientes coberturas a) Bosque deciduo; b) Bosque maduro, referido en el Informe como "bosque ripario"; c) Bosque secundario; d) Uso no forestal; e) Pastos. Sin embargo en el sitio potencial a ser inundado dentro de la RBLB se distinguen tres hábitats: Bosque deciduo, bosque secundario y Bosque maduro o ripario; sin embargo en el caso del bosque maduro o ripario está presente prácticamente solo en el sitio potencial de inundación y no en el sitio de compensación. Otro dato que merece resaltar y que se incluye en el Informe Final de OET, es que el bosque ripario está presente o representado dentro de la RBLB, únicamente en un 8.0% de área total de la RBLB, indica también el Informe final "El bosque ripario dentro del sitio de inundación en la reserva corresponde a un 11.4% del área total de esa cobertura en la región, porcentaje nada despreciable si se considera que la cobertura constituye un solo fragmento continuo dentro del sito".

Relacionado con esta misma cobertura o asociación vegetal de bosque ripario, indica el Informe "los otros fragmentos de bosque ripario están ubicados hacia el norte de la reserva bordeando en Río Cabuyo, por lo que el fragmento en nuestro sitio de estudio se encuentra prácticamente aislado. De acuerdo al informe en relación al factor conectividad, basado en distancia difiere entre las coberturas, dado a que el bosque deciduo en ambos sitios (potencial a ser inundado y potencial para compensación) es contiguo a una cobertura similar en la RBLB que no sería inundada. En el caso de la cobertura bosque secundario en el sito de compensación se encuentra muy cercano (Sobre la aprobación del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. Expone que el estudio de línea base de biodiversidad que realizó la OET no es ni sustituye al Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, el cual sí determina los impactos de todo el proyecto y las medidas que se deben realizar para evitar, mitigar o compensar esos impactos.

Aduce que ese estudio además es una competencia directa de SETENA y está en proceso de trámite. Aclara que, de acuerdo con el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental es para actividades, obras y proyectos. Aduce que el Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (decreto ejecutivo n.º 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC) define la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental como “Procedimiento administrativo científico-técnico que permite identificar y predecir cuáles efectos ejercerá sobre el ambiente, una actividad, obra o proyecto, cuantificándolos y ponderándolos para conducir a la toma de decisiones. De forma general, la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, abarca tres fases: a) la Evaluación Ambiental Inicial, b) la confección del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental o de otros instrumentos de evaluación ambiental que corresponda, y c) el Control y Seguimiento ambiental de la actividad, obra o proyecto a través de los compromisos ambientales establecidos".

Sostiene que la evaluación es para una actividad, obra o proyecto y no para un proyecto de ley. Asevera que, el 7 de diciembre del 2017, SENARA remitió a SETENA el Documento de Evaluación D1 del proyecto denominado “Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (PAACUME)” con una calificación final de Significancia de Impacto Ambiental 1052 que, según la ruta de decisión, implica dentro del procedimiento la elaboración de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. Indica que el Coordinador del Departamento de Auditoría y Seguimiento Ambiental, mediante oficio SETENA-DT-ASA-0148-2018 de 7 de marzo del 2018, señaló que se identificaron 24 propiedades que debían ser adquiridas para la ejecución del proyecto y una de 113 ha dentro del área del embalse perteneciente a la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) que debía ser segregada e integrada al embalse del Río Piedras, lo cual se pretendía realizar por medio del proyecto de ley n.°20465, por lo que solicitó criterio a lo interno sobre postergar el proceso de análisis de la evaluación hasta que la Asamblea Legislativa aprobara el proyecto.

Señala que el 12 de julio de 2018, SETENA realizó las siguientes consultas del proyecto: “ • Á rea de Conservación T empisque del SINAC, oficio SG-DEA-1 197-2018-SETENA, respuesta el 10 de octubre del 2018 del señor Celso Alvarado Murillo, Director Áreas Silvestres Protegidas ACAT, Coordinador de la Comisión Temporal EsIA, PAACUME mediante el oficio ACAT-DASP-060 que ent regó el Informe técnico del Aná lisis del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del proyecto. El 25 de octubre del 2018, el Ing. Alexander León Campos, Director del Área de Conservació n Arenal Tempisque presentó, criterio sobre el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y el 2 0 de diciembre del 2018, el oficio SINAC-SE-IRT-304 de la Secretaría Ejecutiva del SINAC, Área de información y Regularización Territorial indica la participación en gira de campo del 12 al 15 de noviembre del 2018, adjunta el oficio del 19 de diciembre de l 2018 del señor Nelson Marín Mora, Director Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque en oficio ACT-OR-DR-1764-18, que a su vez remite el criterio del Coordinador del Programa de Humedales del ACT-RNVS-MR-016-2018 y agrega que el embalse y cambio a realizar en el sito Ramsar debe comunicarse por la Autoridad administrativa en el país a la Convención de Ramsar. • Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, oficio SG-DEA-1 191-2018-SETENA. • P rograma Nacional de Humedales, oficio SG-DEA-1 190-2018-SETENA. • Coleg io de Biólo gos, oficio SG-DEA-1 187-2018-SETENA. • Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, oficio SG-DEA-1188-2018-SETENA. • Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas Universidad Nacional, oficio SG-DEA-1189-2018- SETENA, respuesta por co rreo del 17-9-2019 y UNA-ECB-ofi-1456-2018. • Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia en Tecnologí a Agropecuaria (INTA), oficio SG-DEA-1 196-2018-SETENA (folios 2685-2686), respuesta en DSTINT A-574-2018”.

Acota que, el Departamento de Auditoría y Seguimiento Ambiental, por oficio SETENA-DT-ASA-0016-2019 de 14 de enero de 2019, remitió el Criterio Técnico Forestal PAACUME-IT-DT-ASA-008-2019. Menciona que el 22 de enero del 2019, el Depart amento de Evaluación Ambiental emitió el Informe técnico DEA-0 1 33-2019 con recomendació n de solicitar un Anexo del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, asunto que está pendiente de conocer por la Comisió n Plenaria. Manifiesta que en esos términos el expediente e n cuestión se encuentra en trá mite y en virtud de los efect os de la acción, la SETENA no emitirá el acto final del procedimiento, sea, pronunciamiento sobre la solicitud de viabilidad ambiental al proyecto, hasta que la Sala resuelva la presente acción, salvo que en este caso disponga otra cosa por el interés públ ico. Pide que se celebre una comparecencia oral. Solicita que se declare sin lugar la acción.

1 0.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 9:40 horas de 6 de marzo de 2019, se apersona Mario Andrés Boza. Indica que plantea coadyuvancia activa, con fundamento y legitimación en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Señala que la acción de inconstitucionalidad debe ser declarada con lugar por las siguientes razones. 1. Ley aprobada sin contar con viabilidad ambiental. Acota que la ley n.° 9610 se publicó en noviembre de 2018 sin contar con un estudio de viabilidad ambiental aprobado. Cuestiona que se haya aprobado una ley relacionada con un proyecto tan grande sin que se sepa si es viable o no desde el punto de vista ambiental. Refiere que lo anterior fue abordado por un grupo de conservaciones denominado Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas. Expresa que fue hasta febrero de 2019 que SETENA emitió un informe en el que apuntó 91 carencias al estudio de impacto ambiental remitido por SENARA. 2.

Un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado. Menciona que el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política hace referencia a un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, lo cual debe ser entendido como aquel en el cual existe un estado dinámico y de perfecta armonía entre los seres vivos y su entorno. Manifiesta que una alteración a este equilibrio puede ser provocada por causas naturales o artificiales, tales como el cambio climático, un incendio forestal, la caza y pesca ilegales o la extracción del agua necesaria para la fauna silvestre. Aduce que la Sala Constitucional, en la resolución n.° 2014-12887, hizo clara referencia a que solo era posible reducir un área protegida si, entre otros requisitos, se daba una compensación del área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño. Estima que, cuando se segrega una parte de un parque nacional o de una reserva equivalente para dedicarla a otros usos, lo menos que se puede esperar es que la compensación de una hectárea por una hectárea se haga tomando en cuenta la situación ecológica de los terrenos que se intercambien; es decir, no puede tener igual valor ecológico la compensación de una hectárea de bosque primario por una de un pastizal totalmente deforestado -un desierto biológico-.

Arguye que esa compensación, de acuerdo con lo expuesto los accionantes, no se está dando desde el punto de vista ecológico. 3.- No habrá compensación del área suprimida. Asevera que el artículo 71 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad establece que para la declaratoria, modificación o cambio de categoría de manejo de un área silvestre protegida, deberá elaborarse un informe técnico que estará coordinado por la instancia respectiva del SINAC. Sostiene que el inciso g) del artículo 71 indica que para tales propósitos deberán existir recursos financieros suficientes para adquirir los terrenos del área propuesta y asegurar su adecuada protección y manejo en el largo plazo. Señala que ninguna de las dos condiciones está incluida en la ley cuestionada. Acota que la ley n.° 9610 establece en el artículo 1 los nuevos límites de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal. Expresa que de esa forma la reserva pierde 113 ha de bosque primario, el cual no posible reemplazar.

Describe que el artículo 2 establece los límites del área segregada y que el numeral 4 atribuye a SENARA la responsabilidad de realizar el estudio ambiental del proyecto PAACUME que deberá incluir, entre otras, las medidas de compensación del área desafectada; es decir, se traslada a un estudio las medidas de compensación. Formula la siguiente pregunta: ¿por qué no existe un artículo en esta ley que claramente indique, con base en lo que recomendó el estudio hecho por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales, que las 113 ha se deben compensar con la compra de 571 ha de terrenos vecinos? Refiere que si ese artículo no existe es porque esa compensación no se va a producir del todo. Menciona que en ninguna parte se dice, por ejemplo, que SENARA, el MINAE o el ICAA serán las instituciones que van a adquirir, por compra o expropiación, los terrenos que compensarían a los segregados. Manifiesta que ese tema fue también advertido por el “Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas” en su comunicado de prensa.

Aduce que el transitorio único de la ley no subsana ese problema, sino que solo consigna que se dictará una reglamentación para rehabilitar (el bosque) en las áreas de compensación. Cuestiona que pueden pasar muchísimos años antes de que se adquieran esas áreas porque, de nuevo, ninguna institución es responsable de la compra de esas tierras. Destaca que las 571 ha compensarían parcialmente, desde el punto de vista ecológico, a las 113 ha por segregar. 4. Ni protección ni desarrollo para la reserva. Arguye que la Sala Constitucional, en el voto n.° 2017-014907, dispuso: “el Estado no ha sido capaz de brindar una protección efectiva a las áreas de conservación del país ”. Expone que, en julio de 2018, el Director del Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque, se refirió al tema de la protección de Lomas de Barbudal cuando compareció ante la comisión especial de la Asamblea Legislativa que estudiaba el expediente 20.465 (que dio lugar a la ley 9610); en ese momento manifestó que el proyecto de ley "debe contar con un mecanismo financiero que garantice su sostenibilidad, el manejo y el cuido de la reserva.

Tiene que haber un mecanismo financiero y asegurar la sostenibilidad el manejo, el cuido, no solamente de ese embalse que se va a formar por ahí, sino también de la misma reserva biológica Lomas Barbudal. [...] Dichos recursos son importantes para poder atender problemas de cacería o incendios forestales, pues se requiere mucha inversión para poder hacerle frente a cualquier problemática". Asevera que la ley continúa con esa lamentable tendencia de no beneficiar en nada a una de las pocas áreas protegidas que conservan los bosques tropicales secos que aún existen en el país, que tiene una gran belleza escénica, que posee un río excelente para la natación (el Cabuyo) y que es excepcionalmente rica en especies de insectos tales como abejas, avispas y mariposas diurnas y nocturnas. Sostiene que la reserva se ve obligada a ceder su bosque más preciado y, a cambio, no solo no se le compensa esa área, sino que tampoco contará con fondos para mejorar su protección y el desarrollo de instalaciones para beneficio de sus visitantes.

Indica que, en efecto, Lomas de Barbudal solo cuenta con tres guardaparques, lo que en la práctica significa que solo uno o dos de ellos la protegen de la caza furtiva, los incendios forestales y el robo de maderas. Señala que la ley no contempla, por ejemplo, que con una determinada parte de la ganancia de la venta de agua -un 5% de los ingresos netos-, se cree un fideicomiso destinado única y exclusivamente a lograr una mejor protección y desarrollo de la reserva. Acota que lo único que dice el artículo 5 de la ley es que un 50% de un canon lo usará el SINAC para implementar el plan de manejo. Formula la siguiente pregunta: ¿Qué garantía existe de que el plan de manejo va a darle una alta prioridad a la protección y desarrollo de la Reserva? Estima que lo anterior queda en el aire. Refiere que el SONAC se ha caracterizado por usar los fondos generados por los parques y las reserva para cubrir necesidades ajenas a estos, tal y como se indicó en el recurso de amparo que se tramitó con el expediente n.° 08-011453-0007-CO.

Considera que la ley cuestionada no solo perjudica territorialmente a la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, sino que no contempla ningún beneficio de las ganancias por la venta de agua que obtendrán SENARA y el ICAA, no así el MINAE. Menciona que la ley transgrede el numeral 50 de la Constitución Política.

1. 11Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 13:14 de 8 de marzo de 2019, se apersona Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura. Indica que formula coadyuvancia. Señala que tiene legitimación en virtud de los intereses difusos o colectivos en materia ambiental. Expresa que la ley n.º 9610 transgrede los artículos 7 y 50 de la Constitución Política y los principios de no regresividad en materia ambiental, objetivación de la tutela ambiental, precautorio, preventivo e irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, con base en los siguientes argumentos: “I- VIOLACIÓN DEL ARTÍCULO 50 DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA Y DE LOS PRINCIPIOS CONSTITUCIONALES DE NO REGRESIVIDAD EN MATERIA AMBIENT AL, OBJETIVACIÓN DE LA TUTELA AMBIENTAL, PRECAUTORIO, PREVENTIVO E IRREDUCTIBILIDAD DE ÁREAS SILVESTRES PROTEGIDAS. Como lo ha reseñado muy bien la Procuraduría General de la República en su escrito de contestación a la acción de inconstitucionalidad sobre la que estoy presentando esta coadyuvancia, la Sala Constitucional ha definido en numerosas sentencias que reducir la cabida de un área silvestre protegida no resulta inconstitucional, siempre y cuando se cumpla con tres requisitos esenciales:1- Que se ha ga mediante una ley; 2- Que de previo a la aprobació n de la ley se cuente con estudios técnicos suficientes que justifiquen la medida; y 3- Que se dé una compensación del área suprimida con ot ra de i gual tamaño y características.Ver en ese sentido las sig uientes sentencias: # 2003-11397 del 8 de octubre de 2003; #1999-2988 del 23 de abril de 1999, #7294-98 del 13 de octubre de 1998, #1056-2009 de las 14 horas 59 minutos de 28 de enero de 2009, #12887 -2014 de las 14 horas 30 minutos de 8 de agosto de 2014, así como los votos #11155-2 007, #14772-2010, #2012-13367, #2009-1056 y #2375-2017. VERIFICACIÓ N DEL CUMPLIMIENTO DE LOS 3 REQUISITOS PARA REDUCIR LA CABIDA DE UN ÁREA SILVESTRE PROTEGIDA. Haci endo una revisión del cumplimiento de esos 3 requisitos para det erminar si la reducció n de la cabida de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, mediante la desafectació n de 113 hectáreas con la intención de inundarlas, se puede concluir lo siguiente: 1-SÍ CUMPLE CON EL REQUISITO 1, el cual es que se haga mediante una ley. La reducción de área fue d ebidamente aprobada mediante la ley #9610, cumpliendo por lo tanto con el primer requisito establecido por la Sala Constituc ional. 2- NO CUMPLE CON EL REQUISITO 2, que es el que requiere que de previo a la aprobación de la ley se cuente con estudios técnicos suficientes que justifiquen la medida , como lo demostrará a continuación: Sobre el estudio técnico que debe justificar la reducción de la cabida de un área Silvestre pro tegida, la Sala Constitucional ha indicado que: "En este sentido, la exigencia de estudios técnicos que justifiquen la aprobación de los proyectos de ley tendientes a la reducción o desafectación de un área a mbientalmente protegida, debe ser satisfecha con anterioridad o durante el desarrollo del procedimiento legislativo.Ad emás, el requerimiento de estudios té cnicos no es una mera formalidad, sino que se trata de un requisito material, es decir materialmente se tiene que demostrar, mediante un análisis científico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en este, y demostrar cómo tal medida implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades." (Voto # 13367-2012 de las 11 horas 33 minutos de 21 de setiembre de 2012; y #10158-2013). (Subrayado no es del original) Coincido con la Procuraduría General de la Repú blica, que señala que el desarrollo jurisprudencial expuesto configura el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, según el cual este tipo de espacios protegidos no pueden disminuirse o modificarse si no se cumplen los requisitos fijados al efecto.Lo anterior tiene una clara relació n con los principios de no regresión en materia ambiental, de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, preventivo y precautorio. Sobre el estudio en cuestión, hay que señalar que en el expe diente legislativo del proyecto de ley que culminó con la aprobación de la ley #9610, consta un estudio denominado "Establecimiento de la Línea base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y Finca Adyacente", el cual fue realizado por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET) segú n los té rminos de referencia que le demarcó el SENARA que fue la entidad contratante (ver Folios 268-504 del expediente), y que tuvo como objetivo determinar las características bioló gicas y geofísicas del área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) que serí a sustituida por el á rea del embalse y evaluar los componentes de biodiversidad en una finca adyacente propiedad de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., con el fin de valorar su potencial para compensar el á rea afectada de la RBLB.Es decir, dicho estudio estuvo destinado a determinar l a posibilidad de compensar el área de la RBLB que sería desafectada. En ese estudio se determinó que para compensar el área debía incluirse dentro de la Reserva 444 hectáreas de la finca ASETREK y de forma muy superficial, ya que no se hicieron estudios de tallados, se menciona que deberían incorporarse las 86 hectáreas de la finca Brindis de Amor, además de utilizar el embalse Río Piedras como parte de la compensación. Las pregunt as obligadas sobre ese estudio son las siguientes: ¿Cumple el Estudio elaborad o por la OET con los términos de referencia fijados por el SENARA con los criterios establecidos por la Sala Constitucional? ¿Demuestra ese Estudio, mediante un análisis cientí fico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente (la des afectación de 113 hectáreas de esa Reserva Biológica) en el ambiente? ¿ Plantea recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente?¿ Demuestra cómo tal medida (la desafectación de las 113 hectá reas) implica un desarrollo que satisface las nec esidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades? LA RESPUESTA ES UN ROTUNDO NO. A continuación expl ico por qué: 1- Observaciones al Estudio de la OET para la compensación del á rea inundable por el embalse. 1.1 Marco teórico. El estudio adopta, como metodología para calcular el área de compensación, la cuan tificación del valor relativo de diferentes aspectos de los ecosistemas, asignando un valor numérico a diferentes variables ecosisté micas. Este ejercicio se realiza para el área inundable de Lomas de Barbudal y su correspondiente ecosistema comparable en l a finca ASETREK, finca escogida por el SENARA. Obsérvese que el estudio no era para buscar en los terrenos colindantes con la Reserv a Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) un área para compensar con caracterí sticas ambientales lo más parecidas al área a inundar.SENARA fue la que determinó que debía ha cerse el estudio sobre una parte de la finca de ASETHEK. Para realizar la comp aración numé rica de la calidad de hábitat entre el á rea a inundar de la HBLB y una porción de la finca de ASETREK, el Estudio divide el área de cada sitio en tres ecosistemas principales: bosque ripario maduro, bosque deciduo y bosque secundario. Se asignan puntajes se gún el número de especies de diferentes grupos taxonómicos, o según la cobertura de bosque, número de estratos, etc. Se contabilizan los puntajes en cada área, para después obtener los totales. Como en muchos casos, la finca ASETREK tiene menor punta je que el ecosistema correspondiente del área a inundar de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, por lo que se calcula el área necesaria de la finca de compensación para nivela r el puntaje del área afectada. Así llegan al cálculo fin al que se requerirían 252 has (después se mencionan 330 has, en esto hay una cierta confusión al final del estudio) de una finca como ASETREK para compensar las 113 has inundadas de Lomas de Barbudal.Mi opinió n basada en mi conocimiento técnico es que est e marco teórico es un ejercicio numérico que lleva a una contabilidad peligrosa, poco fundamentada biológicamente. Las categorías para definir puntaje, los aspectos del ecosistema que fueron comparad os, y los valores numéricos otorgados a cada categoría son en buena par te arbitrarios, está n sobrevalorando algunos aspectos y subvalorando otros, como se podrá ver má s adelante con algunos ejemplos. El probl ema principal es establecer un principio de compensación, supuestamente cuantitativo, donde modificando el tamaño de un área de compensación se puede igualar el área perdida dentro un área protegida. Esto es equivocado, ya que las poblaciones o especies afectadas por la pérdida de un área protegida no necesariamente aparecerán, en su abundancia original en un área de compensación, aunque se aumente muchas veces su área, al no existir en el área de compensación los hábitats y recursos requeridos por esta especie, o los núcleos poblacionales o las fuentes para la migración de poblaciones que garanticen su repoblamiento.Difer encias drásti cas en la calidad del hábitat, especialmente en el grado de alteració n humana de los ecosistemas, como las que se detectaron entre Lomas de Barbudal y la finca ASETR EK, no se equilibran con el aumento del área de esta última. Est a inflación del á rea para compensar menos biodiversidad no va a resultar en que las especies afectadas van a restaurarse en el área de compensación, es pecialmente si en el área de compensación tenemos há bitats muy diferentes al área afectada dentro del Parque Nacional o Reserv a Biológica. En el área que será inundada de Lomas de Barbudal hay bosques riparios, y posiblemente otros hábitats no cuantificados por el estudio, que no están representados en ASETREK. Sería un precedente preocupante que la Asamblea Legislativa, la SETEN A y la Sala Constitucional consideraran este estudio como vá lido, porque esta práctica podría llevar a propiciar la afectación de los lí mites de más áreas protegidas, fundamentados en la compensació n con fincas privadas de área mayor, pero con ecosistemas mucho más alterados de los protegidos.La contabilidad ecosistémica y método Há bitat/Hectárea (sección 1.1.3 del Estudio de la OET), avalarían este tipo de compensaciones. 1.2 Co ntabilidad de servicios ecosistémicos. Un aspecto que genera dudas la c ontabilidad ambiental del estudio de la OET es la contabilidad de servicios ecosisté micos, y la comparación de ambas áreas en relació n a estos servicios. La contabilidad de servicios ec osistémicos se realizó seleccionando aquellos servicios que : "(1) que sean producto s o beneficios claramente distinguibles y cuantificables en escalas métricas, (2) que no tengan relación directa entre sí, para evitar redundancia de criterios, (página 99) entre otros criterios. Este criterio deja por fuera serv icios importantísimos que los ecosistemas naturales prestan a los ambientes humanos y silvestres, pero que son difícilmente cuantificables, y que están relacionados entre sí , porque al final de cuentas la cobertura boscosa, la calidad del suelo, y la biodiversidad son e lementos comunes a todos los servicios ecosistémicos.Siempre habrá "redundancia de criterios". Debido a estos criterios de selección, servicios ecosisté micos tan importantes como polinización, protección del suelo, protecció n de acuíferos, c ontrol de plagas y otros no entraron en la contabilidad comparativa de Lomas de Barbudal con ASETREK. Se debe recalcar que los servicios de polinizació n del área inundable de Lomas de Barbudal deben ser substanciales, dada la gran diversidad de abejas que motivaron en buena pa rte su creación en el año 1986. 1.3 Limitaciones del muestreo de campo. Para un estudio que pretende evaluar la diversidad ecosisté mica y biológica de dos áreas medianamente extensas (en la escala de cientos de hectá reas), 10 meses de trabajo parecen insuficient es para hacer una verdadera valoración de la diversidad bioló gica de un sitio, a pesar de que el esfuerzo fue muy intensivo. Para algunos casos, como los muestreos d e vegetación, a pesar de fundamentarse en un buen número de parc elas, la curva de acumulación de especies (pá gina 125 del Estudio) muestra que aún falta más muestreo para estabilizar los conteos de diversidad de especies.Aquí debo expresar mis dudas sobre las tablas de especies de plantas presentadas en este capítulo, donde aparentemente todas las muestras fueron identificadas a nivel de especie, lo que a mi parecer requiere un extenso trabajo en los herbarios nacio nales. Este punto no se informa. En lo que se refiere al muestreo de especies de aves, no se dice el núme ro de conteos que fueron realizados, aunque se reconoce que "Debido a la corta duración de este estudio, no se logró completar la información con muestreos en la época de llegada de especies m igratorias del hemisferio norte, que sucede en la región durante los meses de Agosto-Mayo" (pá gina 145 del Estudio). Debe señalarse que estudios a largo plazo de poblaciones de aves, realizados por el Dr. Gary Stiles en Costa Rica y Colombia, muestran cambios temporales anuales y supraanuales muy fuertes, provocando que durante inve ntarios de muchos añ os aún sigan presentándose especies nuevas, mientras otras desaparecen.Una crítica semejante se podría aplicar a los muestreos de entomofauna (insectos), ya que est os se limitaron a la colocación de dos trampas Malaise (trampas hechas con cor tinas y frascos) permanentes en cada sitio, de donde se colectaron insectos durante un añ o. Limitar este muestreo a esta técnica es insuficiente, muchos insectos de gran importancia ecosisté mica no son eficientemente colectados con este método, como mucha de la entomofauna de suelo, abejas, hormigas, etc. Un ejemplo es el nú mero limitado de individuos capturados de la familia Apidae (abejas) (cuadro 56, pá gina 195 del Estudio). Este cuadro muestra que dentro de Lomas de Barbudal no se colectó ningún individ uo de esta familia y sólo 11 abejas en ASETREK. Este resultado es totalmente equivocado. Estudios detallados en la región muestran que , en un solo árbol, durante su floración, pue de colectarse de 30-70 especies de abejas y miles de individuos. 1.4 Limitacio nes del sistema de puntuación El fraccionamiento de los ecosistemas en hábitats y elementos individuales, y la distribució n, un poco arbitraria, de cada elemento y nivel de semej anza entre el área afectada y el área de compensación, ha ce perder, des de mi punto de vista, la perspectiva general de cada sitio, creando una contabilidad que deja escapar diferencias importantes entre Loma s de Barbudal y ASETREK.Un ejemplo de este problema es la diferencia de pendientes entre ambos sitios. En la pá gina 52 del Estudio s e reconoce que el área dentro de Lomas de Barbudal está entre los 10-80 msnm de altitud, con pendientes menores a 5%, mientras que ASETREK muestra elevaciones mayores a 85 msnm, incluyendo una meseta con elevación media de 140 msnm (pá gina 53 del Estudio). No se informa de la pendiente promedio de ASETREK. Esta diferencia es otra vez resaltada en la pá gina 214 del informe de la OET, donde se discute la posibilidad de incluir otra finca (Brindis de Amor) como parte de la compensació n, ya que "en contraste con ASETREK, la propiedad Brindis de Amor tiene una pendiente leve..". Diferencias de pendientes son muy importantes, deberí an de afectar el puntaje final según la filosofía adoptada por los consultores. Sin embargo, en la página 5 8 del Estudio, los consultores asignan 4 puntos (de un máximo de 5) a los atributos geofí sicos de ASETREK.La gran diferencia de pendiente y altitud sólo significó un punto menos en la contabilidad del estudio. Otro ejemplo de como (sic) la contabilidad de l estudio dejó escapar elementos importantes, fue la cuantificación de la importancia de las fuentes de agua. En la página 105 del Estudio, en la sección de "Fuentes de Agua", se dice que dos fuentes de agua fueron identificadas en los sitios de estudio: Quebrada Viscoyol y Quebrada sin nombre. Después, en la misma página, concluyen: "De nuestras observaciones en el campo se concluye que, en término de fuentes de agua, accesibilidad a ellas y producció n, ambos sitios son similares. Por lo tanto, siguiendo los criterios señalado s en el cuadro 16, ASETREK recibe un puntaje de 3 puntos para este indicador. ". Sin embargo, en la pá gina 183 del informe, los responsables del análisis de la ictiofauna reconocen, al tratar de explicar la menor cantidad de especies de peces en ASE TREK: "Esta notable diferencia en composición posiblemente refleje las diferencias en elevación y en las cualidades de los microambientes acuáticos entre los sitios comparados: el de HBLB presenta un mayor nú mero y más profundidad en pozas y remansos mientras que en el sistema de quebradas en el sitio de compensación en ASETREK el agua fluye más somera.Esta clase de observaciones se repite al final del estudio (página 214 del Estudio), donde se dice "El sitio de compensación en ASETREK no posee quebradas permanen tes…" Aunque estas diferencias no fueron cuantificadas, es claro que el agua en superficie prevalece un mayor tiempo en RBLB, efecto especialmente notable durante los meses de estación seca. La presencia de una fuente de agua con ma yor permanencia en la época se ca es un elemento importantísimo en la ecología del bosque seco, y debió de afectar en mayor proporción el puntaje. Sin embargo, fuera de las diferencias de ictiofauna, el efecto de esta variable fue indirecto y no fue contabiliz ada directamente. Un ejemplo más de este problema: en el capí tulo 4.2. del Estudio, "Otras alternativas de compensación", se reconoce que ASETREK ha e stado sujeto a talas y fuegos recurrentes, una observación que no había aparecido y ni había sido cuantifi cada en el resto del estudio.Finalmente, no se consideraron variables relacionadas con la importancia paisajística de Lomas de Barbudal, como cuáles son los ecosistemas protegidos y cuánto quedan de estos ecosistemas en la provincia de Guanacaste. Sería p osible que concluir que Lomas de Barbudal protege "ecosistemas en extinción", a partir de la siguiente afirmación del estudio, en sus conclusiones: "La reserva se ubica dentro de la Cuenca Hidrográfi ca del Río Tempisque y protege los remanentes de ambientes naturales que prá cticamente han desaparecido de su entorno, como son los bosques riparios y el bosque seco maduro de bajura." Esta categorización no aparece en todo el estudio. Hubiera sido interesante saber cuá ntos "bosques secos maduros de bajura" y "bosques riparios" quedan en la provincia de Guanacaste, para valorar el sitio en su contexto paisajístico. 1.5 El marco teórico inicial es abandonado para hacer ajustes finales en las conclusiones del estudio.Al final de cuentas los autores advierten que la finca ASETREK se muestra insuficiente para compensar las pérdidas de hábitat en Lomas de Barbudal, un hecho que podría haber sido corroborado con an álisis más integrales y no necesariamente contables. Los autores no parecen satisfechos con la ecuación Hábitat/Hectárea , a pesar de ser el marco teó rico del estudio. De este cálculo se origina la recomendació n de comprar 252 hectáreas (después se menciona la cifra de 330 hectáreas, página 208 del Estudio) de la finca ASETREK para que se nivelen los puntajes f inales. Sin embargo, los autores reconocen que ASETREK no posee bosques riparios, y por lo tanto proponen, sin estudios detallados, un á rea adicional de compensación que sí contiene este hábit at. Queda la duda de cómo se justifica la recomendación de 252 o 330 hectáreas de ASE THEK, siendo que ahora se piensa agregar otra propiedad cuyo puntaje no fue calculado, ni mucho menos restado, al saldo de hectáreas originalmente propuestas.Debe resalta rse que, a pesar de esas dudas, los autores mantienen una con clusión tajante s obre la viabilidad de la compensación "7. Pese a las diferencias en calidad de ambiente, es posible compensar las pérdidas en el sitio potencial de inundación en RBLB a partir de la incorporació n de hábitats evaluados en ASETREK (y otros sitios, como se señ ala más adelante)". No hay justificación a esta conclusión, especialmente si las propias valoraciones de los autores ponen en duda la equiparación de á reas. Al final del estudio, se presenta la posibilidad de añadir la propiedad "Brindis de Amor", con una extens ión total de 86 Has, por poseer 15.8 has de bosque ripario (sin que se documente a ciencia cierta cómo se llegó a ese nú mero de hectáreas, ya que no se hizo ningún estudio en esa propiedad), en el sector norte de la Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal. Esta área se adicionaría a las 252 has de ASETREK, como un área adicional que compensaría la pérdida del bosque ripario de Lomas de Barbudal por inundación.Esto agregaría una faja de bosque, como una península aislada, en el norte de la Reserva (Figura 51 de l estudio). Los autores reconocen que el análisis de este fragmento adicional fue superficial (página 213), y no se hicieron los extensos inventarios físicos y biológicos practicados en ASETREK. Podrá observarse que "Brindis de Amor" quedaría como una isla aislada del resto de la Reserva, creando una geometría más alargada y estrecha del sector norte de Barbudal, algo no conveniente por el importante efecto de borde que tendría esta secció n de la reserva. 1.6 El embalse Río Piedras como parte de la compensación Al final del estudio, se adiciona una nueva idea: la consideración del Embalse Río Piedras como parte de la compensación del área inundada de Lomas de Barbudal, ya que podría declararse como un humedal bajo la categoría de Refugio de Vida Silvestre, constitu yendo un área protegida nueva que podrí a contabilizarse como parte de la compensación.NO SE DAN MAYORES DETALLES DE LAS CARACTERÍSTICAS DEL EMBALSE Y DE SUS EFECTOS EN EL AMBIENTE. Se trataría de un intercambio entre dos ecosistemas totalmente diferentes (un ec osistema boscoso por un humedal). Es una idea poco desarrollada en el estudio. Ademá s, esta propuesta desconoce los impactos ambientales del embalse, entre ellos sobre el p ropio rio Piedras. 1.7 ¿Compensación biológica o traspaso de tierras al Estado? De l a información aportada por el estudio de compensación de la OET, se observa que el á rea de las fincas ASETREK, Brindis de Amor y Ciruelas está en mayor parte cubierta por diferentes tipos de ecosistemas forestales (bosques maduro s, secundarios o deciduos). Son áreas de bosques existentes, que representan remanentes o regeneración de bosques después del intenso período histórico de deforestació n en la provincia de Guanacaste, durante los años entre las décadas de 1950 al 1990, p roceso que ha cambiado h acia la regeneración secundaria en los últimos 10-20 años (ver por ejemplo: Calvo- Alvarado et. al..2009."Deforestation and forest restoration in Guanacaste, Costa Rica: Putting conservation policies in context". Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 931-940). Lo s propietarios de la finca ASETREK han manifestado interés en vender sus propiedades al Estado, o a mantenerlas bajo cobertura forestal para explotación turí stica o protecció n (caso de la propiedad Brindis de Amor). Pareciera muy probable que bajo un progr ama de incentivos a la protección (pago por servicios ambientales -PSA-) y bajo la actual legislació n forestal, esos bosques no están sujetos a procesos de cambio de uso de suelo inminentes o inmediatos. Por otro lado, si se visualiza la cober tura forestal en el sector de la cuenca del río Piedras que será afectado por el proyecto PAACUME, antes y después de la ejecución del p royecto, se podría contabilizar que va a ocurrir una reducción drá stica neta de la cobertura forestal (pérdida de 450 hectá reas de cobertura forestal, transformadas en un espejo de agua), sin ningún aumento de cobertura forestal previsible en los próximos años.Aunque 459 hectáreas de bosques dentro de f incas privadas pasarían a manos del Estado por el programa de compensació n, esto no altera el panorama de pérdida neta de cobertura forestal. No está ocurriendo una compensación biológica real, só lo un traspaso de tierras entre diferentes propietarios. Este traspaso sería aceptable como compensación si las tierr as privadas estuvieran bajo la amenaza de pérdida de cobertura, situació n que no parece probable. Al final, la situación final para las especies dentr o del futuro embalse es una pérdida drástica de há bitat, sin posibilidades para sus poblaciones, presentes y futuras, de ocupar nueva s áreas de una dimensión semejante a las pérdidas por la inundación del embalse. Pareciera más lógico que un programa de co mpensación sirviera para adicionar NUEVAS áreas de bosque a la RBLB, o a fincas privadas, que establecieran un equilibri o entre pérdi da de hábitat y ganancia de hábitat.Compensar áreas de bosque dentro de un área protegida, con otras áreas de bosque fuera del á rea protegida, no parece un canje que resulte en una verdadera compensación ecológica para las es pecies silvestres, solo una compensación territorial a un área protegida, un objetivo loable pero insuficiente.1.8 Conclusiones general sobre el estudio de la OET El informe aportado por la OET es insuficiente para definir el cambio de lí mites de Lomas de Barbudal, y no demuestra que e ste cambio será plenamente compensado por áreas adicionales en otros sectores de la Reserva. La finca ASETREK, estudiada con más detalle por los consultores, al final se reconoce como insuficiente para justificar el canje de tierra, y se acude precipitadamente a otras fincas cercanas para balancear la compensación, a nuestro parecer un ejercicio poco serio porque no está debidamente fundamentado. Además, el desconocimiento de los impactos ambientales del embalse Río Piedras sobre la Reserva Biológica y sobre todos los ecosistemas de humedales del Bajo Tempisque debe ser conocido antes de aceptar la inundació n de un sector de la Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal y de en gene ral de los ecosistemas afectados por el futuro embalse de PAA CUME. 2.El Estudio de Impact o Ambiental (EIA) de PAACUME e impactos ambientales no abordados por ese EIA La ley #9610, "Modificació n de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal para el desarrollo del proyecto de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenc a medía del rí o Tempisque y co munidades costeras", publicada en el Alcance #199 de La Gaceta del 23 de noviembre del 2018, y el Estudio de la OET que se presentó para justificar la desafectación de 113 hectá reas de la Reserva Biológica que se inundarían, y para determinar el á rea que debía utilizarse de la propiedad de ASETREK para compensar esa pérdida de área, no pueden verse en forma aislada del proyecto de PAACUME. De hecho, en la respuesta de SENARA a la audiencia conferida por la Sala Constitucional en l a acción de inconstit ucionalidad en la cual estoy coadyuvando, se hace ver que el Embalse Río Piedras es vital para el proyecto PAACUME, y que ese emb alse requiere inundar las 113 hectáreas de la RBL B, para lo cual se requiere desafectarlas del nivel de protección absol uta que hoy tienen al formar parte de esa Reserva Bioló gica.Por eso es que se tramitó el proyecto de ley que culminó con la promulgación de la ley #9610 objeto de esta acción de inconstitucionalidad. Por esa razón es que no puede aislarse el aná lisis del Estudio de la OET, del otro estudio presentado ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) sobre el proyecto de PAACUME. De hecho, en dicho EIA hay menciones al Embalse Río Piedras y a la afectació n de la RBLB. 2.1 El EIA no aborda la compensació n general de las áreas de bosque inundadas por el embalse Segú n consta en el Capítulo de Ambiente Biológico del EIA del proyecto PAACUME, el futuro embalse del proyecto cubriría áreas que actualmente posee diversos grados de cobertura forestal. Se menciona que se inun darían 292 hectáreas de potreros, 170 hectáreas de bosques secundarios, 10 hectáreas de charrales y 289 hectáreas de bosques maduros riparios. La inundación de estas á reas representa un impacto importante en la biodiversidad de las áreas prote gidas y no protegidas de la cuenca del río Piedras.Según el mapa del uso del suelo del á rea del proyecto, los ecosistemas naturales de la cuenca del rí o Piedras, en especial los bosques menos alterados, son fragmentos lineales de bosques riparios, rodeado s por bosques secundarios y aislados por cultivos y áreas de potreros o charrales, especialmente en su sector sur. Aunque el EIA y el Es tudio de Compensación de la OET usan categorías de bosque un poco diferentes, se podría concluir que el á rea del embalse anegar á 459 hectá reas de área con cobertura forestal, con posiblemente la mitad del á rea correspondiente a bosques riparios, mientras que el estudio de compensación de la OET sólo cons idera las 113 hectáreas que serán inundadas dentro de la RBLB. No se pe rcibe ningún interés por compensar la pérdida de cobertura forestal por la inundación de bosques FUERA de la RBLB. En este sentido, el EIA de PAACUME, así como toda la tramitación ambiental del proyecto, ha estado dirigida más a solventar los problemas legales por la afectación de un á rea protegida, que a una real compensación de los impactos ambientales sobre la biodiversidad local.Debe destacarse que existen importantes áreas de bosques riparios fuera de la RBLB que serán inundados, como los presentes en la cuenca de la Quebrada Viscoyol y en la cuenca del río Piedras, próximos al sitio de la futura presa. En estos sitios se han localizado individuos de especies de árboles en peligro de extinció n, como Dalbergia retusa, Swietenia macrophylla, Dalbergia retusa, Astroni um graveolens y Agonandra macrocarpa (Fig 20, Anexos Tomo II del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del proyecto PAACUME). 2.2 Efectos ambientales del embalse sobre los ecosistem as de bosques deciduos. El embalse de PAACUME será un cuerpo de á rea extenso y perma nente, que alterará el régimen hídrico de los suelos en la proximidad del embalse (aumento del nivel freático), representando un ecosistema nuevo, muy diferente a los bosques riparios, bosques deciduos, bosques secundarios y char rales que ocupan la mayor parte del área inundació n y de la Reserva Biológica de Lomas de Barbudal.El á rea de bosque de la RBLB tendrá ahora aproximadamente de 1 a 2 kilómetros de borde de embalse, y el área de bosques remanentes, en fincas privadas de ntro de la cuenca del ri o Piedras, tendrá contacto con el embalse por una extensión todavía mayor. Es previsible que el embalse, al ocupar las regiones más bajas, formará n un borde que hará contacto con lo que ahora son bosques deciduos o secundarios (compues to también de muchas especies deciduas), localizados en áreas adyacentes a los bosques riparios de la cuenca del río Piedras. Sería importante saber c ual (sic) serí a el ancho de la franja de suelo alrededor del embalse que tendría su nivel freático alte rado por la presencia de l embalse. Este dato no está disponible en el EIA. El problema con el efecto hídrico del embalse es que sustituye las condiciones edáficas de un bosque seco deciduo por el de un ecosistema húmedo, sin dé ficit hídrico ni estacionalidad de esa variable.Much as de las especies de plantas y animales se han adaptado al dé ficit hídrico de los meses de sequía, y han evolucionado diferentes estrategias para sobrevivir en la estacionalidad propia del bosque tropical seco. Esta característica es la que hace del bosqu e tropical seco un ecosistema propio, diferente a otros ecosistemas tropicales, que merece atenció n particular de conservación por su grado de alteración y disminución a n ivel mundial. Podría pronosticarse que el área alrededor del emb alse será colonizada por nuevas especies de plantas y animales, muchas de ellas má s relacionadas a ecosistemas más húmedos y menos estacionales que el original. Otro elemento de la biodiversidad que podrá ser favorecido por la existencia del embalse son especies invasoras, que han encontrado en los embalses artificiales un medio muy apropiado para dispersió n y formación de nuevas poblaciones (ver por ejemplo Richardson, David M., et al. "Riparian vege tation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects." Diversity an d distributions 13.1 (2007): 126-139, o también Havel, J. E. et al. 2005."Do reservoirs facilitate invasions into landscapes?." AIBS Bulletin 55.62 518-525.). Este fenómeno puede incluir especies de plantas terrestres o acuática s. ¿Cuál serí a impacto de t al cambio drástico en las comunidades vegetales sobre el bosque estacional deciduo, dentro y fuera de la Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal? Esta pregunta no está contempl ada en la Matriz de Importancia de Impactos Ambientales de PA ACUME (Declaratoria de I mpacto Ambiental PAACUME). En esta matriz sólo se consideran, como impactos ambientales de la operación del embalse, las modificaciones sobre los ecosistemas acuáticos de la cuen ca del río Piedras, no el impacto sobre ecosistemas terrestres remanentes de l a Reserva Biológica o de las áreas de bosque deciduo en general. 2.3 Efecto de la irrigación sobre los suelos y la hidrología en área de riego. Las actividades de irrigación han proporcionado la posibilidad de expandir la frontera agrí cola a áreas secas, áridas o semi-á ridas a nivel mundial, ofreciendo un incremento substancial en la producción de alimentos y en el nivel de producción de productos de agroexportación.Sin em bargo, los impactos ambientales sobre los suelos y el manto a cuífero de los sistemas de irrigació n son un problema sobre el cual existe cada vez mayor nivel de conocimiento, con mayores advertencias hacia los paíse s interesados en ampliar sus áreas irrigadas. Existen muchos ejemplos de grandes proyectos de irrigación donde se presentan pro blemas con la pérdida de nutrientes del suelo, elevación del nivel freático y salinización. La salinización es una consecuencia d e la rápida evaporación del agua irrigada y la acumulació n de sales por capilaridad, o por irrigación con aguas provistas de al gún nivel de salinidad. Ver por ejemplo: Hillel, D., Braimoh, A. K., & Vlek, P. L. (2008). Soil degradation under irrigation. In Land Use and Soil Resources (pp. 101-119). Spring er, Dordrecht. Nunes, J. M., López-Piñeiro, A., Albarrán, A., Muñoz, A., & Coe lho, J. (2007). Changes in selected soil properties caused by 30 years of continuous irrigation under Mediterranean conditions.Geoderma, 139(3-4), 321-328. http://www.icid.org/resirri_env imp.html Aunque el proyecto PAACUME propone la construcción d e canales de irrigació n de 350 kilómetros de longitud, que influenciarán el riego en un área de aproximadamente 58.000 hectáreas, no se encuentra en el EIA una mención a los pote nciales impactos ambientales derivados de la degradación de suelos como produc to de la irrigació n. No se observa ningún esfuerzo en el estudio de un proyecto que representa un importante antecedente de un mega proy ecto de irrigación: el Distrito de riego Arenal-Tempisque, que podría ser un precedente interesante para entender los ef ectos de la irrigació n a largo plazo. Existen algunos estudios que muestran problemas potenciales con el nivel freático: Campos-Chaves, E. Informe del Proyecto de Graduación, Licenciatura en Ingeniería Agrí cola, Universidad de Costa Rica, Escuela de Ingeniería Ag rícola, San José (Costa Rica).Impacto del riego en el drenaje subterráneo y niveles freá ticos en el área demostrativa San Luis del Distrito de Riego Arenal-Tempisque. Así como los resultados de proyectos de distribución de tierras bas ado en el proyecto de riego Arenal-Tempisque para familias campesinas pobres. Ramos González, W. (2005). Evaluación del impacto económico del Proyecto de Parcelación Bagatzí : el caso de diez familias 20 años después. Tesis de Maestrí a, Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de De sarrollo. UCR. Además de algunos estudios aislados sobre el efecto del proyecto en poblaciones de mosquitos, un problema que potencialmente se puede incrementar con el área de irrigació n: Vargas, V., Vargas, C., & Jorge, v. (2003). Male and mosquito larvae surve y at the Arenal- Tempisque irrigation project, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Revista de biologí a tropical, 51 (3-4), 759-762. 2.4 Impacto ambiental sobre el río Piedras.E n el documento "Declaración de Impacto Ambiental", se señala que la presa de 4 0 metros que será construida para formar el embalse afectará tanto al río Piedras como a la quebrada Viscoyol. El río Piedras sufrirá una reducción del 75% de su caudal promedio (1.5 m3/s), caudal que aumentará mucho en la estación lluviosa. En el EIA los consultores r econocen que sería necesario un estudio más detallado para determinar los impactos en el río Piedras, bajo varios esquemas de operació n del embalse. Es de esperar una profunda afectació n del río Piedras aguas abajo, al ser modifi cado en forma drástic o el nivel del agua, las características bioquí micas del agua, y con ellos los ecosistemas acuáticos y terrestres que dependen de este caudal aguas abajo del embalse. La S ETENA no debería aceptar que este análisis esté ausente del E IA del proyecto PAACUME. 3-NO CUMPLE CON EL REQUISITO 3, que se dé una compensació n del área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño y características.Como señ alara anteriormente, el problema principal es establecer un principio de compensación, supuestamente cua ntitativo, donde modificando el tamañ o de un área de compensación se puede igualar el á rea perdida dentro un área protegida. Esto es equivocado, ya qu e las poblaciones o especies afectadas por la pér dida de un área protegida no necesariamente aparecerán , en su abundancia origi nal en un área de compensación, aunque se aumente muchas veces su área, al no existir en el área de compensación los hábitats y recursos requeridos por esta especie, o los nú cleos poblacionales o las fuentes para la migración de pob laciones que garanticen su repoblamiento. Diferencias drásticas en la calidad del há bitat, especialmente en el grado de alteración humana de los ecosistemas, como las que se detectaron entre Lomas de Barbudal y la finca ASETREK, no se equilibran con el aumento del área de esta última.Esta inflación del área para compensar menos biodiversidad no va a resultar en que las especies afectadas van a restaurarse en el á rea de compensación, especialmente si en el área de compensación tenemos há bitats muy diferentes al área afectada dentr o del Parque Nacional o Reserva Biológica. En el á rea que será inundada de Lomas de Barbudal hay bosques riparios, y posiblemente otros hábitats no cuantificados por el estudio, que no está n representados en ASETREK. Sería un precedent e preocupante que la Asamblea Legislativa, la SETENA y la Sala Constitucional consideraran este estudio como válido, porque esta práctica podría llevar a propiciar la afectació n de los límites de más áreas protegidas, fundamentados en la compensación con fincas privadas de áre a mayor, pero con ecosistemas mucho más alterados de los protegidos. La contabilidad ecosistémica y método Há bitat/Hectárea (sección 1.1.3 del Estudio de la OET), avalaría n este tipo de compensaciones.OTROS COMENTARIOS SOBRE LA VIOLACIÓN DEL ARTÍCULO 50 DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA Y DE LOS PRINCIPIOS CONSTITUCIONALES DE NO REGRESIVIDAD EN MATERIA AMBIENTAL, OBJETIVACIÓN DE LA TUTELA AMBIENTAL, PRECAUTORIO, PREVENTIVO E IRREDUCTIBILIDAD DE ÁREAS SILVESTRES PROTEGIDAS. Puesto que, en el Estudio de la OET se constató un faltante de á rea de bosque ripario para compensar el área de ese tipo de ecosistema que se vería afectada, el Comité Té cnico y el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservació n Arenal Tempisque, recomendaron "Identificar un área de bosque rip ario que permita compensar el faltante en hectáreas para este tipo de ecosistema. " Sobre ese mismo tema, el Consejo Regional indicó: "Existen algunos oficios enviados por SENARA, por ejemplo, SENARA-GG 0374-2012 SENARA-GG-0257-2017 Y SENARA-INDEP-172-2017 que indican que dentro de la propiedad se ASETREK existen 6, 14 has de bosque ripario.No obstante, este dato no es mencionado en el estudio realizado por la OET, o respaldo por algún estudio al respecto, con las mismas características del e studio inicial. Respecto a la finca Brindis de Amor, también este Consejo estima que los estudios no se realizaron con la misma profundidad de análisis con respecto al estudio inicial, ni en el tiempo suficiente que sustente técnicamente la calidad de los componentes abordados desde el inicio de la investigación. Es necesario que se profundice más los estudios en esta propiedad o cualquier otra que se considere como propuesta de compensación, para que este Consejo pueda emitir un criterio fundamentado." (Lo resaltado no es del original.) (Ver notas del Comité Técnico del Á rea de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, minuta No. 5 de 30 de junio de 2017, folios 1478-1491 del expediente legislativo, y Ofi cio No. SINACCOHACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 149 2-1497).Considerando el falta nte de área de bosque ripario señalado por el Comité Té cnico y por el Consejo Regional, la propuesta final de compensación se definió en el oficio No. SENARA-INDEP-441-2017 de 17 de julio de 2017 (folios 141-149), indicando que para compensar el á rea desafectada y cubrir el faltante de bosque ripario se incluiría 444,04 hectáreas de la finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., la totalidad de la Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. con un área de 86,96 hectáreas y un área de 40 hectáreas de la finca Hacie nda Ciruelas SP S.A. Obsérvese que esa propuesta de compensación fue definida por SENARA y no fue producto de un Estudio técnico, objeti vo, e integral. Finalmente, el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, después de aprobado en segundo debate el proyecto de ley , indicó que lo que el SENARA propuso fue básicamente una compensación de 5 a 1, o sea, compensar con área 5 veces mayor a la que se desafectaría.(Oficio No. SINAC-COHACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641- 2644). La Proc uraduría seña la que no puede valorar técnicamente el estudio de la OET, ni la forma en que se definió la propuesta final de compensación del área desafectada de la RBLB. Por eso, como coadyuvante, aporto mis observaciones basado en mi conocimiento técnico de la biología. Precisamente para acreditar dicho conocimiento adjunto como Anexo de esta coadyuvancia mi curriculum vitae. Como bien señ ala la Procuraduría, en caso de determinarse que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación del área silvestre protegida son insuficientes técnicamente, la ley impugnada resultaría inconstitucional por violación al principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental. Eso es precisamente lo que he detallado en esta coadyuvancia. El informe o Estudio de la OET es insuficiente , parcial e incorpora un principio de compensación, supuestamente cuantitativo, donde modificando el tamaño de un á rea de compensación se puede igualar el á rea perdida dentro un área protegida.Esto es equivocado, ya que las poblaciones o espe cies afectadas por la pérdida de un área protegida no necesariamente aparecerán, en su abundancia original en un área de compensación, aunque se aumente muchas veces su área, al no exis tir en el á rea de compensación los hábitats y recursos requeridos por e sta esp ecie, o los núcleos poblacionales o las fuentes para la migración de poblaciones que garanticen su repoblamiento. Diferencias drásticas en la calidad del hábitat, especialmente en el grado de alteració n humana de los ecosistemas, como las que se det ectaron entre Lomas de Barbudal y la finca ASETREK, no se equilibran con el aumento del á rea de esta última. Esta inflación del á rea para compensar menos biodiversidad no va a resultar en que las especies afectadas van a restaurarse en el área de compensación, es pecialmente si en el área de compensación tenemos hábitats muy diferentes al área afectada dentro del Parque Nacional o Reserva B iológica.En el á rea que será inundada de Lomas de Barbudal hay bosques riparios, y posiblemente otros hábitats no cuantificado s por el estudio, que no están representados en ASETREK. Por eso es que manifestara anteriormente que sería un precedente preocupante que la Asamblea Legislativa, la SETENA y la Sala Constitucional consideraran este estudio como válido, porque esta práctica podría llevar a propiciar la afectación de los límites de más áreas protegidas, fundamentados en la compensación con fincas privadas de área mayor, pero con ecosistemas mucho más alterados de los protegidos. La contabilidad ecosistémica v el método Hábitat/Hectárea, avalarían este tipo de compensaciones. El informe aportado por la OET es insuficiente para definir el cambio de límites de Lomas de Barbudal, y no demuestra que este cambio será plenamente compensado por áreas adicionales en otros secto res de la Reserva. La finca ASETREK, estudiada con más detalle por los consultores, al final se reconoce como insuficiente para justificar el canje de tierra, y se acude precipitadamente a otras fincas cercanas para balancear la compensación, lo que a mi parecer es un ejercicio poco serio porque no está debidamente fundamentado.Además, el desconocimiento de los impactos ambientales del embalse Río Piedras sobre la Reserva Biológi ca y sobre todos los ecosistemas de humedales del Bajo Tempis que debe ser cono cido antes de aceptar la inundación de un sector de la Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal y de en general de los ecosistemas afectados por el futuro embalse de PAACUME. En su escrito de conte stación de la resolución dando curso a la acción de inconstitucionalida d sobre la cual estoy coadyuvando, la Procuraduría General de la República señala que en la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley y a l o largo del expediente legislativo se ha justificado la desafectació n de una parte de la HBLB indicándose que con la compens ación propuesta se garantiza que los objetos de conservación que fundamentaron la creación de la RBLB no están siendo afectados y que el área desafectada es compensada por otra de igual tamañ o que cumple con los mismos fines y semejantes condiciones ecosistémica s. Es decir, la garantía de que no se afecta el área silvestre protegida y que el impacto de desafectar parte de su á rea será mitigado, recae directamente en la comp ensación propuesta.Así las cosas, tal y como lo he señ alado, es evidente que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación son insuficientes y tienen falencias té cnicas que señalamos páginas arriba, por lo que la ley impugnada claramente violentaría el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, pues no se estaría garantizando que la variación de los límites aprobada no afecta la integridad de la RBLB y no se estaría mitigando adec uadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafecta ción de una parte de dicha Reserva Biológica. Consecuentemente, se violentaría el principio precautorio, principio preventivo y no existirí a respaldo técnico de que la medida legislativa adoptada no afecta el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicame nte equilibrado. ¿ES EL ESTUDIO PRESENTADO EL ESTUDIO QUE SE REQUIERE PARA JUSTIFICAR LA DECISIÓN DE DESAFECTAR UNA PARTE DE LA RBLB? ¿ES ESA LA ÚNICA OPCIÓ N PARA DESARROLLAR EL PROYECTO PAACUME?¿HAY NECESIDAD DE DESAFECTAR LA RBLB? Coincidimos con la Procuradurí a en el sentido de que aunque se constate la suficiencia del es tudio de la OET -que he demostrado que no lo es- y de la propuesta final de compensación -que tampoco lo es según lo he señalado, debe a dvertirse que ese estudio técnico únicamente justificarí a la validez de la compensación practicada, y, com o tal, no es un estudio técnico que justifique directamente la decisión de desafectar una parte de la RBLB. La Procuraduría es contundente en este tema, y yo coincido con dicha entidad, cuando señ ala que … “ atendiendo a la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, el estudio que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para justificar la reducción de un área silvestre protegida debería ser un estudio que determine la necesidad y conveniencia de adoptar ese tipo de medida."(el subrayado no es del original).En est e caso, un estudio en ese sentido, sería aquel que fundamente técnicamente la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB. Es decir, un estudio que determine que la única alternativa para desarrollar el proyecto PAACUME y el embalse Rio Piedras, es desafectando parte de la Reserva Biológica. Dicho sea de paso, dicho estudio no se ha realizado. No hay estudios que se hayan presentado en el expediente legislativo contemplando otras opc iones como podría ser la de terminar la construcción d e los canales de riego p endientes para aprovechar el agua del embalse del Arenal, ni tampoco estudios sobre la capacidad hídrica de los mantos acuí feros disponibles para explotación en los cantones de Nicoya, Santa Cruz y Carrillo. Dicho sea de paso, se acaba de inaugurar el acue ducto Sardinal-El Coco-Ocotal, con una inversión de aproximadamente $3 millones para dotar de agua potable a casi 30.000 personas mediante la perforación para acceder a mantos acuíferos subterráneos.Muchísimo menos dinero que los $500 millones de dólares proyectados para el desarrollo del proyecto PAACUME contemplando la construcció n de una represa para embalsar agua y luego canalizarla mediante 350 kilómetros de canales. Señala la Procuraduría, y yo lo respaldo, que si no se constata la necesidad y conven iencia de desafectar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión. Tal es la inexis tencia de ese tipo de estudio, que al respecto, el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, al referirse al estudio de la OET, indicó que "esta instancia considera que aún n o se ha demostrado que existan otras alternativas del proyecto PAACUME, sin que nece sariamente se tenga que desafectarse un área de la actual RBLB. Si efectivamente estas alternativas no son viables, será necesario valorar la tercera medida que es l a compensación." (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACATSE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo).Ese párrafo lo que significa es que no se ha demostrado que la ÚNICA forma de realizar el proyecto PAACUME es mediante la desafectación de las 113 hectá reas de la RBLB para inundarlas. Existen otras opciones de llevar agua a la c uenca media del río Tempisque y comunidades costeras que no se han valorado adecuadamente y que lleven a la conclusión de que la construcció n del Embalse de Río Piedras es la ÚNICA opció n. Y, ese mismo Consejo, después de aprobado el proyecto de ley en segundo debate , indicó que "es necesario que existan los estudios técnicos ambientales, jurídicos y financieros suficientes que justifiquen la selección adecuada tanto del áre a a desafectar, como de las áreas que servirían como compensació n. Debe verificarse la existencia de estos estudios dentro del expediente de este proyecto de ley, ya que a la fecha este Consejo no cuent a con tal información." (Oficio No. SINACCÓRACAT- 049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 201 8, folios 2641-2644).Por otro lado, en e l documento denominado "Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal" (Folios 622-726), ante una de las preguntas f ormuladas por uno de los participantes, se indicó que "si no se logran obtener las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, el proyecto cambia totalmente, ya que sin estas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB las condiciones de la presa, la cantidad de agua a embalsan el costo del proyecto y el diseño tendría que cambiar totalmente." ( Folio 661). ¿Qué significa eso? Que si es posible llevar agua a la cuenca media del río Tempisque y a comunidades costeras, pero el diseño del proyecto PAACUME tendrí a que cambiar. Ese estudio es el que falta, lo que hace que la ley 9610 sea inconstitucional por violación a los p rincipios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión en materia ambiental.II- VIOLACIÓN DEL ARTÍCULO 7 DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA. Considero que la ley 9610 también vi ola el artículo 7 de la Constitución Política, ya que dicha ley es contraria a la Convención Ramsar en cuanto a la obligación que establece el artícul o 3 de favorecer la conservación de las zonas húmedas inscritas en la lista de humedales de importancia internacional, d e la cual forma parte la RBLB, al estar integrado al Sitio Ramsar Palo Verde, ya que si bien es cierto dicha Convención no obliga a los Estados a comunicar de previo la decisión de modi ficar el área de los sitios de importancia internacional, su artículo 4 sujeta esa posibilidad a la existencia de un motivo de urgente necesidad nacional, lo cual no estaría debidamente justificado en este caso particular. Por lo tanto, también estarí amos ante una inconstitucionalidad por violación al artículo 7 de la Constitución P olítica. PETITORIA.Solicito se declare la inconstitucionalidad de la ley #9610, "Modificació n de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal para el desarrollo del proyecto d e abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río Tempisque y comunidades costeras", publicada en el Alcance #199 de La Gaceta del 23 de noviembre del 2018, por violació n a los artículos 7 y 50 de la Constitución Política; y los principios const itucionales de no regresividad en materia ambiental, objetiva ción de la tutela ambiental, precautorio, preventivo e irreductibilidad de á reas silvestres protegidas”.
2. 12Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 14:57 horas de 11 de marzo de 2019, se apersona Juan Carlos Peralta Víquez, en su calidad de presidente de la Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José. Indica que formula coadyuvancia activa. Señala que su legitimación emana de los intereses difusos que se discuten, específicamente sobre las eventuales transgresiones a un derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Afirma que el objeto de la asociación es: "la protección y defensa de la Fauna Nacional", "el fiel cumplimiento de las leyes existentes o que en el futuro se dicten en defensa de los animales denunciando ante las autoridades correspondientes cualquier violación a dichas leyes y normas" y "Todo lo anterior sin perjuicio de proteger también a los animales silvestres en coordinación con entidades estatales y privadas, nacionales e internacionales".Expone que la acción debe ser declarada con lugar por las siguientes razones: “1. La Reserva Lomas de Barbudal es un oasis de vida acuática que protege ejemplos interesantes del bosque tropical seco, con ciertos parches siempre verdes de selva tropical y bosque ripario. Es más conocida como el "parque de los insectos" o el "parque de las avispas" debido a su inmensa variedad de insectos que se pueden encontrar ahí. Se estima que existen unas 250 especies de abejas y 60 de mariposas diurnas y nocturnas. Es un área silvestre muy importante, que cuenta con la presencia incluso durante el verano de abundantes fuentes de agua, numerosas quebradas y nacientes naturales. Conserva el agua en la siempre difícil estación seca que afecta a todo Guanacaste y al Pacifico Seco, permitiendo la supervivencia de los animales silvestres durante las severas sequías en periodos del Niño. Protege una nutrida presencia de muchos mamíferos como el venado, monos capuchinos o cara blanca, monos aulladores o congos, guatuzas, y gran cantidad de reptiles y peces de agua dulce.En cuanto a las aves, en esta área se han observado aproximadamente 130 especies siendo las más características los pavones, las loras de copete amarillo, el rey de zopilotes, el tucán o curré negro, la codorniz, la chachalaca, el trogón y el trogón elegante, y búhos. En el sector sur de la reserva es frecuente observar aves acuáticas, como garcetas patiamarillas, garzones, piches y otras. 2. La Reserva Lomas de Barbudal es parte del sistema de humedales del Parque Nacional Palo Verde, que fueron declarados desde 1991 como ecosistemas de importancia mundial y por ello fueron designados Sitios RAMSAR. Este humedal es reconocido como uno de los sitios más importantes del mundo por ser un área de anidación, refugio y alimentación de aves acuáticas residentes y migratorias. 3. En la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal se encuentran siete hábitats diferentes. Podemos mencionar el bosque deciduo o tropical seco, que ocupa un 70% de la reserva y posee 240 especies de árboles donde son comunes el ron ron, el pochote, el cristóbal, el caoba, el carboncillo, el cocobolo y el guayacán real, maderas preciosas que se encuentran en peligro de extinción en el resto del país.El bosque ripario o ribereño, que forma una franja a lo largo de los ríos y quebradas, es siempre verde, se considera el más denso y diverso del área y es especialmente rico en abejas y avispas solitarias. La sabana cubierta con pastos está salpicada de árboles. 4. Por medio de la Ley N° 9610 accionada, "el SENARA está tratando de cercenar 113 hectáreas que pertenecen a la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal, que serían inundadas para hacer el Embalse Río Piedras y seguir el mismo modelo de ineficiencia y de injusticia hídrica para beneficiar a los mismos de siempre y seguir con el "mal desarrollo" que aumenta día con día la pobreza, el despojo y lo expulsión de los habitantes de Guanacaste "... " El Embalse Río Piedras es un proyecto viejo, diseñado para riego, que en el pasado fue descartado y engavetado, por ser inviable”… "Fue diseñado bajo la lógica, actualmente superada, de que el agua se "desperdicia" si llega al mar y que es inagotable y que no existen los ciclos ecológicos de nutrientes o acuáticos.Seguir pensando así es no tener conciencia de los cambios que se necesitan frente a las nuevas condiciones ecológicas del cambio climático. "…"La realidad del megaproyecto Embalse Rio Piedras, es que se está desarrollando para subsidiar a la agroindustria y el megalurismo. Es la negación misma del cambio climático, no aceptar lo que vemos, año con año, en aumento de temperaturas y sequías"... " En lugar de solucionar problemas, se propician conflictos socio-ambientales e injusticia hídrica. Se suman a este modelo de saqueo desenfrenado para beneficio de la agroindustria” … "La inversión del Estado en PAACUME es inicialmente de unos 500 millones de dólares para darle el 80% del agua obtenida a los grandes propietarios, para regar sus fincas, que pagarían un "canon de agua " de 3 colones por metro cubico (m3), cuando los pobladores verán encarecerse sus facturas a más de 600 colones por el mismo m3, a pesar de que en el discurso y la justificación dice que "la prioridad es el consumo humano" " (Diario Digital El Independiente, 6-9-2016). 5.- En abril 2010 se anunció el Proyecto "Agua para Guanacaste", "una iniciativa que contempla el Embalse Río Piedras con un costo superior a los 9 mil millones de colones.Aseguraron que resolvería los problemas de abastecimiento de agua potable (domiciliaria-industrial) a toda esta zona durante los próximos 50 años, aunque en el área de influencia mencionada casi no existe población ni inversiones inmobiliarias o turísticas costeras, y más bien beneficiará a latifundios azucareros y arroceros. " (Kioscos Ambientales UCR. 8-4-2010). 6. Este "Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rio Tempisque y Comunidades Cercanas", conocido como PAACUME, es para riego básicamente, e implicaría 400 kilómetros de acueductos para llevar esa agua a los monocultivos de destino, con bombeo y plantas de potabilización. El riego es el gran consumidor de agua (más de 80%) y el gran derrochador, pues usa mayoritariamente canales de tierra y sistema de inundación de parcelas. Por su planificación centralizada, lograría quitarle el control y la administración del agua, a las comunidades, hoy abastecidas predominantemente por acueductos comunales (ASADAS). 7.Según información capturada de videos promocionales del propio SENARA, que impulsan su proyecto PAACUME, esta es la distribución que piensan hacer del agua: (…) 16,5 m³/s PARA RIEGO AGROPECUARIO 82.5% (…) 2 m³/s PARA CONSUMO HUMANO 10.0% (…) 1.5 m³/s PARA RIEGO EN ZONAS TURÍSTICAS 7.5% (…) 36 GW GENERACIÓN ANUAL HIDROELÉCTRICA ¿NECESARIO? ¿A QUÉ COSTO? En relación al (sic) Proyecto Embalse Río Piedras (es cual realmente se trata de una nueva presa hidroeléctrica), la campaña promocional del Gobierno es falaz, ya que dice que "ese embalse no es el proyecto, pero sí es el corazón de uno llamado PAACUME”, y que si no existe el embalse en el Río Piedras "no se podrá almacenar la cantidad de agua necesaria para garantizar condiciones seguras de abastecimiento" pero no da detalles de cómo hicieron para determinar esa cantidad y además omite señalar el hecho más importante: el agua que abastecerá este proyecto ya está almacenada en el Lago Arenal, catalogado como el reservorio de agua potable más grande del país. 8.El l de agosto 2018, Yamileth Astorga declara a través del diario local La Voz de Guanacaste "PAACUME es una alternativa para épocas de sequía en Guanacaste, pero grandes embalses generan grandes impactos" e indica que "Por ahora, el AyA no necesitará de esta agua para abastecer el consumo humano. El AyA solo va a utilizar dos metros cúbicos por segundo, el 10% de la capacidad de PAACUME, pero no en este momento. Con otros proyectos que está realizando, no va a necesitar más agua de aquí a 20 años.” 9. La SETENA acaba de emitir una resolución N° 459-2019 fechada 19 de febrero de 2019, que otorga viabilidad ambiental "potencial" al megaproyecto, al tiempo que en una segunda resolución N° 460-2019 de la misma fecha, señaló más de 90 inconsistencias que deben ser corregidas sobre el estudio de impacto ambiental del proyecto PAACUME, confirmando los mayores temores que hemos venido denunciando en relación a (sic) la tremenda afectación que traería esta enorme represa a la vida silvestre que habita en la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (último reducto de bosque tropical seco que queda en la región, Patrimonio Natural Mundial), así como a las especies de aves migratorias que visitan el humedal Palo Verde (sitio RAMSAR de importancia internacional) y a los peces de agua dulce.Sin mencionar gran cantidad de insectos, sobre todo abejas y avispas vitales para la supervivencia humana. Esta gran contradicción pone de manifiesto que los intereses del Poder Ejecutivo en realizar este proyecto a toda costa para cumplir una promesa de campaña, privan sobre el criterio técnico y científico de un órgano tan serio como lo es la Secretaria Técnica Ambiental. 10. Lo triste es que la situación es mucho más grave de lo que creíamos, porque a lo largo de los 91 puntos sobre aspeaos de índole legal y técnico que el SENARA deberá subsanar y aclarar, se hace más que evidente la falta de compromiso ambiental de la que adolece este mediocre proyecto, desde su concepción hasta su planeación. Queda expuesto que no contempla otras alternativas viables para llevar agua a Guanacaste, no evalúa los riesgos de inundación que conlleva el embalse ni establece medidas de mitigación del impacto ambiental.Es más, ni siquiera contempla pozos y nacientes existentes que serían anegados, no incluye todos los elementos necesarios para la construcción y operación, y ni siquiera tiene claros los derroteros que delimitan las obras. 11. Asimismo, el presupuesto parece haberse quedado muy cono, dejando por fuera gran parte de la inversión que se requerirá para construir la planta hidroeléctrica, para adquirir terrenos de reposición, para mitigar el daño ambiental, para prevenir el riesgo de desastres, etc. 12. Aunque se reconoce el riesgo de inundación, se minimiza el riesgo sísmico de una zona llena de fallas geológicas, que está bajo amenaza permanente de terremoto. Magnitudes de 6.7 a 7.9 podrían reventar la presa, liberando una cabeza de 85 millones de toneladas de agua que barrería todo a su paso hasta llegar al mar. No es difícil imaginar la gran cantidad de vidas humanas que se perderían y la catástrofe ambiental que ocasionaría en la región.Estudio de Impacto Ambiental Proyecto Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Medial río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (PAACUME) Cuadro n° 7. 101 Escenarios sísmicos específicos relacionados con el sitio de presa y valores de aceleración horizontal pico para cada uno de ellos. (Climent et al., 2016).

Fuente Sísmica Magnitud máxima Profundidad (km) Distancia (Km) Aceleración Pico (cm/s2) Duración del movimiento fuerte (s) rEPI rRUP Falla Bagaces Segmento norte 6.7 12 12.3 6 603 7.7 Segmento sur 6.5 10 4.5 2 855 6 Falla Montenegro Segmento norte 6.6 10 9.4 6.7 611 7.2 Falla Chiripa 6.6 10 40 41 128 11.6 Falla Cote Arenal 6.6 10 41 42 122 11.7 Falla Caño Negro 7.1 12 50 52 153 14.2 Subducción Zona de Papagayo 7.5 35 62 48 316 17 Zona de Nicoya 7.5 35 35 44 548 14 De acuerdo a (sic) los resultados obtenidos en cuadro n° 7.102, se determina que la amenaza sísmica en el campo cercano, en el sector donde se encuentra el sitio de presa del proyecto, está controlada por la ocurrencia de un evento de magnitud 6.5 en la falla Bagaces (segmento sur), y cuyo valor máximo de aceleración horizontal pico se ha estimado en 855 cm/s2 (0.84g), valor obtenido del promedio de los valores estimados para cada uno de los modelos de predicción utilizados.

Otro escenario importante, es el planteado para la zona de subducción, ya que si un evento de magnitud 7.9 ocurre en esta zona sísmica de Nicoya, se presentaría una aceleración pico de 548 cm/s2 (0.56 g), el cual es un nivel de intensidad bastante importante (Climent et al., 2016). 13. Se está ignorando la recomendación de los expertos japoneses de descartar este proyecto por el impacto que puede ocasionar al medio ambiente y el bajo índice de retorno de la inversión por su alto costo. El impacto ambiental de PAACUME se debe a su efecto sobre el Parque Nacional Palo Verde al alterar la cuenca del Río Piedras y desviar el 40% de su caudal: AGENCIA DE COOPERACIÓN INTERNACIONA DEL JAPÓN (JICA) ESTUDIO DEL PROYECTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL DE LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RÍO TEMPISQUE (…) SEPTIEMBRE DE 2002 PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL NAIGAI ENGINEERING CO.LTD. B. Presa Piedras Perfil del Proyecto: Consiste en construir una presa en la cuenca alta del Río Piedras con una altura de presa de 35 m y capacidad efectiva de almacenaje de 83 millones de metros cúbicos.

Esta presa permitiría regar unas 6.500 ha con un caudal adicional de 6,5 m³/s. Se podría utilizar para regar la margen izquierda del Río Tempisque, por lo que la población beneficiaria incluye aproximadamente 100 familias de los pequeños y medianos productores. Limitaciones: La Presa Piedras traerá un importante impacto sobre el entorno, incluyendo el Parque Nacional Palo Verde de la cuenca baja, por alterar la cuenca derivando un 40% del caudal total disponible en la cuenca del Río Piedras a la cuenca del Río Tempisque. La geografía y la geología local tampoco favorecen la implementación del proyecto, y se requiere ampliar un tramo y construir otro de un canal de conducción de 40 km, lo cual encarece el proyecto. El costo de distribución de agua en la margen derecha resulta alto. Evaluación: Esta opción no será recomendada en el presente Proyecto debido al impacto que puede ocasionar al medio ambiente y por su bajo índice de la economía del Proyecto.

Aunque aquí no se mencione, la ampliación y construcción de un tramo de 40 km para extender el Canal Oeste atravesando los corredores biológicos, interrumpirán el paso e intercambio de fauna. 14. Se ignora el estudio del IICA-BID que también señala la vulnerabilidad del proyecto a los desastres naturales (sismos, vulcanismo e inundaciones y destaca la importancia de proteger Palo Verde. Se perpetúan los errores del pasado, ya que no se plantean soluciones al sobreuso del recurso hídrico. Aunque no evalúa el impacto del riego sobre la vegetación y la vida silvestre, denuncia que se continúa con la sobreexplotación y contaminación de los acuíferos que tanto afecta la vida marina del Golfo de Nicoya. PROYECTO DE RIEGO ARENAL-TEMPISQUE PROGRAMA DE RIEGO EN PEQUEÑAS ÁREAS DICIEMBRE DE 1993 BANCO INTERAMERICANO DE DESARROLLO (BID) CONVENIO IICA/BID ATH/3185-RE. En cuanto al recurso agua, en la zona de riego, se está sobreusando las aguas del río Tempisque, lo que causa problemas serios sobre la vida marina del Golfo de Nicoya.

Tanto en la zona de captación de aguas, como en la zona bajo riego, se mencionan casos de contaminación con órganoclorados, por aspersiones aéreas de agroquímicos en peces y camarones que colonizan los canales de riesgo. A pesar de que el efecto de riego sobre la vegetación y la vida silvestre no se está evaluando, informes orales indican que piches (aves provenientes de Palo Verde) y otras aves de rapiña afectan la siembra del cultivo de arroz y consumen peces de estanquen diseñados para su crianza. También se menciona la disminución de poblaciones de insectos polinizadores de melón aparentemente por abuso de agroquímicos. En cuanto a las barreras rompevientos, de 25 km plantados quedan en buen estado aproximadamente 6 km. En el presente la coordinación entre empresas estatales encargadas de reforestación y conservación de recursos naturales son muy débiles y deberá cambiarse la actitud para lograr resultados más efectivos.

En lo que respecta al impacto del medio sobre el proyecto hay dos aspectos que interesan vivamente, uno es la vulnerabilidad del proyecto mismo a las catástrofes naturales, sismos, vulcanismo e inundaciones (ICE, 1980), y el peligro de la sobreexplotación de acuíferos. 2.40 Integrar el Parque Nacional de Palo Verde, las áreas protegidas en el área de influencia del proyecto y las áreas silvestres protegidas en el Área de Conservación Arenal y los planes de reforestación dentro del Plan de Manejo Integrado de Riego Arenal-Tempisque. Existe experiencia en este sentido que no debe dejar de considerarse, sobre todo cuando se trata de integrar la vegetación al sistema de barreras rompevientos. 15. Esto nos deja un sabor muy amargo en la boca y nos lleva al convencimiento de que los últimos Gobiernos se han ido de cabeza, de buenas a primeras y sin mayor estudio, para aprobar precipitadamente un proyecto mal planificado, que hace uso de bienes de dominio público.

El Poder Ejecutivo está olvidando su deber de velar por el patrimonio natural de todos los ciudadanos y garantizar un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Pretende que los costarricenses, además de perder parte de la herencia de las futuras generaciones, paguemos de nuestros bolsillos este desatino”.

1. 13Por escrito incorporado a las 15:47 horas de 11 de marzo de 2019 se apersona Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera, en su condición de Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería. Indica que formula “ coadyuvancia negativa ”. Pide que se le tenga como coadyuvante de SENARA, pues ejerce como ministro del sector agropecuario al que pertenece dicho ente. Señala que el PAACUME impactará a 500,000 personas, en su mayoría pequeños y medianos agricultores, por lo que llevará agua a las zonas costeras de Carrillo y de Santa Cruz, lo cual permitirá la recuperación de los mantos acuíferos y el riego de 18.800 hectáreas agroproductivas, como una medida de adaptación al cambio climático, de manera que la producción agropecuaria sea sostenible y constante, gracias a los sistemas de riego que se desarrollarán. Consideran que los accionantes se encuentran legitimados, de acuerdo con el párrafo segundo del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, únicamente en cuanto los reclamos relacionados con la violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, así como al principio de equilibrio presupuestario.Acotan que no existe interés difuso en cuanto a la alegada violación al derecho de propiedad privada y o se comprueba que exista algún asunto previo en el que se haya invocado la inconstitucionalidad alegada. Consideran que la acción es admisible solo en cuanto a los alegatos relacionados con la violación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y al principio de equilibrio presupuestario, e inadmisibles los reproches relativos a la violación al derecho de propiedad privada. Exponen los siguientes antecedentes: “El Proyecto de Abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras, PAACUME, es un Proyecto que viene a complementar con aguas de la Laguna Arenal, la disponibilidad de recurso hídrico para distintos usos que actualmente suministran las fuentes naturales a la margen derecha del Río Tempisque (cantones de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya) y que en definitiva, no son suficientes para suplir las necesidades cada vez mayores de recurso hídrico, tanto para uso humano (agua potable) como para uso en agricultura (riego) que permita darle sostenibilidad al suministro del agua durante todo el año.La región Chorotega en general, tiene un régimen natural de precipitación que presenta más de 5 meses de déficit hídrico al año, sin considerar efectos naturales extremos, como el caso de sequías más prolongadas ocasionadas por el fenómeno del niño o el cambio climático, que son cada vez más frecuentes y recurrentes (v.g. la sequía del 2014 al 2016) que afectan severamente a las comunidades y la actividad productiva y económica en general y que por primera vez en Costa Rica, requirió una declaratoria de emergencia por sequía, según Decreto Ejecutivo N° 38642-MP-MAG del 30 de noviembre de 2014. El Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara), es la institución responsable de la ejecución del PAACUME. Es una institución autónoma creada mediante Ley 6877 de julio de 1983 y se le confían los siguientes objetivos en artículo 2: • “Fomentar el desarrollo agropecuario en el país, mediante el establecimiento y funcionamiento de sistemas de riego, avenamiento y protección contra inundaciones. • Contribuir a desarrollar preferentemente aquellos proyectos de desarrollo agropecuario que se sustenten en una justa distribución de la tierra • Procurar que en el territorio beneficiado por la creación de distritos de riego y avenamiento, se efectué una modificación racional y democrática en la propiedad de la tierra (Ley 6877) El PAACUME representa una excelente iniciativa de aprovechamiento de las aguas almacenadas en la Laguna Arenal y que alimentan el Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal DengoSandillal (ARDESA) operado por el ICE, en actividades generadoras de valor como el riego, en la actividad de producción agropecuaria y el riego en desarrollos turísticos costeros, así como para agua potable y generación hidroeléctrica, lo cual lleva implícito, una gran oportunidad de crecimiento y desarrollo a la provincia de Guanacaste, con un impacto a nivel nacional.Para este Proyecto, se estaría utilizando la infraestructura existente para captación y conducción de agua en el Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque operado por el SENARA (presa Miguel Pablo Dengo y Canal Oeste Tramo I) y construyendo obras como la presa de almacenamiento en el río Piedras, la ampliación y mejoras en el Canal Oeste desde el río Piedras hasta el río Tempisque (55 kms de longitud) y las redes de conducción y distribución de agua en la margen derecha del río Tempisque (alrededor de 300 kms de líneas de conducción por gravedad y bombeo). A partir del almacenamiento en el embalse río Piedras, el PAACUME permitirá abastecer de agua a una zona históricamente seca, que por razones de variabilidad y cambio climático, ha aumentado su condición de sequía, en muchos casos a sequía extrema, limitando la sostenibilidad y desincentivando el crecimiento socioeconómico de la región y del país en general.Dicho proyecto está constituido por cuatro componentes; a saber: el embalse río Piedras (el cual incluye la automatización del sistema, la casa de máquinas y la presa y el embalse propiamente dicho), la ampliación del Canal Oeste desde el río Piedras hasta el río Tempisque con una longitud de aproximadamente 55 kms, la construcción de la red de distribución en la margen derecha del río Tempisque (aproximadamente 300 kms de longitud) y la propuesta de implementación de un Plan de Desarrollo Regional para el área directa e indirectamente afectada por el Proyecto, proceso que está en etapa de conceptualización y formulación. El PAACUME, como proyecto de inversión pública se encuentra vinculado, según la clasificación establecida en el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 38536-MP-PLAN del Reglamento Orgánico del Poder Ejecutivo publicado el 25 de julio de 2014, al sector Desarrollo Agropecuario y Rural por su importancia e impacto en la seguridad alimentaria y el desarrollo social del área de influencia y al sector Ambiente, Energía, Mares y Ordenamiento Territorial por su valor como medida de adaptación al cambio climático y el efecto sobre la disponibilidad de agua en la zona de impacto.Adicionalmente, el PAACUME está incluido en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo y uno de los principales proyectos conceptualizados como prioritarios para la reactivación económica del país. Con la construcción del conjunto de obras que comprende PAACUME, se beneficiarán de manera directa a productores agropecuarios, ubicados en los cantones de: Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya, así como beneficiarios de agua para consumo humano, riego para zonas verdes en empresas turísticas. Entre los beneficiarios directos se encuentran productores grandes, medianos y pequeños. En esta última categoría se hace referencia, en su mayoría, a adjudicatarios en asentamientos campesinos y que se caracterizan por una mayor necesidad de apoyo por parte de las instituciones del sector agropecuario. El área de riego para la producción agropecuaria se estima en 18.639 hectáreas en donde se podrían beneficiar 746 productores entre grandes, medianos y pequeños propietarios.(SENARA, 2018 Estudio de Factibilidad PAACUME). Este proyecto reviste vital importancia para la colectividad por cuanto se destinarán, 2 metros cúbicos por segundo de agua para consumo humano (cuyo tratamiento y distribución estará a cargo del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados). Con respecto al suministro de agua para consumo humano, es importante indicar que el caudal establecido para este sector es con una proyección de demanda proyectada a 50 años. Se estima que para el 2025 habrá una población, dentro del área del proyecto, equivalente a más de 220.000 habitantes los cuales se convierten en usuarios de los acueductos principales de la zona. Los acueductos rurales atienden actualmente una población mayor a las 139.000 personas. Adicional a la población que se estará abasteciendo de agua para consumo humano, que se estima que unos 200.000 habitantes de la región, se estará beneficiando de forma indirecta, toda aquella población inserta en el sector de bienes y servicios.De igual manera, a las personas que sean contratadas para atender las nuevas áreas bajo riego en las diferentes etapas de productivas, así como nuevos actores que logren consolidar actividades de producción y comercialización. Otro sector beneficiario es el dedicado al turismo, para el cual, el PAACUME procurará abastecer de agua para riego en un área estimada en 1.213 hectáreas distribuidas entre las 171 empresas turísticas debidamente identificados en la zona costera y que muestren su disposición de pertenecer al Proyecto, con lo cual, también se está tratando de disminuir la presión que se genera en la extracción de aguas subterráneas de los acuíferos de la costa (SENARA, 2018 Estudio de Factibilidad PAACUME). También podrá el PAACUME generar electricidad en la presa Río Piedras (7 MW por año), como un beneficio del Proyecto que implica un óptimo aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico disponible.Como se mencionó anteriormente, la infraestructura planteada en el PAACUME contempla tres componentes principales: el embalse en el río Piedras compuesto por el embalse propiamente dicho, la presa, el vertedor de excedencias, la obra de toma y la casa de máquinas para la generación de electricidad; la red de principal conducción, que va del Embalse río Piedras al río Tempisque (55 kms de longitud) y por último, la red distribución compuesta por la red de canales en la margen derecha del río Tempisque, donde se realizará la distribución de los 20 m3/seg que se extraerán del embalse río Piedras provenientes de la Laguna Arenal. La construcción de la presa río Piedras generará un embalse con una extensión (espejo de agua) de aproximadamente 850 hectáreas. El sitio donde se ubicará la presa corresponde al río Piedras, específicamente entre las coordenadas Longitud Oeste 358930, Latitud Norte 1163180 y Longitud Oeste 359690, Latitud Norte 1155330 a una elevación de nivel de agua máxima de 50.00 m.s.n.m..El agua de la Laguna Arenal captada en la Presa derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B. es conducida hasta el río Piedras por medio del Canal Oeste Tramo I, el que tiene una longitud de 21 km, y una capacidad hidráulica de 55 m3/seg. Es importante destacar que antes de que el Canal Oeste Tramo I interseque con el río Piedras se da una caída natural, es precisamente esta caída la que permite concebir el sitio de almacenamiento que genera el embalse en el río Piedras. Así las cosas, la ubicación de la presa en el Río Piedras obedece a una condición topográfica única que no permite ser trasladada a otro sitio, por tanto, esta ubicación y esta diferencia de nivel entre la entrada del canal que lo abastece y la salida del canal que permitirá llevar el agua hasta el río Tempisque, determinan el nivel máximo de embalse y la capacidad del mismo para abastecer con 20 m3/seg al PAACUME para que sean distribuidos en la Margen Derecha del Río Tempisque.En algún momento se valoró la posibilidad de construir un dique para evitar la inundación de esta área de la RBLB y un túnel de más de 2 kilómetros para evacuar la aguas, sin embargo, resultó que el sitio del dique que se debería construir coincide con una falla geológica que haría imposible su construcción por el alto riesgo que esta genera a la obra. En conclusión, no existe posibilidad de reubicar o disminuir el volumen de embalse sin afectar significativamente el alcance del PAACUME, con lo cual, se determina la urgente e indispensable necesidad de contar con las 113 hectáreas de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal para ser inundadas, resultando un elemento esencial para la construcción de la presa en el Río Piedras y siendo la presa en este sitio la única posibilidad del PAACUME de almacenar el agua disponible, proveniente de la Laguna Arenal. Siendo así, la Ley N° 9610 “Modificación de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal para el Desarrollo del Proyecto Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras” resulta indispensable para poder ejecutar dicho Proyecto.Por tanto, la construcción de la presa en el río Piedras es un elemento esencial del PAACUME que requiere la vigencia de la Ley N° 9610 a fin de poder satisfacer el interés público, de poder brindar soluciones a diversas necesidades tales como agrícolas, productivas, y de abastecimiento de agua para consumo de agua en una zona dónde cada vez es más escaso el recurso hídrico”. Expone que, con vista en lo anterior, la norma impugnada resulta fundamental para brindar soluciones a los poblados de la cuenca del Tempisque y las Comunidades Costeras de Guanacaste, como por ejemplo Sardinal, impactadas por problemas de abastecimiento, salinización de acuíferos, situaciones que han provocado el conocimiento por parte de esa Sala Constitucional de múltiples recursos de amparo en procura de la defensa del recurso hídrico. Manifiesta que el rol del SENARA ha permitido la correcta protección del recurso hídrico y, en este caso, garantizará el correcto aprovechamiento y fomento del recurso hídrico, impactando positivamente la cuenca del Tempisque y las zonas costeras de Guanacaste.Solicita a la Sala Constitucional valorar el interés público y la importancia trascendental de la norma impugnada para los poblados costeros y de la cuenca del Tempisque beneficiados con el proyecto PAACUME, para el cual es absolutamente necesario contar con la ley n.° 9610. En relación con el fondo de la acción reproduce argumentos que ya fueron expuestos por la Procuraduría General de la República y SENARA.
2. 14Mediante resolución de las 10:03 horas de 14 de marzo de 2019, la Presidencia de la Sala le previno a Juan Carlos Peralta Víquez, dentro del plazo de tres días, aportar certificación de personería jurídica de la Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José.
3. 15Por constancia de 21 de marzo de 2019, Vernor Perera León y Karen Cubero Barquero, por su orden Secretario a.i. y Técnica de Sala de la Corte, ambos de la Sala Constitucional, hicieron saber: “Que revisado, en el SISTEMA COSTARRICENSE DE GESTIÓN DE DESPACHOS JUDICIALES el CONTROL DE DOCUMENTOS RECIBIDOS; y, hecha una minuciosa revisión del expediente en que se tramita esta ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD, no aparece que del catorce al veinte de marzo del dos mil diecinueve, la Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José, representada por Juan Carlos Peralta Víquez haya presentado escrito o documento alguno, para cumplir con lo prevenido en la resolución de las diez horas y tres minutos de catorce de marzo de dos mil diecinueve”.
4. 16Mediante resolución de las 15:23 horas de 21 de marzo de 2019, la Presidencia de la Sala resolvió: “Vistos los escritos presentados en la Secretaría de esta Sala los días 06, 08 y 11 d e marzo de 2019, por los cuales, Mario Andrés Boza Lorí a, cédula de identidad No. 1-0297-0932, Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura, cédu la de identidad No. 1- 0526-0636, Juan Carlos Peralta Ví quez, cédula de identidad No. 3-0229-0629, quien afirma ser el presidente con facultades de representante judicial de la Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantó n de San José, c édula de persona jurídica No. 3-002-248601, y Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera, cédula de identidad No. 1-0561-0205, en su condición de Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, solicitan se les tenga como coadyuvantes en esta acción; se resuelve: El artí culo 83 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional señala qu e en los quince días posteriores a la primera publicación del aviso a que alud e el párrafo segundo del artí culo 81, las partes que figuren en los asuntos pendientes a la fecha de la interposición de la acción, o aquellos con interés legí timo, podrán aperso narse dentro de é sta, a fin de coadyuvar en las alegaciones que pudieren justificar su procedencia o improcedencia, o para ampliar, en su caso, los motivos de relación con el asunto que les interesa.En el caso concreto, los gestionantes Mario André s Boza Loría y Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura se apersonaron, respectivamente, los dí as 06 y 08 de marzo de 2019 y solicitaron se les tuviera como coadyuvantes activos, por ostentar ambos un interés legítimo, en tanto alegan que la normativa impugnada infringe el artículo 50 constitucional. Mientras que Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera, en su condició n de Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, se apersonó el 11 de marzo de 2019 y solicitó se le tuviera como coadyuvante pasivo, por ostentar un interés legítimo, como mini stro rector del sector agropecuario. En consecuencia y siendo qu e la primera publicación del aviso se dio el 19 de febrero de 2019, lo procedente es tener a los anteriores gestionantes como coadyuvantes dentro de este asunto. Se advierte a los interesados que -en cuanto a los efectos de la coadyuvancia-, al no ser el coadyuvante parte prin cipal del proceso, no resultaran directamente perjudicados o beneficiados por la sentencia, es decir, la eficacia de la sentencia no alcanza al coadyuvante de manera direc ta e inmediata, ni le afecta cosa juzgada, no le alcanzan, tampoco, los efectos inmediatos de ejecució n de la sentencia, pues a través de la coadyuvancia no se podrá obligar a la autoridad jurisdiccional a dictar una resolución a su favor, por no haber sido parte principal en el proceso.Lo que sí puede afectarle, pero no por su condició n de coadyuvante, sino como a cualquiera, es el efecto erga omnes del pronunciamiento. La sentencia en materia constitucional, no beneficia particularmente a nadie, ni siquiera al actor; es en el juicio previo donde esto puede ser reconocido. Respecto de la solicitud de coadyuvancia formulada por Juan Carlos Peralta, quien indicó acudir en representación de la Asociación para el Bienest ar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantón de San José, la misma debe ser rechazada, dado que, pese a la prevención que le fue efectuada, por medio de resolució n de las 10:03 horas de 14 de marzo de 2019, para que aportara la respectiva certificación de personería jurídica en que se acreditara su co ndición de representante de dicha entidad –bajo bajo apercibimie nto de denegarle el trámite a su petición, en caso de incumplimiento-, lo cierto es que el gestionante no aportó la documentación prevenida.Se tienen por contestadas las audiencias conferidas al Procurador General de la República, al presidente de la Asamblea Legislati va, al Minist ro de Ambiente y Energía y al gerente general del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, en la resolución de las 11:05 horas de 23 de enero de 2019. Listos los autos, se turna esta acción de inconstitucionalidad al Magistrado P aul Rueda Leal, a quien por turno corresponde el estudio de fondo de la misma”.
5. 17Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 18:52 horas de 3 de mayo de 2019, se apersonan los accionantes. Indican que formulan las siguientes consideraciones: “OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LA CONTESTACIÓN DE LA PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA (PGR) La Procuraduría General de la República refuerza nuestro argumento, que además ha sido desa rrollado en extenso a través de la jurisprudencia de la Sala, de que existe un principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, según el cual este tipo de espacios protegidos no pueden disminuirse o modificarse si no se cumplen los requisitos fijados al efecto. Lo anterior tiene una clara relació n con los pri ncipios de no regresión en materia ambiental, de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, preventivo y precautorio . Esos requisitos son los siguientes: 1- Que se haga mediante una ley; 2- Que de previo a la aprobació n de la ley se cuente con estudios técnicos suficientes que justifiquen la medida; y 3- Que se dé una compensación del área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño y características.Sabemos que la reducció n del área de la RESERVA BIOLÓGICA Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) se realizó por ley, cumpliendo de esa mane ra con el requisito nú mero 1. Esa ley es precisamente la que estamos impugnando mediante esta acción de inconstitucionalidad. Como nota al margen, resaltamos en mayú scula las palabras “reserva biológica” para llamar la atención en el senti do de que no es cualquie r tipo de á rea silvestre protegida. Estamos hablando de una (sic) área que tiene un nivel de protección comparable con la de un parque nacional, que es de protección absoluta, y ademá s, en el caso de la RBLB, estamos hablando de una área que tiene una protecció n internacional al formar parte del Humedal RAMSAR de Palo Verde. En relación con los otros 2 requisitos, se deben contestar las siguientes preguntas: ¿Cuenta con estudios técnicos suficientes que justifique la medida? ¿Cumple el Estudio elaborado por la OET, cuyos términos de referencia fueron fijados por el SENARA, con los criterios establecidos por la Sala Constitucional?¿Demues tra ese Estudio, mediante un análisis científico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la desafec tación de esas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB en el ambiente? ¿Plantea recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente? ¿Demuestra có mo la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas implica un de sarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligr o la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades? ¿Cumple con el requisito de que se compense el área suprimida de la RBLB con otra de igual tamaño y cara cterísticas? Sobre esas preguntas, la Procuraduría señala que no puede valorar técnicamente el estudio de la OET, ni la forma en que se definió la propuesta final de compensació n del área desafectada de la RBLB. Sin embargo, es clara la Procuradurí a al indicar que en caso de determinarse que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación del á rea silvestre protegida sean insuficientes técnicamente, la ley impugnada resultaría inconstitucional por violació n al principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental.Pero también señala la PGR que aunque se constate la sufic iencia del estudio de la OET y de la propuesta final de compensación, debe advertirse que ese estudio técnico ú nicamente justificaría la validez de la compensación practicada, y, como tal, no es un estudio técnico que justifique directamente la decisión de desafectar una parte de la RBLB. La Procuraduría es contundente en este tema, cuando señala que … “atendiendo a la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, el estudio que ex ige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para justificar la reducció n de un área silvestre protegida debería ser un estudio que determine la necesidad y conveniencia de adoptar ese tipo de medida.”(el su brayado y resaltado no es del original). En este caso, un estudio en ese sentido, serí a aquel que fundamente técnicamente la necesidad y conveniencia de desafectar parte de la RBLB. Es decir, un estudio que determine que la única alternativa para desarrollar el proyecto PAACUME y el embalse Río Piedras, es desafectando parte de la Reserva Biológica.Dicho sea de paso, dicho estudio no se ha realizado. Señala la Procuraduría, que si no se constata la necesidad y conveniencia de desafectar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión. En esa dirección es muy relevante la mención que hace la PGR a lo señalado por el el (sic) Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque (CORACAT), el cual, a l referirse al estud io de la OET, indicó que "esta instancia considera que aún no se ha demostrado que existan otras alternativas del proyecto PAACUME, sin que necesariamente se tenga que desafectar un área de la actual RBLB. Si efectivamente estas alternativas no son viables, será necesario valorar la tercera medida que es la compensación." (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo).Y, ese mismo Consejo, después de aprobado el proyecto de ley en segundo debate, indicó que " es necesario que existan los estudios técnicos ambientales, jurí dicos y financieros suficientes que justifiquen la selección adecuada tanto del á rea a desafectar, como de las área s que servirían como compensación. Debe verificarse la existencia de estos est udios dentro del expediente de este proyecto de ley, ya que a la fecha este Consejo no cuenta con tal información ." (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644). (El resaltado no es del origi nal) Por otro lado, la PGR indica que algunos de los funcionarios que comparecieron a las sesiones de la Comisión Legislativa que tramitó el proyecto (a travé s del trámite acelerado que se le dio a ese proyecto mediante un procedimiento establecido en una moción ví a artículo 208 bis de l Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa) indicaron que técnicamente el proyecto PAACUME no podía desarrollarse sin desafectar e inundar parte de la RBLB.Pero por otro lado, en el documento denominado "Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal" (Folios 622-726), ante una de las preguntas formuladas por uno de los participantes, se indicó que "si no se logran obtener las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, el proyecto c ambia totalmente, ya que sin estas 113 hectá reas de la RBLB las condiciones de la presa, la cantidad de agua a embalsar, el costo del proyecto y el diseño tendría que cambiar totalmente . " (Folio 661). (Resaltado no es del original). Aquí aplica aquello de que a confesión de parte, r elevo de pruebas. De lo dicho por funcionarios de SENARA puede concluirse entonces que el proyecto PAACUME, tal y como está concebido actualmente, no podría realizarse si no se inundan 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, ya que el proyecto tendrí a que cambiar. “Sin estas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB las condiciones de la presa, la cantidad de agua a embalsar, el costo del proyecto y el diseño tendría que cambiar totalmente” .¿ QUÉ SIGNIFICA ESO? ¡QUE HAY OTRAS OPCIONES! Por ejemplo, podría co nstruirse UN EMBALSE MÁS PEQUEÑO, priorizando el acceso AL AGUA POTABLE (que dicho sea de paso, en el proyecto PAACUME corresponde al 10% del caudal de agua que se espera desviar hacia el margen derecha del rí o Tempisque); combinado con CIERTAS PERFORACIONES DE MANTOS ACUÍ FEROS (como el del Acueducto de NIMBOYORES, el cual está pronto a iniciar operaciones abasteciendo con 188 litros por segundo a más de 50.000 personas en el cantón de Santa Cruz, o el Acueducto de SARDINAL-EL COCO- OCOTAL, que entró en operaciones recientemente en el c antón de Carrillo, para suministrar agua potable a 30.000 personas); E INCLUSO PERMITIR LA DESALINIZACIÓN DE AGUA DEL MAR PARA I RRIGACIÓN EN PROYECTOS TURÍSTICOS (como ya se está haciendo en el desarrollo turístico de Playa Co nchal con el aval del Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), que supuestamente sería uno de los usos del agua del proyecto PAACUME.La PGR es muy clara en sus conclusiones. Dice así: “En caso de determinarse que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensació n de la RBLB son insuficientes técnicamente, la ley impugnada resultaría inconstitucional por violación a los principios de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, precautorio, preventivo y de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, pues no se estaría garantizando que la variación de los lí mites aprobada no afecta la integridad de la RBLB y no se estaría mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectació n de una parte de dicha Reserva Biológica. Tambié n, ello resultarí a contrario a la obligación que establece el artículo 3 de la Convención RAMSAR de favorecer la conservación de las zonas húmedas inscritas en la lista de humedales de importancia internacional.” También señ ala la PGR que debe “… valorarse si existe sustento técnico s uficiente para justificar la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB para ser utilizada en la ejecución del proyecto PAACUME.Si no se constata ese fundamento, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión, y por no comprobarse el motivo de urgente interés nacional al que la Convención RAMSAR sujeta la posibilidad de modificar el área de los sitios d e importancia intern acional.” Por otro lado, también recomienda la PGR que se requiera el criterio del Instituto Geográfico Nacional en cuanto a si la Ley impugnada consideró las imprecisiones hechas sobre las coordenadas y la localización geográfica y si esas imprecisiones tienen a lguna consecuencia en la delimitación adecuada del área desafectada y de las á reas que se incluyen en la Reserva y que deben ser expropiadas, pues ello podría impedir que se materialice la compensación propuesta. Pero especial énfasis deseamos hacer a la observació n que hace la PGR para el caso en que el proyecto PAACUME no sea desarrollado, al menos, no en los términos que está planteado actualmente.Si por alguna razón el proyecto no es desarrollado y tampoco se ejecutan las expropiaciones necesarias para efectuar la compensación propuesta, la Ley 9610 habría desafectado la RBLB en vano, sin existir una justificación válida y sin haber compensado y mitigado los efectos generados por esa disminución. Ello constituiría una violació n al principio de ir reductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, precautorio, preventivo y de no regresió n, e, incluso, una violación a la Convención RAMSAR al no existir un motivo de urgente necesidad para justificar la disminución del área de un o de los sitios de importancia internacional. Lo anterior, a menos que se interprete que la desafectació n que autoriza surtirá efectos hasta el momento en que el proyecto se ejecute y se expropien los terrenos necesarios para que opere la compensació n prop uesta. Sin embargo, esa interpretación no se desprende de la lectura de la ley aprobada, ni de la exposición de motivos del proyecto que culminó con dicha ley.OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LA COADYUVANCIA DE JORGE LOBO SEGURA Si bien es cierto, la PGR señaló que no puede valorar técnicamente el estudio de la OET, ni la forma en que se definió la propuesta final de compensación del área desafectada de la RBLB, el coadyuvante Jorge Lobo Segura, quien es un biólogo con una gran trayectoria en su campo profesional y profesor de la Facultad de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, sí hizo una valoración técnica del estudio y concluyó que la respuesta es NO a todas las preguntas mencionadas en el apartado anterior sobre si se cuenta con estudios técnicos suficientes para justificar esa desaf ectación de 113 hectáreas de la RBLB. El estudio que consta en el expediente legislativo, denominado "Establecimiento de la Línea base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas d e Barbudal y Finca Adyacente", el cual fue realizad o por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET), tuvo como objetivo determinar las caracterí sticas biológicas y geofísicas del á rea de la RBLB que sería sustituida por el área del embalse y evaluar lo s componentes de biodiversidad en UNA FINCA adyacente perteneciente a l a socie dad ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., escogida por SENARA sin ningún criterio té cnico, con el fin de valorar su potencial para compensar el área afectada de la RBLB.El estudio no e ra para buscar en los terrenos colindantes con la RBLB un área para compensar con car acterísticas ambientales lo más parecidas al área a inundar. Es decir, dicho estudio estuvo destinado a determinar la posibilidad de compensar el área de la RBLB que sería desafe ctada con una finca en particular, que es sobre la que se hicieron los estudio s, que dicho sea de paso los estudios se realizaron sobre un área de 114 hectáreas de esa finca que mide más de 700 hectáreas. S ENARA fue la que determinó que debía hacers e el estudio sobre esa parte de la finca de ASETREK. El estudio de la OET NO realizó un análisis cientí fico e individualizado del grado de impacto en el ambiente de la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de esa Reserva Biológica. El estudio de la OET NO realizó un estudio de los terrenos adyacentes a la RBLB para determinar cuá l terreno es el que reunía las mejores condiciones para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarían de la Reserva Biológica.El estudio de la OET NO plantea recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente. El e studio de la OET NO demuestra có mo la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades. Ese estudio de la OET finalmente determinó que para compensar el área de 113 hectáreas desafectadas de la RBLB debían incluirse dentro de la Reserva Biológica 444 hectáreas de la finca ASETREK, sin realizar el estudio de más de 300 hectáreas de esa finca ya que se concentró el estudio en 114 hectá reas. Menciona además el estudio de la OET que como compensació n deberían incorporarse también las 86 hectá reas de la finca Brindis de Amor, sin hacer un estudio como correspond e sobre las caracterí sticas de esa finca, y además, utilizar el embalse Río Pi edras como parte de la compensación, de igual manera, sin ningún estudio.También se incorpora como compensación al área de la RBLB una porción de la finca de SP Hacienda Ciruelas, sobr e la cual NO se hizo ningún estudio. Ese Estudio ta mpoco cumple con el requisito de que se compense el área suprimida de la RBLB con otra de igual tamaño y características. Sobre este tema, el coadyuvante Jorge Lobo Segura, biólogo experto en esa materia, deja claro que: “el informe o estudio de la OET es insuficiente, parcial e incorpora un principio de compensación, supuestamente cuantitativo, donde modificando el tamañ o de un área de compensación se puede igualar el área perdida dentro un área protegida. Esto es equivocado, ya que las poblaciones o espec ies afectadas por la pérdida de un área protegida no necesariamente aparecerán, en su abundancia original en un área de compensación, aunque se aumente muchas veces su área, al no existir en el área de compensación los hábitats y recursos requeridos por esta especie, o los nú cleos poblacionales o las fuentes para la migración de poblaciones que garanticen su repoblamiento.Diferencias drá sticas en la calidad del hábitat, especialmente en el grado de alterac ión humana de los ecosistemas, como las que se detectaron entre Lomas de Barbudal y la finca ASETREK, no se equilibran con el aumento del área de esta última. Esta inflación del área para compensar menos biodiversidad no va a resultar en que las especies a fectadas van a restaurarse en el área de compensación, especialmente si en el área de compensación tenemos hábitats muy diferentes al área afectada dentro del Parque Nacional o Reserva Bioló gica. En el área que será inundada de Lomas de Barbudal hay bosques riparios, y posiblemente otros hábitats no cua ntificados por el estudio, que no están representados en ASETREK.” Luego de todas las razones expuestas demostrando que el estudio té cnico que se utilizó para justificar la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB NO realizó un análisis cientí fico e individualizado del grado de impacto en el ambiente de la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de esa Reserva Biológica; NO realizó un estudio de los terrenos adyacentes a la RBLB para determinar cuál ter reno es el que reunía las mejores condiciones para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarían de la Reserva Bioló gica; NO plantea recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente; NO demuestra cómo la desafectación de las 113 hectárea s implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner e n peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades; NO cumple con el requisito de que se compense el á rea suprimida de la RBLB con otra de igual tamañ o y características.Sería un precedente p reocupante que la Asamblea Legislativa, la SETENA y la Sala Constitucional consideraran este estudio como válido. Si eso fuera así, podrí a abrirse un porti llo, más bien un portón, que llevaría a propiciar la afectación de los límites de más á reas protegidas, fundamentados en la compensació n con fincas privadas de área mayor, pero con ecosistemas mucho más alterados de los protegidos. La contabilidad ecosisté mica y el método Hábitat por Hectárea, avalarían e ste tipo de compensaciones. Como conclusión, es evi dente que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensació n son insuficientes y tienen falencias técnicas, por lo que la ley impugnada claramente violentaría el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, pues no se estaría garantizando que la variació n de los límites aprobada no afecta la integridad de la RBLB y no se estarí a mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectación de una parte de dich a Reserva Biológica.Consecuentemente, se violentaría el p rincipio precautorio , principio preventivo y no existiría respaldo técnico de que la medida legislativa adoptada no afecta el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecoló gicamente equilibrado. Como bien señal a el coadyuvante Jorge Lobo Segura, “…no hay estudios que se hayan presentado en el e xpediente legislativo contemplando otras opciones como podría ser la de terminar la construcción de los canales de riego pendientes para aprovechar el agua del embalse del Arenal, ni tampoco estudios sobre la capacidad hí drica de los mantos acuíferos dispo nibles para explotación en los cantones de Nicoya, Santa Cruz y Carrillo. Dicho sea de paso, se acaba de inaugurar el acueducto Sardinal-El Coco-Ocotal, con una inversión de aproximadamente $3 millones para dotar de agua potable a casi 30.000 personas mediante la perforación para acceder a mantos acuíferos subterráneos.Muchísimo menos dinero que los $500 millones de dólares proyectados para el desarrollo del proyecto PAACUME contemplando la construcción de una represa para embalsar agua y luego cana lizarla mediante 350 kilómetros de canales.” Mientras ese acueducto se habilitó en el cantó n de Carrillo recientemente, está a punto de entrar en operaciones otro acueducto, el d e Nimboyores, en el cantón de Santa Cruz, con una capac idad de 188 litros por segundo para abastecer de agua potable a 50.000 personas. Eso significa que entre los dos acueductos se está suministrando agua potable a 80.000 personas, que es casi la mitad de las personas que en un plazo de 50 años tendrían acceso a agua potable a trav és del megaproyecto de PAACUME, y construidos ya por una fracción de los $500 millones de dólares que en teoría costaría el proyecto de PAACUME. OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LA COADYUVANCIA DE MARIO ANDRÉS BOZA LORÍA En su coadyuvancia, el señor Mario André s Boza Loría in cluye como anexo a sus argumentos, un resumen del comunicado de prensa del Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de Costa Rica, mediante el cual señalan que se ha pro movido como principal objetivo del proyecto el garantizar el agua para las com unidades de Guanacaste.Sin embargo, de acuerdo con el proyecto mismo, sólo un 10% de la producción de agua tendrá ese fin. Este punto es muy relevante ya que en las argumentaciones del SENARA y especialmente en las del SINAC del MINAE, se habla de dos fines públ icos de igual valor, como lo son la conservación y protección ambiental de la RBLB por un lado, y el acceso al agua potable por otro. Del análisis de toda la documentación que re spalda el proyecto PAACUME se concluye que de los 20 metros cúbicos por segundo que se trasegarían para la margen derecha del río Tempisque para llevar agua a los cantones de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya, ÚNICAMENTE EL 10 %, SEAN 2 METROS CÚ BICOS POR SEGUNDO SON PARA CONSUMO HUMANO DE AGUA POTABLE. Por ot ro lado, en dicho comunicado se indica que se ha publicitado mucho que el PAACUME favorecerá al turismo, sin embargo sólo un 7.5% de la cantidad de agua se destina para tal fin.Pero, debe hacerse una precisió n sobre el uso de esa agua, ya que esa agua es para IRRIGACIÓ N de propiedades vinculadas al turismo, no para el consumo humano que estarí a contemplado dentro del 10% mencionado en el párrafo anterior. Eso significa que el 82.5% de la producción de agua del proyecto PAACUME se destinará a riego para agr icultura, especialmente de monocultivos de los grandes productores. El Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de Costa Rica señala que el proyecto de PAACUME “lo venden” como un proyecto salvador para Guanacaste por el embalse que se haría dentro de la Reserva Biológica, pero no se señala que el agua ya está embalsada en el Lago Arenal , el reservorio más grande del país, que tiene ese como uno de sus propósitos, que ya surte de agua a la margen izquierda de la cuenca del Río Tempisque y nada impide que surta de agua al res to de la provincia guanacasteca.¿Por qué no se usa directamente? Eso significaría cambiar el diseño del proyecto de PAACUME como bien reconocen los mismos funcionarios de SENARA , en el sentido de que si no pueden disponer de las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB para inu ndarlas, deberían entonces cambiar el proyecto para embalsar una menor cantidad de agua y complementar con otras medidas. Como v emos, sí es posible llevar agua potable a la margen derecha del Tempisque sin necesidad de cercena rle 113 hectáreas de gran valor ecoló gico a la RBLB. Esas razones compartidas por el coadyuvante Mario Boza apuntalan aún más las razones que hemos esgrimido para que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de la ley #9610. OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LA RESPUESTA DE SENARA Para entender los alcances de la respuesta de SENARA a nuestra acció n de inconstitucionalidad, es vital entender que el proyecto PAACUME ha sido desarro llado conceptualmente por esa institución autónoma desde hace muchos años.Es como “ un hijo” de SENAR A muy querido, y como sucede a veces con padres de familia cuando sus hijos son criticados o cuestionados, estos realizan la defensa de sus hijos en forma fanática y no objetiva. Vamos por partes: Quiere hacer ver el SENARA que sin el proyecto de PAACUME, tal y como ellos lo concibieron, no habrá habla potable para los cantones de Nicoya, Santa Cruz y Carrillo. Esto es falso y descontextualizado con la realidad. Cuando SENARA concibió el proyecto de PAACUME había problemas de abastecimiento de agua potable en Carrillo y Santa Cruz, PERO, dichos problemas ya se resolvieron mediante acueductos que tardó muchos años el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA) de construir. Nos referimos a los acueductos de SARDINAL- EL COCO- OCOTAL en el cantón de Carrillo, y el de NIMBOYORES en el cantón de Santa Cruz. Entre ambos acueductos se abastecerá de agua potable a 80.000 personas, aparte de las 140.000 personas que ya reciben agua potable por medi o de ASADAS.Eso cubre la totalidad de la población de esos cantones. Por otro lado, señ ala SENARA, en la página 8 de su contestación, que no existe posibilidad de reubicar o disminuir el volumen del embalse sin afectar significativamente el alcance del PAACUME. ¿ Qué quiere decir esto? Que sí existe otr as formas de llevar agua a la margen derecha del río Tempisque, pero deberí a replantearse el proyecto. De hecho, una de las justificaciones del PAACUME más efectistas era el tema del acceso al agua potable de los habitantes de los cantones de Santa Cruz, Nicoya y Carrillo. Incluso en la pá gina 9 de su respuesta señalan con dramatismo que el PAACUME servirá para llevar agua a SARDINAL de Carrillo, demostrando de esta forma los personeros de SENARA que están desactualizados sobre ese tema, ya que, como hemos señalado en el párrafo anterio r, esa escasez de agua fue resuelta por el ICAA. La otra justificación, que es el agua para irrigación de proyectos turí sticos costeros, también ya está siendo resuelta por el IC AA, el cual autorizó a uno de esos proyectos turísticos a utilizar agua del ma r desalinizá ndola.Como se puede apreciar, las necesidades han cambiado. No se vale entonces hacer creer a la Sala Constitucional y a la opinió n pública que estamos ante dos fines pú blicos de igual rango (acceso al agua potable y la protección del ambiente a travé s de una Reserva Biológica única en el país que incluso tiene protección internacional). PAACUME no trata entonces de ag ua potable. Ya ese tema, que de todas maneras representa el 10% del total del agua de PAACUME, fue resuelto por el ICAA. Entonces todo se reduce a afectar la RBLB para permitir desarrollar ese proyecto para irrigar terrenos de desarrollos turí sticos (que podrían irrigarse mediante desalinización del agua del mar), y la utilizació n de agua para proyecto s agrícolas. SENARA sostiene q ue la ley impugnada no viola el artículo 7 de la Constitució n Polí tica ni la Convención de RAMSAR. Señala que lejos de reducir el área del humedal de Palo Verde más bien se amplía con los lí mites aumentados de la RBLB y las 850 hectá reas del Embalse.Pero, ¿qué sucederí a si el proyecto PAACUME no se realiza por diferentes circunstancias, como por ejemplo que los diputados no aprueb en el empréstito de $500 millones, o que SETENA no apruebe el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, al cual, dicho sea de paso dicha entidad le hizo casi 100 observaciones muy serias? En el caso de que no se hiciera el proyecto de PAACUME, y no se materializare la expropiación de los terrenos de compensació n, se estaría ante una reducción del área de la RBLB en 1 13 hectáreas, violándose claramente el artículo 7 de la Constitución y la Convención RAMSAR, como bien lo señala la PGR, además de las otras violaciones al artí culo 50 de la Constitución y los principios d e irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, precautorio, preventivo y de no regresión en materia ambiental. En la página 12 de su respuesta, SENARA indica que el estudio para el Establecimiento de la línea de Base de Biodiversidad para la RBLB y finca adyacente sí se realizó, contrario a lo que nosotros indicamos en nuest ra acción de inconstitucionalidad.SE EQUIVOCA NUEVAMENTE SENARA, ya que una buena parte de nuestra argumentación en la acción de inconstitucionalidad es precisamente sobre ese estudio y sus falencias. En relació n con la consulta a las comunidades, de acuerdo a lo dispuesto por el artículo 72 del Reglamento de la Ley de Biodiversidad, ÚNICAMENTE se consultó a 51 personas. Si se toma en cuenta la cantidad de personas que habitan en esas comunidades, esa consulta resulta irrisoria. En la pá gina 20 de la respuesta de SENARA hay una confesión de esa entidad en el sentido de que no hubo criterios té cnicos para definir la cantidad de hectáreas que finalmente se incorporaron de la finca ASETREK. El estudio de la OET recomendó incorpora r 332 hectáreas y SENARA decidió , sin criterio técnico , incorporar 444 hectáreas de ASETREK. Adicionalmente se indica que la incorporació n a la propuesta de c ompensación de las fincas Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas, se realizó por recomendación del señor Manrique Montes Obando, Administrador de Lomas de Barbudal, o sea, sin criterio técnico.Por otro lado, en la página 21 se señ ala que se incorpora como humedal las 850 hectáreas de espejo de agua del Embalse, y nuevamente sin criterio técnico. Si no hubo criterio técnico en esos casos, tampoco hubo estudio para determinar si no había otra opción para llevar agua a la margen derecha del río Tempisque. Tal es la inexistencia de ese tipo de estudio, que al respecto, el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservació n Tempisque, al referirse al estudio de la OET, indicó que "esta instancia considera que aún no se ha demostrado que existan otras alternativas del proyect o PAACUME, sin que necesariamente se tenga que desafectarse un á rea de la actual RBLB. Si efectivamente estas alternativa s no son viables, será necesario valorar la tercera medida que es la compensació n." (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo). Ese pá rrafo lo que significa es que no se ha demostrado que la Ú NICA forma de realizar el proyecto PAACUME es mediante la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB para inundarlas.Existen otras opciones de llevar agua a la cuenca media del rí o Tempis que y comunidades costeras que no se han valorado adecuadamente y que l leven a la conclusión de que la construcción del Embalse de Río Piedras es la Ú NICA opció n. Y, ese mismo Consejo, después de aprobado el proyecto de ley en segundo debate , indicó que "e s necesario que existan los estudios técnicos ambientales, jurídicos y financieros suficientes que justifiquen la selección adecuada tanto del área a desafectar, como de las áreas que servirían como compensació n. Debe verificarse la existencia de estos estudios dentro del expediente de este proyecto de ley, ya que a la fecha este Consejo no cuenta con tal información." (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644). (Subrayado no es del original). Por otro lado, en el documento denominado "Consulta Obligatoria a las Comun idades Locales.Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Bioló gica Lomas Barbudal" (Folios 622-726), ante una de las preguntas formuladas por uno de los part icipantes, se indicó que "si no se logran obtener las 113 hectá reas de la RBLB, el proyecto cambia totalmente, ya que sin estas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB las condiciones de la presa, la cantidad de agua a embalsar, el costo del proyecto y el diseñ o tendría que cambiar totalmente." (Folio 661). ¿Qué significa eso? Que sí es posible llevar agua a la cuenc a media del río Tempisque y a comunidades costeras, pero el diseño del proyecto PAACUME tendría que cambiar. Ese estudio es el que falta, lo que hace que la l ey 9610 sea inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivació n a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión en materia ambiental. Por otro lado, en relación con el dinero que se requiere para pagar las tierras privadas con las cuales se pretende compensar las 113 hectáreas desafectadas de la RBLB, nuevamente SENARA nos vuelve a dar la razó n, al reconocer en la página 30 de su escrito de contestación que al día de hoy no se cuenta con los avalúos respectivos para determinar el monto exacto a cancelar.SENARA realizó una estimación global, sin criterio té cnico, y con base en esa estimación realizó el presupuesto extraordinario número 3, aprobado mediante el oficio DFOE-AE-0602 fechado 20 de diciembre del 2018 por la Contraloría General de la Repúbli ca, e incorporado al presupuesto de SENARA de este año. Obsérvese que dicho monto (2.851 millones de colones) obedece a una estimación que hizo SENARA sin ningún criterio técnico, y que dicha partida presupuestaria era inexistente cuando se aprobó el proyecto de ley. En relación con la incorporación de las fincas denominadas BRINDIS DE AMOR y HACIENDA CIRUELAS, así como en la escogencia de la finca ASETREK para hacer la compensación de las 113 hectáreas desafectadas de la RBLB, SENARA falta a la verdad reit eradamente en su escrito de contestación. En la página 31 menciona que se hizo un estudio sobre las fincas BRINDIS DE AMOR Y HACIENDA CIRUELAS lo que es falso.Como se demostró en la acción que interpusimos y luego enfatizó el coadyuvante Jorge Lobo Segura, sobre la finca de Brindis se hizo una mención superficial en el estud io de la OET (en ese estudio de casi 300 páginas le dedica 6 pá ginas que incluyen fotografías a esa finca), reconociendo ese estudio y también el CORACAT que habría que hacer un estudio a profundidad sobre esa propiedad. En el oficio SINAC-CORACAT- SE-041, aportado como prueba por el SENARA, en la página 58 de su contestación a esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, se indica claramente que “Respecto a la finca Brindis de Amor, también este Consejo estima que los estudios no se realizaron con la misma profundidad de análisis con respecto al estudio inicial, ni en el tiempo suficiente que sustente técnicamente la calidad de los componentes ab ordados desde el inicio de la investigación. Es necesario que se profundice más los estudios en esta propiedad o cualquier otra que se considere como propuesta de compensación, para que este Consejo pueda emitir un criterio fundamentado.” Lo señalado por el CORACAT ratifica nuestro argumento de que no se hizo un estudio serio y objetivo sobre la propiedad de Brindis de Amor.Es má s, la escogencia que hace el SENARA de esa propiedad, sin criterio té cnico, tambié n incumple varios de los requisitos de los parámetros a tomar en cuenta para definir las áreas de compensación, los cuales se mencionan en la pá gina 67 de su respuesta. Hay un o de ellos que se incumple en forma grosera, es el número 7, que indica que un parámetro fundamental es “Uniformizar el lindero de la propiedad, para que el área de compensación permita el adecuado manejo por parte de la administració n del SINAC en la RBLB.” Pues bien, en el croquis que aparece en la página 71 de su escrito de contestación pueden apreciar los señores magistrados, que la finca de Brindis de Amor NO CUMPLE CON ESE PARÁMETRO. Esa finca es la que se indica en la parte superior del croquis, con una parte inclusive totalmente aislada de la RBLB, alargando inclusive dicha reserva en lugar de ayudar a darle una forma má s circular, como señala ese documento que aportan como prueba.Es más, en la página 69 del escrito de contestació n de SENARA, en el ú ltimo pá rrafo, parece estar parte de la respuesta del por qué SENARA escogió esa propiedad. Dice así: “… también debe considerarse que esta finca cuenta con una serie de infraestructuras que pueden ser utilizadas por la admin istración de la RBLB (S INAC) como un sitio de control para la misma.” El caso de la incorporación de la propiedad de HACIENDA CIRUELAS es aún más dramático. E l estudio de la OET hace una mención de esa finca en 3 renglones. Por otro lado, en la página 32 de su respuesta SENARA indica q ue se hizo análisis de campo de esa finca, lo cual es totalmente falso. Eso lo reitera SENARA en la página 70. ¿Habí a otras propiedades adyacentes a la RBLB que pudieron haber sido consideradas para compensación? La respuesta es sí. Por ahí debió haber ini ciado SENARA a realizar un estudio técnico para identificar cuáles serí an esas propiedades que fueran lo más parecidas en cuanto a las caracterí sticas biológicas con las 113 hectá reas que se desafectarían de la RBLB.En nuestra acción de inconstitucionalid ad aportamos la información sobre varias de esas propiedades. Inclusive SENARA lo reconoce al aportar el oficio SINAC-CORACAT- S E-041 en su escrito de contestación, donde puede o bservarse en la página 47 del escrito de SENARA, la consignación que se hace de las manifestaciones del señor Wilfrá n Murillo, quien indicó que “ se podría aprovechar para la redefinición de los límites que tiene Lomas, con respecto a otro terreno que no es ASETREK, ni Brindis de Amor. Sería la oportunidad para agregar esos terrenos que el INDER ha trasladado al SINAC.” Ese tema es relevante, ya que como indicáramos en nuestra acción de inconstitucionalidad, se pudo haber considerado compensar el á rea a inundar mediante el cambio de categoría de terrenos de entidades pú blicas adyacentes a la RBLB, incorporándolos dentro de los límites de la Reserva Biológica. Es muy probable que esos terrenos tuvieran una mejor condición ecológica que los terrenos particulare s que se ha insistido en incorporar a la RBLB, sin tener que desembolsa r dinero para las expropiaciones que se pretende realizar.Después de todo lo mencionado sobre las propiedades que se incorporan como c ompensación de la desafectación de las 113 hectáre as de la RBLB, debe quedar claro que: 1- La finc a ASETREK fue previamente seleccionada por SENARA. No hubo ningún criterio técnico que señalara que esa era la propiedad más idó nea. A partir de ahí hay un grave error en la génesis del estudio que posteriormente elaboró la OET. 2- El estudio de la OET se hizo sobre una porción de tierra de la finca ASETREK de un poco más de 100 hectá reas. No sobre las 332 hectáreas que como mínimo recomendó la OET adquirir para compensar. 3- La incorporación de la finc a de Brindis de Amor se hizo sin haber realizado ningún estudio, y más bien parece motivado el SENARA por echar mano de las obras de infraestructura que existen en dicha finca. 4- La incorporación de la finca de Hacienda Ciruelas también se hizo sin que se hubiere realizado ningún estudio ni visita de campo. 5- No se hizo un estudio para determinar cuáles propiedades adyacentes a la RBLB eran las má s idóneas para la compensación por las características ecosistémicas de esas propiedades.Por otro lado, convi ene recordar lo que la PGR ha señalado en relación con el Estudio de la OET. Para la PGR, aunque se constate la suficiencia del estudio de la OET y de la propuesta final de compensación, debe advertirse que ese es tudio té cnico únicamente justificaría la validez de la compensació n practicada, y, como tal, no es un estudio técnico que justifique directamente la decisión de desafectar una parte de la RBLB. La Procuraduría es contundente en este tema, cuando señala que … “atendiendo a la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, el estudio que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para justificar la reducción de un á rea silvestre protegida debería ser un estudio que determine la necesidad y conveniencia de adoptar ese tipo de medida. ”(el subrayado y r esaltado no es del original). En este caso, un estudio en ese sentido, sería aquel que fundamente técnicamente la necesidad y conveniencia de desafectar parte de la RBLB.Es decir, un estudio que determine que la única alternativa para desarrollar el proyecto PAACUME y el embalse Río Piedras, es desafectando parte de la Reserva Biológica. Dicho sea de paso, dicho estudio no se ha realizado. Señala la Procuraduría, que si no se constata la necesidad y conveniencia de desafectar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión. OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LA RESPUESTA DEL MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA (MINAE) El ministro del MINAE dedica las primeras páginas de su contestación a describir e (sic) proyecto PAACUME, y ya en la página 6 hace su primera aseveración que no es cierta. Indica que SENARA, “a través de mú ltiples estudios ha demostrado que esta extensió n de embalse, incluida la zona dentro de la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal (113 hectáreas), es la única vía para hacerlo con el fin de atender la demanda hídrica en el á mbito del proyecto de forma sostenible.” ESTO NO ES CIERTO.El mismo Consejo Regio nal del Área de Conservación Tempisque (CORACAT), vinculado al Sistema de Áreas de Co nservación del MINAE se encarga de desmentir lo señalado por el ministro. No hay tales mú ltiples estudios. Tal es la inexistencia de esos estudios, que al respecto, el CORACAT, a l referirse al estudio de la OET, indicó que "es ta instancia considera que aún no se ha demostrado que existan otras alternativas del proyecto PAACUME, sin que necesariamente se tenga que desafectarse un área de la actual RBLB. Si efectivamente estas alternativas no son viables, será necesario valorar la tercera medida que es la compensación." (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo). Ese pá rrafo lo que significa es que no se ha demostrado que la ÚNICA forma de realizar el proyecto PAACUME es mediante la desafectación de las 113 hectá reas de la RBLB para inundarlas.Existen otras opciones de llevar agua a la cuenca media del río Tempisque y comunidades costeras que no se han valorado adecuada mente y que lleven a la conclusión de que la construcción del Embalse de Rí o Piedras es la Ú NICA opción. Por otro lado, en el documento denominado "Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal" (Folios 622-726), ante una de las preguntas formuladas por uno de los participantes, se indicó que "si no se logran obtener las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, el proyecto cambia totalmente, ya que sin estas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB las condiciones de la presa, la cantidad de agua a embalsar, el costo del proyecto y el diseño tend ría que cambiar totalmente." (Folio 661). ¿Qué significa eso? Que sí es posible llevar agua a la cuenca media del río Tempisque y a comunidades costeras, pero el diseño del proyecto PAACUME tendría que cambiar.Ese estudio es el que fal ta, lo que hace que la ley 9610 sea inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivació n a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión en materia ambiental. En relación con la inconstitucionalidad alegada por nosotros vincula da a la violación del artículo 7 de la Constitución Política y la Convención RAMSAR, el MINAE señ ala que dicha violació n no se da porque, en parte, se le agregarán al humedal con protección y categoría mundial de Palo Verde, las 850 hectá reas de espejo de agua del embalse de Río Piedras. Nos extraña que una aseveración como esa provenga del MINAE, el cual tiene claro cuáles son las características de un humedal. Jamá s, un e mbalse donde el agua de este se canalizará a través de 350 kilómetros de canales hasta la margen derecha del río Tempisque hasta llegar a los cantones de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya, puede considerarse un humedal.Es como pretender darle categoría de humedal al lago del Arenal o al de Cachí . Sencillamente, dichos embalses, por las profun didades de estos y el uso y velocidad de salida del agua que almacenan no pueden jamás considerarse un humedal. Dicho eso, no debe quedar duda de que la desafectació n de las 113 hectá reas de la RBLB, en caso de no realizarse el proyecto PAACUME en e l alcance que se tiene pensado en estos momentos, y de no materializarse las expropiaciones de las propiedades privadas incorporadas como compensació n en la ley impugnada por esta vía, resultaría en una clara violación de nuestros compromisos internacional es al registrar nuestro país el humedal de Palo Verde como sitio RAMSAR. Por otro lado, en relación con los supuestos estudios que respaldan la ley impugnada, el MINAE señala que las instituciones involucradas en este proyecto han realizados los estudios correspondientes, así como las acciones que compensan las áreas en las que se desarrollara el proyecto.SE EQUIVOCA NUEVAMENTE EL MINAE. La misma PGR lo advierte al señalar que, aunque se constate la suficiencia del estudio de la OET y de la propuesta final de compensació n, debe advertirse que ese estudio técnico únicamente justificaría la validez de la compensación practicada, y, como tal, no es un estudio técnico que justifique directamente la decisión de desafectar una parte de la RBLB. La Procuraduría es contundente en este tema, cuando señala que … “ atendiendo a la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, el estudio que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para justificar la reducció n de un área silvestre protegida debería ser un estudio que determine la necesidad y conveniencia de adoptar ese tipo de medida.”(el subrayado y resaltado no es del original). El estudio técnico que se utilizó para justificar la desafectació n de las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB NO realizó un análisis científico e individualizado del grado de impacto en el ambiente de la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de esa Reserva Biológica; NO realizó un estudio de los terrenos adyacentes a la RBLB para determinar cuál terreno es el que reunía las mejores condiciones para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarí an de la Reserva Biológica; NO plantea recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente; NO demuestra cómo la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas implica un desarrollo que satisface las ne cesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades; NO cumple con el requisito de que se compense el á rea suprimida de la RBLB con otra de igual tamaño y característ icas.Serí a un precedente preocupante que la Asamblea Legislativa, el MINAE, la SETENA y la Sala Constitucional consideraran este estudio como válido. Si eso fuera así, podría abrirse un portillo, más bien un portón, que llevaría a propiciar la afectación de los límites de más áreas protegidas, fundamentados en la compensación con fincas privadas de área mayor, pero con ecosistemas mucho más alterados de los protegidos. La contabilidad ecosistémica y el método Há bitat por Hectárea, avalarían este tipo de compensaciones. Hemos demostrado, y también lo ha hecho el coadyuvante Jorge Lobo Segura, que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación son i nsuficientes y tienen falencias técnicas, por lo q ue la ley impugnada claramente violentaría el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, pues no se estaría garantizando que la variación de los límites aprobada no afecta la integridad de la RBLB y no se estaría mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectac ión de una parte de dicha Reserva Biológica.Consecuentemente, se violentaría el principio precautorio, principio preventivo y no existiría respaldo técnico de que la medida legislativa adoptada no afecta el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Tampoco existen es tudios que determinen que la única alternativa para desarrollar el proyecto PAACUME y el embalse Río Piedras, es desafectando pa rte de la Reserva Biológica. OBSERVACIONES SOBRE L A RESPUESTA DE LA ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA En las primeras 20 pá ginas de su escrito de contestación a la acción de inconstitucionalidad, la presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa repasa en qué consiste el proyecto PAACUME e incurre en los errores de los Ministros del MINAE y MAG, así como en los errores de SENARA, al indicar que e l Estudio para el Establecimiento de la línea de Base de Biodiversidad para la RBLB y finca adyacente es el estudio que la legislación ambiental y la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional ha establecido como requisito para reducir los lí mites de un Área Silvestre Protegida.Caben acá todas las explicaciones que hemos hecho en los segmentos anteriores demostrando que dicho estudio no es el estudio al que se refiere la jurisprudencia constitucional, como bien señaló la PGR. El estudio t écnico que se utilizó para justificar la desafectació n de las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB NO realizó un aná lisis científico e individualizado del grado de impacto en el ambiente de la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de esa Reserva Biológica; NO realizó un estudio de los terre nos adyacentes a la RBLB para determinar cuál terreno es el que reuní a las mejores condiciones para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarí an de la Reserva Biológica; NO plantea recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente; NO demuestra có mo la desafectació n de las 113 hectáreas implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones f uturas para atender sus propias necesidades; NO cumple con el requisito de que se compense el área suprimida de la RBLB con otra de igual tamaño y características.Donde sí hace unas observaciones relacionadas con su nivel de competencia, como lo es el pro cedimiento parlamentario seguido para aprobar el proyecto que culminó con la ley que estamos impugnando, la presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa señala lo siguiente: “En su escrito, los accionantes alegan que la Ley Número 9610, "Modificación de límites de la Re serva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del proyecto de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río Tempisque y comunidades costeras" padece de un vicio esencial de procedimiento legisl ativo porque fue conocido y votado con base en un procedimiento especial acordado conforme con el art ículo 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa. El vicio consiste, según exponen los accionantes, en que este tipo de procedimientos abreviados no puede pueden ser aplicados a iniciativas que requieran para su aprobación de una mayoría califica da.Para esto se apoyan en el informe AL-DEST-DJU-068-2018 del 30 de julio del año 2018 del Departamento de Servicios Té cnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa.” So bre ese tema, lo que nosotros argumentamos en la acción de inconstitucionalidad es que una buena parte del procedimiento legislativo que culminó con la aprobación de ese proyecto de ley que da origen a la ley 9610, se hizo a través del procedimiento especial acelerado del artículo 208 bis aprobado por el plenario legislativo en la sesión ordinaria número 28 del 20 de junio del año 2018. En ningún momento señalamos que la votación final se habí a hecho de conformidad con lo establecido en el procedimiento aprobado del 208 bis. Continúa diciendo la presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa: “Con base en esas regl as, el expediente legislativo número 20.465 fue asignado a la comisión especial número 20.869 'Comisión Especial que será la encargada de analizar, estudiar y dictaminar el Expediente No. 20.465 “Ley para la Modificación de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras"; órgano que dictaminó la iniciativa.En consideración de estos hechos y a la argumentació n jurídica de varios diputados y diputadas, en la sesión ordinaria del Plenario número 46 del martes 7 de agosto del añ o 2018, los señores y señoras diputados acordaron aprobar una moción de orden que estableció de forma literal: ‘ Para que se deje sin efecto el procedimiento especial aprobado vis artículo 208 bis al expediente legislativo No. 20.465 "LEY PARA LA MODIFICACIÓN DE LIMITES DE LA RESERVA BIOLÓGICA LOMAS DE BARBUDAL PARA EL DESARROLLO DE PROYECTOS DE ABASTECIMIENTO D E AGUA PARA LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RIO TEMPISOUE Y COMUNIDADES COSTERAS ’, por encontrarse roces de constitucionalidad en el trámite que lo hacen incompatibles con la aplicación de un procedimiento especial y que en adelante , continú e su trá mite legislativo ordinario". (lo resaltado no es del original). ¿Qué signi fica eso? Que luego de sesionar por un mes seguido, con muchas sesiones semanales para ello, recibiendo en audiencia a una gran cantidad de personas para mejorar el criterio de los diputados en el proc eso de toma de decisión, y colocando en el primer lugar de primeros debates de la age nda del plenario legislativo dicho proyecto, ya que así lo disponía la moció n de procedimiento especial vía artículo 208 bis que se aprobó, los diputados toman conciencia de que lo que hicieron el 20 de junio había sido en violación de las disposiciones de l artículo 208 bis del Reglamento ya que le aplicaron ese artí culo a un proyecto que requería mayoría calificada para su votació n en el plenario legislativo.Por eso, el MARTES 7 DE AGOSTO aprueban la moció n para que EN ADELAN TE se siga con el trámite pero con el procedimiento ordinario. Según la presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa, eso significa que la Asamblea “ desconoció todos los acuerdos tomados en razón del procedimiento e special especial antes mencionado y procedió a cono cer el proyecto de ley con base en las reglas del procedimiento ordinario de formació n de ley.” SE EQUIVOCA ROTUNDAMENTE LA PRESIDENTE DE LA ASAMBLEA. La moció n es clara, en el sentido de que en adelante al martes 7 de agosto se seguiría con el procedimiento ordinario para la tramit ación de proyectos de ley. En ningún momento se indica en la moció n que se deja sin efecto lo tramitado mediante el procedimiento abreviado. Tampoco habla la moción de devolver el trá mite de ese proyecto al estado procesal legislativo en el que se e ncontraba de previo a la aprobación de la moción del 20 de junio del 2018.Tampoco habla de dejar sin efecto la conformación de la Comisió n Especial para dictaminar ese proyecto de ley que se creó mediante el procedimiento abreviado (Comisión especial #20.869 Comisión Especial que será la encargada de analizar, estudiar y dictaminar el Expediente No. 20.465 “Ley para la Modificació n de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal pa ra el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras”). En la siguiente sesió n de la Asamblea Legislativa que conoce proyectos de ley, la sesión del jueves 9 de agosto, el proyecto fue votado afirmativamente en primer debate, situación que lleva a la presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa a afirmar que no hubo ninguna violación al procedimiento parlamentario y por lo tanto no hubo ningún quebran to constitucional con dicho proceder. Por el contrario, nosotros alegamos que sí lo hubo, y que de no declararse así por l a Sala Constitucional se abriría un portillo para violentar el principio democrático en el proceso de formación de las leyes, ya que una mayoría coyuntural de la Asamblea Legislativa podría aprobar tramitar proyectos de ley a través del procedimiento abreviado establecido en el artículo 208 bis en clara violación de las prohibiciones establecidas en ese artículo.Enviar proyectos entonces a una Comisión Especial conformada según el criterio de esa mayorí a coyuntural para tramitarlos aceleradamente, recibie ndo en audiencias a quienes se considere necesario y hacer consultas, tramitar las mociones con los plazos de presentación y argumentac ión establecidos en el procedimiento abreviado, sin dar posibilidad a diputados de bancadas minoritarias de participar en esas sesiones por la cantidad de sesiones que se programan a la semana, para finalmente dictaminarlo. Luego, en el plenario, siguen adelante hasta agotar los días de presentación de mo ciones ví a artículo 137, y cuando están a punto de votar por el fondo e l proyecto en el plenario, aprueban una moción para “seguir adelante” con el procedimiento ordinario para la discusión final del proyecto por el fondo (20 minutos de argumentació n por cada diputado) antes de la votación de primer debate, y luego 10 minutos de arg umentación para la votación de segundo debate.Ese tipo de artimañ a, con la cual una mayoría coyuntural en la Asamblea Legislati va podrí a imponer su punto de vista sobre las posiciones de diputados que no lo compartan, serí a una especie de FRAUDE DE LEY. Precisamente por esa razó n es que hemos señ alado esa evidente inconstitucionalidad en la tramitación del proyecto de ley. Lo que debieron hacer en todo caso, fue retrotraer la tramitació n del proyecto de ley al 7 de junio de 2018, al momento antes de aprobar la moción que claramente violentaba el artículo 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, el cual es parámetro de constitucionalidad. OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LA COAYUVANCIA PASIVA O NEGATIVA DEL MINISTERIO DE AGRICULTURA Y GANADERÍA (MAG) El ministro del MAG, al comparecer como coadyuvante pasivo, consignó como razones de su coadyuvancia los mismos alegatos del SENARA. Por lo tanto, nuestros comentarios sobre esa coadyuvancia son los mismos que hicimos sobre las observaciones del SENARA ”.
6. 18Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 10:02 horas de 2 de noviembre de 2019, se apersona Henry José Picado Cerdas. Manifiesta interés de apersonarse al expediente.
7. 19Mediante resolución de las 12:28 horas de 28 de mayo de 2020, como prueba para mejor resolver, se dio audiencia a Mahmood Sasa Marín sobre lo alegado por la parte accionante, la Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa, el Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, el Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterránea y la Procuraduría General de la República, en relación con el estudio que él coordinó denominado “Establecimiento de la línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente ”.
8. 20Mediante resolución de las 16:04 horas de 28 de mayo de 2020, el presidente de la Sala Constitucional programó vista oral para las 9:00 horas de 11 de junio de 2020 y convocó a María del Milagro Gamboa Miranda, a Gary Douglas Stewart Postel, al Procurador General de la República, al Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa, al Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, a la Gerenta General del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, a Mario Andrés Boza, a Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura, al Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, y a Mahmood Sasa Marín . Al respecto, dispuso que la audiencia se llevaría a cabo de forma virtual a través de la aplicación Microsoft Teams y para tales efectos les previno aportar un correo electrónico tanto para el registro correspondiente como para hacerles llegar la información necesaria para la conexión. Finalmente, expuso la forma en que se iba a desarrollar la vista.
9. 21Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 12:49 horas del 1o de junio de 2020, se apersona Julio Jurado Fernández, en su condición de Procurador General de la República. Indica que participará en la audiencia con la procuradora Elizabeth León Rodríguez. Señala que los correos electrónicos para el registro de la plataforma [email protected] y [email protected].
10. 22Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 10:56 horas de 2 de junio de 2020, se apersona Gary Douglas Stewart Postel. Aporta el correo electrónico [email protected] para su registro en la plataforma. 2 3.- Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 16:00 horas de 2 de junio de 2020, se apersona María del Milagro Gamboa Miranda, Aporta el correo electrónico [email protected] para su registro en la plataforma. Menciona que la acompañarán Jorge Lobo Segura, portador de la cédula de identidad n.o 105260636 y Otto Guevara Guth portador de la cédula de identidad número 105440893 con los correos electrónico, cuyos correos electrónicos son respectivamente [email protected] y [email protected].
11. 24Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 12:02 horas de 3 de junio de 2020, se apersona Patricia Quirós Quirós, en su condición de gerenta general de SENARA. Indica que va a participar en la vista y que el correo para registrar en la plataforma es [email protected] . Señala que la va a acompañar Giovanni López Jiménez, cuyo correo electrónico es [email protected].
12. 25Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 17:45 horas de 5 de junio de 2020, se apersona Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera, en su condición de ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería. Indica que va a participar en la vista programada con Yadira Vega Blanco, quien es la abogada de la institución. Señala que los correos para el registro en la plataforma son [email protected] y [email protected].
13. 26Por escrito incorporado al expediente a las 18:37 horas de 8 de junio de 2020, se apersonan Mahmood Sasa Marín, en su condición de investigador de la Organización de Estudios Tropicales y catedrático de la Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, así como Fabián Bonilla Murillo, en su condición de investigador del Instituto Clodomiro Picado de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Exponen las siguientes consideraciones en atención a la resolución de las 12:28 horas de 28 de mayo de 2020: “1. La compensació n ambiental ante un impacto ambiental es una medida última, que debe realizarse únicamente en caso de que no pueda evitarse dicho impacto o que este no pueda mitigarse adecuadamente. En consecuencia, cuando los impactos de un proyecto requieren compensació n, se está ante una situación en la que es inevitable resarcir un potencial impacto. En esa circunstancia, la discusión no debe centrarse en si se puede o no compensar, sino en cómo lograrla de manera que haya ganancias ambientales.El principio fundamental en el que se basa la compensación ambiental es que el resarcimiento no puede ser menor al costo del impacto, ambientalmente hablando. De hecho, debe ser deseable que en la compensación haya ganancia a nivel ambiental. Este último punto no es trivial: la compensación debe asegurar un ambiente mejor al existente antes del impacto. 2. Para realizar compensaciones por impacto ambiental no existe una metodología única. Tampoco existe una metodologí a simple que permita de manera precisa definir la compensació n. Si el objetivo es asegurar que el resarcimiento sea justo y –en lo posible– maximizar ganancia ambiental, se debe recurrir a diferentes estrategias. Este es un punt o muy importante, puesto que los detractores de nuestro estudio parecen esperar una metodologí a infalible y universal para ello, sin que algo así exista. Para maximizar las ganancias ambientales el abordaje debe ser dinámico y estar dispuestos a emplear varios criterios a la hora de establecer un plan de compensació n. En diversos países se han empleado distintos procedimientos, la mayoría de ellos compensando a partir de la sustitución de área superficial.Así , el resarcimiento se realiza a partir de una sustitución del área impactada por un área que será ambientalmente equivalente (o mejor). Esta equivalencia se refiere a que los elementos bióticos (especies, comunidades) y abióticos (suelo, geomorfología, etc), estructura del hábitat y procesos ecoló gicos sean similares por área y contexto paisajístico. La equivalencia NO implica que exactamente los mismos elementos y sus mismas abundancias sean idénticos entre los sitios, situación que a todas luces sería imposible en sistemas complejos como los ambientes tropicales. El procedimiento tratará de maximizar la ganancia ambiental en la compensación. 3. Algunos de los procedimientos empleados en países para la compensación am biental son meras sustituciones basados en área superficial, sin q ue medie cuantificación de otros factores. Otros, se basan en la cuantificación de una serie de indicadores (bióticos o abió ticos) y estimaciones de la “equivalencia ecológica” entre el siti o a impactar y el sitio potencial a usar en la compensación.Entre estos últimos, los enfoques denominados métodos estandarizados de puntuación son los más ampliamente utilizados. En estos esquemas, cada indicador tiene un peso sobre la calificación final y los especialistas asignan puntajes sobre las cuantificaciones realizadas entre el sitio de compensación y el sitio a impactar. Estos métodos tienen la ventaja de permitir la racionalización del proceso de evaluació n y ofrecer valoraciones más predecibles y repetibles (aspectos que deberían ser importantes desde el punto de vista legal). 4. En Costa Rica, el tema de compensación ambiental no ha sido suficiente discutido y no hay directrices claras de cuándo y có mo debe realizarse, cuáles metodologías emplear, ni cómo debe evaluarse. Si bien es cierto que disponemos de algunas leyes y reglamentos que tangencialmente tocan el tema de compensación y se refieren a medidas de compensación, las referencias sobre el resarcimiento ambiental en nuestra legislación son muy generales y el marco legal carece del nivel de especificidad sobre compensación.Esto lo exponemos en nuestro informe (pág. 32–37). Como consecuencia de esta situación, no se dispone de mayor experiencia en la compensación ambiental, especialmente en aquella que involucra áreas silvestres protegidas. En ese sentido nuestro estudio debe considerarse un trabajo pionero en este tema. 5. El estudio que realizó nuestro equipo de la Organizació n para Estudios Tropicales, cuyos resultados y recomendaciones se presentan en el informe “Establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y finca adyacente”, tení a como objetivo determinar las características biológicas y geofí sicas de un área dentro de la zona protegida Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) que potencialmente sería inundada de establecerse el embalse sobre el Río Piedras como parte del proyecto de irrigación PAACUME del SENARA. Además de esta caracterizació n, se solicitó evaluar el potencial de compensación que tendría una propiedad adyacente de realizarse este impacto, denominada en el informe ASETREK.Para realizar esta evaluació n, nuestro grupo se decantó por una metodología basada en un enfoque de puntuación, denominada Hábitat/Hectárea. Sin embargo, también se emplearon criterios distintos a los derivados de esta metodología para llegar a sugerir un plan de compensación. 6. Nuestro estudio trata de responder tres preguntas concretas : (1) Que características bióticas y abióticas tienen el sitio potencial de impacto en RBLB y el sitio seleccionado como potencial compensación; (2) son o no equivalentes ambientalmente; y (3) si lo fueran, cómo debe realizarse la compensación con un gane ambiental de ocurrir el impacto. El nuestro es un estudio de línea base y compensació n. Las sugerencias, observaciones o críticas a dicho estudio deben ser enfocadas a sus alcances y dimensiones. Nuestro estudio no contempla, ni pretende hacerlo, una valoración del impacto ambiental del proyecto embalse del Rio Piedras ni del Proyecto PAACUME.Tampoco constituye una valoración de la aprobació n social de ese proyecto o sus impactos. Los objetivos del estudio siguieron los lineamientos solicitados por SENARA en sus “términos de referencia”. Estos objetivos y la metodologí a planteada por nuestro equipo fueron aprobados por el Área de Co nservación Arenal-Tempisque (ACAT) del SINAC. 7. Los métodos de puntuación son algoritmos para, de la manera más objetiva posi ble, evaluar y calcular la compensación. Pero como cualquie r otra metodología no están exentos de limitaciones. Las limitaciones del método Há bitat/Hectárea son expuestas en nuestro informe. Entre las má s notorias son: (1) el método requiere que cada indicador tenga un peso en el puntaje final, lo que hace que ese paso pueda ser criticado. (2) El método requiere similitud en las coberturas que se comparan. (3) La premisa del método es que, las carencias ambientales de uno de los sitios serán equilibradas a partir de un incremento de su área.Hay varias formas de lidiar con el primer inconveniente: asignar pesos iguales a todos los in dicadores, o hacer la asignación de pesos por consenso. El razonamiento es que si los pesos de los i ndicadores son asignados a priori, la calificación del ambiente se hace de una forma relativamente objetiva y repetible. En nuestro caso, los pesos de los indicadores fueron seleccionados por consenso entre los profesionales que integran el equipo investigador, y presentados y avalados por SETENA y el SINAC, a través de ACAT. Respecto a la segunda limitación, el ambiente a comparar entre el área de impacto en la RBLB y ASETREK son lo suficientemente similares (ambos sitios están cubiertos por una mayoría de bosque deciduo alterado con á reas abiertas en estadios de sucesión temprana en la zona de vida Bosque Tropical Seco), de manera que consideramos que sí se puede emplear el algoritmo. A pesar de que más del 73% de la superficie en ambos sitios está cubiert a por esta vegetación decidua, nosotros deliberadamente distinguimos tres tipos de coberturas, basados en nuestras observaciones de campo y la capa de coberturas del inventario nacional forestal (SIREFOR, 2012-2013).Las coberturas resultantes fueron nombradas: bosque deciduo, bosque secundario y bosque ripario y se procedió a realizar la calificación de cada indicador de manera individual en ellas. De esta manera maximizamos el contraste entre el ambiente en el sitio de impacto y el del sitio de compensación. El tercer inconveniente se sustenta en la idea que los ambientes a comparar s ean lo suficientemente similares para que el equilibrio se logre con área. Este sin duda es uno de los aspectos más débiles de la metodología, porque similitud entre ambientes es un tema que genera debate. Sin embargo, consideramos que otras propuestas metodológicas eran aún má s subjetivas en cuanto al estimar el área a resarcir, por lo que decidimos decantarnos por Hábitat/Hectárea debido a la relativa similitud y proximidad de los sitios a comparar. 8 . La metodología Hábitat/Hectárea original se enfoca en la comparació n de estructura de hábitat (número de árboles, troncos caído s, etc) nosotros implementamos también una comparación de diversidad en distintos grupos taxonómicos.Es decir, en nuestro estudio evaluamos no sólo la estructura de há bitat sino también la composición de especies (de plantas, vertebrados e insectos de sotobosque), siguiendo un algoritmo similar, pero manteniendo los análisis separados. En nuestro informe esos análisis aparecen en el capítulo II (pág. 47–111) y capí tulo III (112–206) . De estas evaluaciones, obtuvimos el estimado de entre 220 y 332 hectáreas en el caso del análisis de estructura de hábitat y de 290 hectáreas en el caso del análisis de componentes de diversidad. Debi do al principio de que la compensación debe maximizar la ganancia al ambiente, la figura que manejamos es de 332 hectáreas de un ambiente similar al encontrado en ASETREK para compensar lo que se perdería en el sitio de impacto en RBLB. Esa es la razón de la proporció n 3:1 que se indica en el informe. 9. Una recomendació n en nuestro informe, que ha generado mucha crítica y confusió n, y que parece ser la razón del recurso de inconstitucionalidad, es la incorporació n de las propieda des Brindis de Amor y Ciruelas al plan de compensación.Como se menciona anteriormente, siguiendo la metodología propuesta se concluye un resarcimiento de tres hectáreas de ASETREK por cada una perdida en RBLB. Sin embargo, en la página 209 de nuestro informe indicamos la conveniencia de emplear ademá s otras propiedades que dispusieran de elementos importantes para la conservación, adicionales al área en ASETREK. Incluso se indica (pág. 217) las razones por las que consideramos que el embalse que se formaría en la zona de inundación debería ser parte de la compensació n. Aunque estas áreas no fueron analizadas con la profundidad que lo hicimos en ASETREK, hacem os énfasis en que emplear estas propiedades mejora la propuesta de compensació n. Nuestro razonamiento una vez más está basado en maximizar en lo posible las ganancias para el ambiente. La selección de Brindis de Amor no es casual, ni arbitraria como se intenta hacer creer en los documentos enviados.A esa propiedad, ubicada en el extremo noroeste de la RBLB, la atraviesa uno de las pocas quebradas permanentes de la zona (río Cabu yo) y mantiene una breve cobertura riparia. La vegetación en este sitio sí fue evaluada , como se indica en las páginas 210 –216 de nuestro informe. Además, tal y como también indicamos en el informe, los estudios ininterrumpidos por más 25 añ os en el área de la Dr. Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Ángeles) señalan que tropas de monos carablanca (Cebus capuccinus ) de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal utilizan los bosq ues dentro de Brindis de Amor como sitios de alimentación y descanso. Es decir, hay evidencia de un constante flujo de animales desde y hacia la Reserva. El empleo de Brindis de Amor como sitio de forrajeo demuestra la importancia biológica de esta propied ad y lo acertado que sería protegerla. El anexar una fracción de la Hacienda Ciruelas obedece a evitar dejar una península en el contorno de la RBLB de anex arse Brindis de Amor, lo que contravendría las nociones bá sicas del diseño de reservas, que trata de minimizar el efecto de borde y su afectación a las especies que se desean proteger.Además, esa fracció n contiene también un fragmento de cobertura riparia. En nuestro propio informe indicamos que, de tener que decantarse entre una de esas dos propiedades, se sugiere que se adquier a Brindis de Amor puesto que Ciruelas ya está manteniendo alguna protección en esa zona de su propiedad. Nuestros detractores indican que el estudio no evaluó esas propiedades. Eso no es del todo correcto, pues como se menciona anteriormente si hubo una e valuación de vegetación en la propiedad Brindis de Amor. La razó n por la que no se evaluaron otros grupos taxonómicos (fauna) es que: (1) ya hay evidencia de la importancia de ese lugar para la fauna de la RBLB; (2) el incluir esta propiedad complementa la propiedad de ASETREK; (3) Brindis de Amor efectivamente fue identificada después de que se apostara por compensar con ASETREK. El fragmento en la Hacienda Ciruelas (llamado por error Rancho Wilson en nuestro informe) efectivamente no fue evaluado.Sin embargo, vuelvo a reiterar que asumir la protección tanto esta propiedad como Brindis de Amor vendrí a a dar un mejor servicio al ambiente que pretende conservar la RBLB. 10. Como otros estudios ambientales que se realizan, como instrumentos de e valuación y análisis sobre los cuales basar decisiones de manejo, los estudios de compensación deben completarse en un periodo de tiempo razonable y con un presupuesto restringido. Esto significa que los estudios tienen limitaciones en cuanto al tiempo de monitoreo pero también en cuanto a los grupos taxonómicos y variables a ser contempladas. Siempre será posible incorporar más informació n a partir de extensiones del periodo o de variables a la hora de realizar un estudio ambiental, pero en l a práctica es claro que un estudio no puede extenderse ni en tiempo ni en presupuesto ilimitadamente. Por esta razón, consideramos que emitir objeciones sobre estos aspectos no aporta mayor información a la hora de evaluar este tipo de trabajos. 11.En alg unos párrafos de los documentos analizados, y en particular en las opiniones del Dr. Jorge Lobo, se hacen cuestionamientos directos a la capacidad del equipo de trabajo de la OET para la identificación de ciertos grupos, en particular plantas. Este juicio no es de recibo. Por un lado, la Organización para Estudios Tropicales t iene presencia científica en el área desde 1970, cuando se crea la Estación Biológic a Palo Verde en lo que hoy es el Parque Nacional Palo Verde. Esa estación ha contribuido con la generación del grueso de conocimiento en la Cuen ca Baja del Tempisque, y sus directores científicos, incluyéndome, han representado un importante apoyo a la ges tión del SINAC en la región. Entre otros importantes insumos científicos, la estación meteorológica y el Herbario Ulises Chavar ría brindan los acervos de información sobre clima y flora tanto para Lomas de Barbudal como para Palo Verde.Además, el equipo formado por la OET para abordar este estudio incluye a dos profesores de la Escuela de Biologí a, con grado de doctorado y con sólida experiencia en sus grupos de especialidad, así como la colaboración de un tercer catedrático de esta misma escuela para la identificación de Hymenoptera, que incluyen polinizadores. Además, se incluyen tres especialistas con grado acadé mico de Maestría, uno de ellos también funcionario de la Universidad de Costa Rica, así como tres profesionales independientes. Nuestro proyecto fue inscrito en la Vicerrectoría de Investigación de la Universidad de Costa Rica (Proyecto 741-B6-A02) y el informe final fue aprobado por el Consejo de Investigación del Instituto Clodomiro Picado. En ningú n momento recibimos nosotros copia de las declaraciones del Dr. Lobo o de la Direcció n de la Escuela de Biología en contra del estudio realizado. S uponer que el estudio es débil sólo porque alguien de una unidad académica tiene objeciones sin mucho fundamento es no querer reconocer que otras unidades de la misma institución sí lo respaldan. 12.Finalmente, para entender nuestra posición en este debat e, es importante que se distinga entre juicios basados en opinió n y juicios basados en evidencia. La opinión es una estimación o concepto basado en la experiencia, que puede o no apegarse a la realidad y por lo tanto no se tiene la confianza total sobre la verdad del conocimiento. Los juicios basados en evidencia se realizan sobre hechos o bases tangibles, por lo que deben ser interpretados como má s apegados a la realidad. Consideramos que el esfuerzo realizado en el estudio de línea base y la estimación de compensación sobrepasa con creces estudios similares realizados para otros proyectos, y nuestras bases de datos, especí menes de museo y herbario así lo testifican. Los juicios que emitimos en nuestro informe se basan en evidencia. 13. En nuestro estudio, maximizamos el contraste entre el ambiente a impactar en la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal y áreas de potencial compensación.Nuestra posició n es que, de realizarse el embalse sobre el Rio Piedras y con ello la consecuente inundació n en 113 hectáreas de la reserva, se compense ese impacto con las propiedades ASETREK, Brindis de Amor y Ciruelas, y que desde el inicio se maneje el humedal artificial que se establecerá en el á rea de impacto. Esta es una ganancia real y sustantiva. Hacer objeciones menores para soca var el estudio es perder la perspectiva de qué es exactamente lo que se está planteando. Del mismo modo, pretender argumentar en contra de la metodología po r temor a sentar un precedente que permita el redibujar los límites de otras á reas protegidas nos hace perder la perspectiva del punto en cuestión: de necesitarse, efectivamente se puede lograr una compensación positiva en términos ambientales en la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. A continuación procederemos a contestar las observaciones que se refi eren a nuestro estudio en el Documento 0001-01-09-2019 (Acción de Inconstitucionalidad contra la ley #9610) enviado.Dado que los otros 7 documentos repiten mucha de esta esa información, y se refieren más a la contestació n de diferentes Instituciones y Organismos a la misma acció n de inconstitucionalidad y no platean dudas o nuevas interrogantes sobre nuestro informe, consideramos que con estas respuestas a transcripciones literales de la acción de inconstitucionalidad abarcamos todas las posibles interrogantes planteadas: Documento 0001-01-09-2019. ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD Contra la ley #9610, “MODIFICACIÓN DE LÍMITES DE LA RESERVA BIOLÓGICA LOMAS BARBUDAL PARA EL DESARROLLO DEL PROYECTO DE ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA PARA LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RÍO TEMPISQUE Y COMUNIDADES COSTERAS”, publicada en el Alcance #199 de La Gaceta del 23 de noviembre del 2018. • “ Página 9. R/ Se externa opinión infundada de que el estudio es superficial y sesgado, dado que los términos de referencia del estudio fueron definidos por SENARA.Además se indica que la selecció n de compensación en ASETREK fue arbitraria. Esto no es c orrecto. Los términos de referencia se basan en las obser vaciones del SINAC. Además la selección de la propiedad ASETREK se basa en la recomendación del SINAC, dado que es la propiedad má s cercana al sitio de afectación con cobertura vegetal y estructura d e hábitat que valieran la pena evaluar.” • “Pá ginas 9 y 10. R/ Se indica que no hubo revisión de todas las propiedades adyacentes al RBLB para buscar aquellas que potencialmente pudieran compensar las pérdidas por el impacto en la reserva. Nuestro equipo hizo una revisión mediante análisis de imá genes para confirmar la elección de ASETREK como área potencial de compensació n. Además, personal del SINAC ya previamente habían realizado un ejercicio similar antes de decantarse por ASETREK. La metodología seguida (Hábitat/Hectárea) fue aprobada por SI NAC y SENARA.Siguiendo esta metodología concluimos que: (1) Si es posible hacer una equivalencia ecológica entre los dos sitios (RBLB y ASETREK); (2) Que la compensación en área es una proporció n de 3:1. Sin embargo, tal como especificamos en nuestro informe, nuestra rec omendación fue solicitar aún más para resarcir las pé rdidas en la reserva, en aras de mejorar el resarcimiento en té rminos del ambiente. La incorporación de estas dos propiedades en nuestra recomendación final no requería mayor evaluación pues constituyen una anexión complementaria más no esencial dada la metodología trazada. Si bien es cierto que la pro piedad de Ciruelas no fue evaluada, es importante aclarar que en la propiedad de Brindis de Amor realizamos un levantamiento de la estructura y composición vegetal tal como se especifica en nuestro informe.” • “Página 10. Se indica que “ Ni en el Estudio de la OET, ni en el proceso de discusión del proyecto en la Asamblea Legislativa, consta que se hubiera hecho consulta a las comunidades adyacentes a la RBLB sobre la afectación que ese cambio en los lí mites de la reserva biológica podría ocasionarles”.” R/ Este comentario evidencia que no hay claridad en las dimensiones y alcances del estudio de la OET, situació n indicada en el considerando # 6 arriba. • “Página 10 y 11.El Estudio de la OET que se utiliza para justificar la desafectació n de las 113 hectáreas es un estudio que no cumple con los requisitos que ha establecido la Sala Constitucional para esos propósitos. Tiene gran cantidad de falencias de índol e técnico y científico según lo señala la Facultad de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica.” R/ No es claro a qué se refiere con “requisitos que ha establecido la Sala Constitucional”. Respecto a las falencias de orden técnico y científico señaladas p or la Escuela de Biología, uno supondría que la Escuela se pronunciaría directamente a la OET o a alguno de los investigadores que realizaron este estudio y que a su vez son personal docente de la Escuela. Si hay observaciones, lo correcto es que estas se le hicieran llegar a las instancias indicadas, pero este no es el caso: nos encontramos en la emisión de juicios de opinión. El proyecto de hecho fue inscrito a la Vicerrectoría de Investigación de la Universidad de Costa Rica y aprobado en Consejo de Investigació n del Instituto Clodomiro Picado, también de la misma Universidad.Si la Escuela de Biología tiene reservas en cuanto a aspectos técnicos de este proyecto, otras instancias no parecen tenerlo. • “Páginas 12 y 13. Dice “ Una de las consecuencias de la aprobación de esa ley, así como de la represa, el embalse con un espejo de agua de 850 hectáreas, y má s de 300 kilómetros de canales que se pretenden construir a partir de esta ley, es la afectación del humedal de Palo Verde, el cual tiene un nivel de protección internacional mediante el Convenio RAMSAR. Para la desafectación de 113 hectá reas de la RBLB, la cual forma parte del Humedal de Palo Verde, no se procedió con el procedimiento establecido en ese instrumento internacional para desafectar el área a inundar” . Eso mismo señala el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (CORACAT) mediante oficio SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018: “…Según se señaló en el acuerdo 3 del acta de la sesión extraordinaria 04-2017 del Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservació n (CONAC), es necesario que se comunique a la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas, conocida como Convenio de Ramsar, la intención de realizar este proyecto y activar cualquier otro procedimiento para cumplir con los compromisos país.Además, es importante tomar en consideración que, al amparo de la Convenció n sobre la Protección del Patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural, c onocida como Convención de Patrimonio Mundial de la UNESCO, el sitio patrimonio mundial Área de Conservació n Guanacaste se encuentra bajo monitoreo por parte de la UNESCO. En la sesión má s reciente del Comité de Patrimonio Mundial, este órgano decidió soli citar al país una evaluación ambiental estratégica de la zona, que permita prever los posibles impactos directos o indirectos de los proyectos en el sitio patrimonio mundial, aun cuando estos se encuentren fuera de sus límites. Si bien este proyecto de ley no impacta de manera directa el sitio patrimonio mundial, la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal colinda con el Corredor Biológico Morocochas, el cual a su vez colinda con el Parque Nacional Rincó n de la Vieja incluido en el sitio patrimonio mundial.Por ello, es necesario que se analice si el Proyecto de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras puede tener algún impacto indirecto en el sitio patrimonio mundial, y valorar la activación de los mecanismos pertinente para comunicar al Centro de Patrimonio Mundial esta inic iativa.” Esto último tampoco fue considerado en el estudio de la OET, el cual es omiso sobre el procedimiento para desafectar un área que forma parte de un humedal que cuenta con protección internacional, según se desprende de documentos oficiales de RAMSAR. Dicho convenio establece en el Artículo 4 inciso 2 que cuando una Parte Contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, retire de la lista o reduzca los límites de un humedal incluido en ella, deberá compensar en la medida de lo posible, la pérdida de recursos de humedales y, en particular, crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y para la protección de una porció n adecuada de su hábitat original, en la misma región o en otro lugar.Dicho sea de paso, la modificación de los límites de la RBLB no ha sido declarada de urgente interés nacional.” R/ Una vez más se muestra desconocimiento sobre los alcances del proyecto realizado por la OET . El evaluar el impacto en los entornos aledaños al sitio del proyecto, incluyendo los potenciales efectos sobre los humedales protegidos por Palo Verde, debe ser realizado con otro instrumento: el estudio de impacto ambiental. La OET no fue responsable de dicha evaluación, por lo que este punto debe ser atendido por quien así lo fuera. Por otro lado, una rápida vista al mapa de la zona aclararía que la conexión que quiere hacerse entre Lomas de Barbudal y el Parque Nacional Rincón de la Vieja como un área protegida es a todas luces falsa. • “ Página 25 y 26. Dicho estudio hace un análisis y concluye que el área a compensar está en condiciones ecológicas más deterioradas que el área a desafectar (actualmente protegida y parte de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal).A partir de ello, el mismo estudio propuso una compensación de 3 por 1 para poder garantizar las funciones ecológicas del ecosistema. Aun así, los estudios determinaron la inexistencia en las áreas propuestas para la compensació n del bosque ripario, siendo este uno de los objetos de conservació n definidos en la creación del área protegida; por ello, el criterio del ACAT desde un inicio, es que, se debe de compensar este objeto de conservación (bosque ripario); por lo que al final, el SENARA recomienda básicamente una compensación de 5 a 1, o sea, compensar con á rea 5 veces mayor a la que eventualmente se desafectaría.” R/ Tal como se indica anteriormente, la sugerencia de anexar otras propieda des fue para mejorar el resarcimiento ambiental, completando los resultados obtenidos con e l empleo de la metodología seguida en el estudio. • “Pá gina 32. Dice: “ el estudio realizado por la OET para la compensación del área desafectada no menciona el humedal de palo verde del cual forma parte la RBLB, ni detalles sobre cómo compensar el área del humedal afectada.Tampoco menciona la convención de patrimonio m undial de la UNESCO, la cual da una protección especial a toda el á rea de conservación de Guanacaste. ese estudio también es omiso en relació n con la totalidad de las propiedades que se pretenden utilizar para compensar el área desafectad a, ya que fue realizado únicamente sobre la propiedad perteneciente a la sociedad ASETREK y no sobre las otras propiedades que finalmente se incorporaron a la ley que estamos impugnando.” R/ Este párrafo muestra desconocimiento o intensió n de confundir al lector. El área d e impacto en la parte sureste de la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal no es un humedal ni está conectado con los humedales del Parque Nacional Palo Verde. Además, ni Lomas de Barbudal ni El Parque Nacional Palo Verde se encuentran en el Área de Cons ervación Guanacaste (ACG, patrimonio de UNESCO) sino en el Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque (ACAT).Las fincas identificadas y evaluadas como potenciales agentes de compensación no lo son tampoco. El estudio de la OET se limita a establecer cuales elementos y estruc tura hay en los ambientes del sitio de impacto y evalúa si es posible y por cuá nto se podría realizar la compensación. • “Página 37 y 38: Dice: “ Pues bien, la ley #9610 que se impugna mediante esta acción de inconstitucionalidad clar amente viola el artículo 50 de la Constitución Polí tica, ya que no incorpora un estudio serio, integral y objetivo, sobre las consecuencias de la desa fectación de 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, y la sustitución o compensación con unas 500 hectáreas de propiedades priva das que se pretende incorporar a la reserva biológica”.” R/ Opinió n no fundamentada. El argumentar que el estudio es incompleto no es de recib o, toda vez que los críticos ni siquiera indican por qué lo es. Ya se mencionó previamente el razonamiento sobre la anexión de la s propiedades de Brindis de Amor y Ciruelas a las recomendaciones seguidas en nuestro informe. • “ Página 44-72: Dicho todo lo anterior, corresponde determinar si el Estudio de la OET cumple a cabalidad con el criterio té cnico y científico establecido por la Sala Constitucional como requisito para reducir el área de un área protegida.Ese requerimiento de estudios té cnicos no es una mera formalidad, sino que se trata de un requisito material, es decir materialmente se tien e que demostrar, mediante un análisis científico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en este, y demostrar cómo tal medida implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades.” R/ Otra vez, se confunde el alcance del estudio realizado por la OET con el estudio de impacto ambiental del proyecto. El mezclar las dimensiones de estos estudios pareciera una estrategia planteada con alevosía para llegar a unas conclusiones prestablecidas. • “Pues bien, en el caso concreto, consta en el tomo dos del expediente legislativo que dio origen a la ley aquí impugnada, un estudio realizado por la Organizació n de Estudios Tropicales (OET), que corresponde a un estudio de línea base de b iología, con el que se pretende justificar la adquisición de la finca conocida como ASETREK, para reponer las 113 hectáreas de bosque que se desafectan con la ley que se está impugnando mediante esta acció n de inconstitucionalidad.(Ver Anexo 6 de esta acción de inconst itucionalidad).” R/ Correcto en que el estudio realizado por la OET es el estudio de línea base. Si el resultado de ese estudio así lo refrenda, entonces se podría plantear la adquisición de la finca ASETREK. Tal fue el caso. • “Dicho estud io no es completo, ni objetivo, ni científico, ni técnico, ya que adolece de muchas omisiones y debilidades. Para empezar, el alcance del estudio fue determinado por SENARA, quien fue la entidad que contrató a la OET para su elaboración. En el oficio SENARA-INDEP-172-2017 del 28 de marzo de 2017, suscrito por el Ing. Marvin Coto, Director de Ingeniería y Desarrollo de Proyectos del SENARA, este le hace un recuento a la gerente general de esa institución, Patricia Quirós, sobre el proceso de selección de la finca de compensació n y del proceso de licitación para contratar el Estudio de Línea de Base, como se puede leer en el siguiente segmento: “…En el año 2015, se promovió en dos ocasiones la licitación para la realización del estudio técnico qu e permitiera gestionar la compensación y desafectación del á rea requerida de la RBLB.Sin embargo, dichas licitaciones fueron declaradas desiertas por falta de oferentes, por lo que, después de varias reuniones se logró un acuerdo y se suscribió en enero de 2016 el “Convenio entre la Organizació n para Estudios Tropicales (OET) y el SENARA para realizar el Estudio para el establecim iento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la RBLB y finca adyacente”, en el marco del Proyecto Sistema de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (PAACuMe). El estudio tiene el objetivo de elaborar y definir la línea base que permita determinar la integridad ecológica, relevancia y fragilidad de los ecosistemas presentes, así como la biodiversidad existente, en el á rea de la RBLB a ser impactada directamente por el Embalse Rí o Piedras. A la vez, se efectúa un análisis comparativo entre un área de la RBLB y terrenos aledaños previamente seleccionados (finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A.), para conocer las condiciones de similitud y factibilidad de utilizarse como zona de reemplazo y que sea ecológicamente equivalente.Es importante señalar que la propiedad fue seleccionada por su relación de conectividad con la RBLB, ya que es fundamental para el manejo y la administración por parte del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservació n (SINAC). Esta propiedad se encuentra a nombre de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., cédula jurí dica N° 3-101-370259, con Ramón Aguilar Facio como apoderado generalísimo, cédula de i dentidad N° 9-0001-0541, plano catastrado N° 5- 666-1976, folio real N° 034932-000, situada en el distrito primero Bagaces, del cantón cuarto Bagaces, de la provincia de Guanacaste, con un área de registro de 751 hectáreas….”.” R/ Otra vez se emiten la s opiniones no basadas en evidencia sobre lo incompleto del estudio y se menciona que tiene debilidades y deficiencias sin indicarlas. Estos pá rrafos pretenden desacreditar a portas el estudio realizado por la OET, por haber atendido la solicitud de SENARA . El estudio fue efectivamente solicitado por SENARA a la OET y no hay pecado en ello.Desde el inicio, se le indicó al Ing. Marvin Coto, entonces encargo del proyecto por parte del SENARA, que la OET haría un estudio los más objetivo posible, apegado a sus conocimientos té cnicos, y que los resultados serían presentados tal cual. Además uno de los requisitos planteados por OET para participar, fue el de hacer transparentes los datos e información que se generarían en el estudio. Esto ha sido respetado desde el primer momento por parte de nuestra Organización. • “Hacia el final del estudio de 237 pá ginas, la OET hace una mención de dos fincas más: Brindis de Amor (que es la propiedad perteneciente a la sociedad 3-101-734726 S.A., la cual es conocida como Bri ndis de Amor, o Brindis de Amor en Liberia), y Hacienda Ciruelas. A ninguna de ellas se le hizo el estudio de línea base de biología, que permita determinar científicamente, que se trata de propiedades que efectivamente cuentan con características medioambientales que reempl acen las funciones eco sistémicas del área que se va a desafectar.En caso de la propiedad perteneciente a Hacienda Ciruelas es aún más dramá tico, ya que solo se menciona en 8 renglones del estudio de 237 pá ginas.” R/ Ya se ha mencionado el razonamiento que se empleó en incorporar estas dos propiedades en la sugerencia final para compensació n. Indico aquí, que se sigue tratando de invisibilizar el esfuerzo qu e realizamos para caracterizar la vegetación y estructura en Brindis de Amor. • “Específicamente en la página 215 del Estudio d e la OET refiriéndose a la propiedad perteneciente a Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. como Rancho Wilson. En conclusió n, ese Estudio de la OET no incorporó estudios sobre las condiciones biológicas de dos de tres fincas con las que se pretende compensar las 113 h ectáreas que se desafectan con la ley.” R/ Efectivamente fue mi error en la redacción de un texto de 267 páginas al emplear el nombre antiguo de la propiedad en lugar del actual Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. Se insiste en desatender el razonamiento expuesto en nuestro informe final, sobre la razó n de peso de por qué se anexaron las fincas Ciruela y Brindis de Amor a la propuesta. • “Así las cosas, resulta materialmente imposible que haya certeza científica sobre la idoneidad de las tierras que fueron anexadas a la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, por lo tanto, la decisió n legislativa de reemplazar las hectáreas que desafectan de la R eserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, no resiste el control de constitucionalidad, por no tener el sustento té cnico suficiente para justificar su adopción, y claramente viola el principio de no regresividad en materia ambiental.” R/ Creo que antes de llegar a esas conclusiones y recomendaciones, quien redacta este párrafo debe leer el informe final de nuestro estudio y tratar de comprenderlo. • “ La Sala Constitucional hace pocos años consideró que el proyecto de ley denominado "Ley de reconocimiento de los derechos de los habitantes del caribe sur", expediente legislativo número 18.207, era inconstitucional por violació n al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, toda vez que se sustenta en un estudio incompleto porque no determinaba técnica y científicamente cuál iba a ser el impacto real sobre el ambiente, vicio que es de carácter esencial del procedimiento legislativo.(Exp: 12-011721-0007-CO, Res. Nº 2012013367, SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, a las once horas y treinta y tres minutos del veintiuno de setiembre del dos mil doce.) Eso exactamente es lo que sucede con esta ley, ya que el estudio que acompañ a al expediente legislativo para justificar la desafectación de 113 hectáreas de una RESERVA BIOLÓGICA, está claramente incompleto y no determina técnica ni científicamente cuá l será el impacto sobre el ambiente de esa desafectación para posteriormente inundar esa cantidad de tierra. El estudio no solo no se hizo sobre 2 de las 3 propiedades que se pretenden utilizar como compensación, sino que tampoco analizó la afectación que podrí a ocasionarle al Parque Nacional de Palo Verde, el cual es un Humedal con p rotección internacional brindada por la Convención de RAMSAR, del cual forma parte la RBLB según se desarrolló en el punto A) anterior sobre la Fundamentación de Derecho de esta acció n de inconstitucionalidad.” R/ Otra vez el autor de estas líneas trata de confundir el estudio de impacto ambiental con el estudio de compensación.Y otra vez se refieren a las dos propiedades (Brindis de Amor y Ciruelas) que fueron recomendadas para la compensación además de las tierras de ASETREK. • “En el párrafo anterior, se resaltaron las palabras RESERVA BIOLÓG ICA, para hacer ver a los señores magistrados que estamos precisamente ante un á rea de protección que tiene una categoría comparable con la de un Parque Nacional, que es de PROTECCIÓN ABSOLUTA. No es una zona protectora o un refu gio de vida silvestre. Es una RESERVA BIOLÓGICA. Por lo tanto, el tipo de Estudio para permitir una desafectación de una porción tan grande como 113 hectáreas debe ser té cnicamente muy sólido y completo, debe ser integral y comprensivo de todos los posibles impactos ambientales, y especialmente debe ser muy riguroso con el estudio sobre el área a compensar. Eso no sucedió con el estudio de la OET contratado por SENARA con los términos de refe rencia definidos por esa entidad.” R/ Se equivocan en varios puntos.Primero el estudio de compensación y el estudio de impacto ambiental son diferentes instrumentos. En este caso el primero fue realizado por nosotros como un estudio de la OET, el segundo fue realizado por el ICE. Segundo, los términos de referencia fueron previamente consultados por SENARA a SINAC, por lo que tenían el aval de la autoridad en materia de áreas protegidas en el país. • “Para ratificar lo mencionado, solo basta con leer algunos extractos del informe del Dr. Jorge Lobo Segura, comisionado po r la Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica para responder a un requerimiento de información de la Secretaría Técnica N acional Ambiental (SETENA) relacionada con el proyecto PAACUME, el cual fue diseñ ado a partir de un embalse (podrían haber buscado otras opciones) que requiere inundar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB. El Dr. Lobo Segura señala una gran cantidad de falencias desde el punto de vista técni co y científico del estudio de la OET, como se observa al leer la secció n “1.1 Observaciones al estudio de la OET para la compensación del á rea inundable por el embalse” en su informe.Esas falencias claramente permiten mostrar que la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB no cumple con los parámetros establecidos por la Sala Constitucional para determinar si se puede reducir un área protegida, y má s tratándose de una reserva biológica que tiene un nivel de protección absoluta comparable con la de un parque nacional.” R/ No es claro a qué se refiere con “los parámetros establecidos por la Sala Constitucional para determinar si se puede reducir un área protegida”. En primer lugar la legislación es clara que no se puede reducir un área protegida; lo que faculta es a modificar sus límites pero sin reducir su superficie. · “A continuación, se procede a transcribir esa sección del informe del Dr. Lobo, resaltando en negrita lo que se considera má s relevante, igual que lo que señala el Dr. Lobo en la carta de remisión de su informe al director de la Escuela de Biología, el M. Sc.Daniel Briceñ o. “A su solicitud, adjunto mis observaciones al Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto de Riego PAACUME (D1-21601-2017-SETENA), según solicitud del Secretario General de la Setena, MSc. Sergio Bermúdez Muñoz, del 12 de julio del presente año. Aunque la solicitud or iginal de la SETENA era la presentación por parte de la Escuela de Biología de alguna restricción, limitante o recomendación especí fica sobre este proyecto, preferí entregar mis observaciones como observaciones generales del Estudio Impacto Ambiental, particularmente sobre el impacto bioló gico. En el documento se desarrollan algunos de los impactos ambientales potenciales del proyecto que a mi modo de ver no han sido considerados en el E.I.A., así como una crítica a los criterios de compensación por la inun dación de 113 has de la Reserva Biológica de Lomas de Barbudal por el embalse Rí o Piedras, parte substancial del proyecto de riego PAACUME.” R/ Aquí se hace referencia otra vez a la opinión de nuestro colega Dr. Jorge Lobo.Es claro que lo solicitado por SETENA a la Escuela de Biología fue referente al Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. El Dr. Lobo confunde en su respuesta aspectos de ese estudio sobre el de compensación realizado por nosotros. • “Es evidente que, en mi criterio, la restricció n más importante que la Escuela de Biología puede presentar a este proyecto de riego es la afectación de esta á rea protegida, así como de los bosques secos en fincas privadas que quedará n inundados por un embalse de 850 has. La propuesta de compensación del E.I.A., consistente en la adición de nuevas á reas a la RBLB como substitución de las tierras que serán inundadas, son a mi criterio un procedimiento insuficiente en relació n a los daños ambientales que un embalse de tales dimensiones ocasionará sobre la integridad ecológica de esta importante á rea protegida del bosque seco de nuestro país. Atentamente Dr. Jorge Arturo Lobo Segura Escuela de Biología”.R / Efectivamente, el crear un embalse tendría un impacto negativo sobre el ambiente que sería inundado. Por eso se necesitaría compensar. La pregunta que debería plantearse es cómo hacer esa compensación de modo que sea justa con el ambiente e incluso maximice la ganancia ambiental. Aquí una crítica que podría hacerse al Dr. Lobo y la respuesta de la Escuela de Biología es que no hacen ningú n esfuerzo en proponer soluciones al problema. • “Consecuencias bioló gicas del embalse PAACUME: Uno de los impactos ambientales más importantes del proyecto de riego PAACUME será la inundación de aproximadamente 850 has para la formación del embalse. El á rea del embalse incluye 113 has de la Reserva Biológica de Lomas de Barbudal. El E.I.A., en diversos capítulos, menciona el estudio “Establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente” elaborado por l a Organización de Estudio Tropicales (OET) en enero del 2017, como fundamento para la compensación de los daños ambientales a esta Reserva Biológica.El documento de la OET propone la incorporación de nuevas áreas pertenecientes a fincas privadas colindantes a la Reserva. Este estudio es par te sustancial del E.I.A. de PAACUME, y está incluido como el Anexo No. 8.2 del Tomo II del E.I.A. A seguir se presentan algunas observaciones al estudio de la OET, para seguidamente desarrollar algunos aspectos que me parecen no ha sido considerados para la compensación o mitigación de los efectos del embalse.” R/ Efectivamente en el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental hay referencia al estudio de compensació n realizado por nosotros (OET). Pero, como se ha mencionado, son dos estudios distintos que persiguen objetivos distintos y que abarcan zonas distintas. • “ Observaciones al estudio de la OET para la compensación del á rea inundable por el embalse. 1.1.1 Marco teórico. El estudio adopta, como metodología para calcular el área d e compensación, la cuantificación del valor relativo de diferentes aspectos de los ecosistemas, asignando un valor numérico a diferentes variables ecosistémicas.Este ejercicio se realiza para el área inundable de Lomas de Barbudal y su correspondiente eco sistema comparable en la finca ASETREK, propiedad donde se encuentran las posibles á reas de compensación. Para realizar la comparación numérica de la calidad de há bitat se divide el área de cada sitio en tres ecosistemas principales: bosque ripario maduro, bosque deciduo y bosque secundario. Se asignan puntajes según el número de especies de diferentes grupos taxonómicos, o según la cobertura de bosque, número de estratos, etc. Se contabilizan los puntajes en cada á rea, para después obtener los totales. Como en muchos casos la finca ASETREK tiene menor puntaje que el ecosistema correspondiente de Lomas de Barbudal, se calcula el área necesaria de la finca de compensación para nivelar el puntaje del área afectada. Así llegan al cálc ulo final que se requerirían 252 has (después se mencionan 330 has, en esto hay una cierta confusió n al final del estudio) de una finca como ASETREK para compensar las 113 has inundadas de Lomas de Barbudal.Mi opinió n es que este marco teórico es un ejercicio numérico que lleva a u na contabilidad peligrosa, poco fundamentada biológicamente. Las categorías para definir puntaje, los aspectos del ecosistema que fueron comparados, y los valores numéricos otorgados a cada categorí a son en buena parte arbitrarios, están sobrevalorando algunos aspectos y subvalorando otros, como se podrá ver más adelante con algunos ejemplos. El problema principal es establecer un principio de compensación, supuestamente cuantitativo, DONDE MODIFICANDO EL TAMAÑO DE UN AREA DE COMP ENSACION SE PUEDE IGUALAR EL AREA PERDIDA DENTRO UN AREA PROTEG IDA. Esto es equivocado, y los autores dejan escapar dudas sobre este procedimiento en las páginas finales del informe. LAS POBLACIONES O ESPECIES AFECTADAS POR LA PERDIDA DE UN AREA PROTEGIDA NO NECESARIAMENTE APARECERAN, EN SU ABUNDANCIA ORIGINAL EN UN AREA DE COMPENSACION, AUNQUE SE AUMENTE MUCHAS VECES SU AREA, AL NO EXISTIR EN EL AREA DE COMPENSACION LOS HABITATS Y RECURSOS REQUERIDOS POR ESTA E SPECIE, O LOS NUCLEOS POBLACIONALES O LAS FUENTES PARA LA MIGRACION DE POBLACIONES QUE GARANTIZEN SU REPOBLAMIENTO.” R/ Es correcto el resumen de la metodologí a, y como bien se indica en nuestro informe, como cualquier otra esta metodología tiene ventajas y limitaciones.Ahora, el Dr. Lobo confunde resultados de nuestro procedimiento. En el caso del análisis de estructura de hábitat, la compensación se realizaría con 330 has (la fuente de la relación 3:1 que se ha mencionado anteriormente). En el caso del análisis de com posición biótica (que incluye identidad de especies y su comparació n entre sitios) la compensación se realizaría con menor área. El Dr. Lobo indica claramente que lo que sigue es su opinión, y no muestra evidencia de datos concretos que la sustente. Contrario a eso, nuestro estudio cuenta con bases de datos só lidos y concretos sobre las especies que existen en esas áreas a comparar. Además, por su comentario pareciera que el Dr. Lobo visualiza compensación como un resarcimiento en términos de igualdad de especies y condiciones, cuando ya hemos explicado de lo que se trata es de encontrar la equivalen cia entre ellas. Donde sí coincidimos con el Dr. Lobo es que efectivamente el tema de incrementar á rea no necesariamente asegura la mejor equivalencia ecoló gica y que este es un tema que requiere más estudio.Sin embargo, y como indicamos en nuestro consid erando #7 arriba, esa fue la metodología seguida en nuestro estudio pues consideramos que otras serí an más subjetivas. • “Diferencias drástica s en la calidad del hábitat, especialmente en el grado de alteración humana de los ecosistemas, como las que se detectaron entre Lomas de Barbudal y la finca ASETREK, no se equilibran con el aumento del área de esta última. Esta inflació n del área para compensar menos biodiversidad no va a resultar en que las especies afectadas van a restaurarse en el área de compensación, especialmente si en el área de compensació n tenemos hábitats muy diferentes al área afectada dentro del Parque Nacional o Reserva Biológica. En el á rea que será inundada de Lomas de Barbudal hay bosques riparios, y posiblemente otros há bitats no cuantificados por el estudio, que no están representados en ASETREK.” R/ La primera parte de este párrafo expresa duda sobre si la diferencia ambiental entre los sitios pude equilibrarse con un aumento de á rea.Esta idea es precisamente la lógica detrás del método de Há bitat/Hectárea seguido en nuestro estudio. Coincidimos con el Dr. Lobo que esta idea puede explorarse mejor empleando investigación. Pero recordamos a la Sala que el procedimiento seg uido aquí fue previamente aprobado por SINAC. Por otro lado, el Dr. Lobo continúa haciendo referencia a hábitats no cuantificados por el estudio, pero no indica cuales son. Aseverar que hay ambientes que no hayan sido cubier tos por nuestros esfuerzos sin presentar evidencia de ello no parece ser un argumento sustentado en evidencia. El Dr. Daniel Janzen, reconocido ecó logo del bosque seco, visitó el sitio de estudio y recomendó compensar con el máximo de área posible. Esto porque un aspecto fundamental que hay que contemplar es que los ambientes registrados no son estáticos sino que dinámicos, por lo que con el tiempo se puede lograr modificaciones positivas en el ecosistema.Por ejemplo, la cobertura denominada “bosque decid uo” en nuestro estudio es un estadio más temprano de sucesió n, que con suficiente protección tendería a transformarse en un ambiente similar al denominado “bosque secundario” en nuestro informe. • “ Sería un precedente preocupante que la Asamblea Legislativa o la SETENA consideraran este estudio como válido, porque esta prá ctica podría llevar a propiciar la afectación de los límites de más á reas protegidas, fundamentados en la compensación con finc as privadas de área mayor, pero con ecosistemas mucho más alterados de los protegidos. La contabilidad ecosistémica, y m étodo Hábitat/Hectárea (sección 1.1.3 del Estudio de la OET), avalarí an este tipo de compensaciones.” R/ Creemos que el Dr. Lobo extralimita los alcances y aplicaciones de la metodología empleada. Nadie ha pretendido que el mé todo Hábitat/Hectá rea sea empleado en todas las situaciones.Coincidimos con el temor del Dr. Lobo de que este caso particular pueda ser empleado como ejemplo en el futuro para afectar otras áreas protegidas. Incluso tenemos nuestras propias interrogantes sob re el proyecto PAACUME. Pero como científicos debemos tratar de ser objetivos en nuestros juicios. Se seleccionó una metodología que consideramos puede ser empleada para estimar el área a resarcir en caso de que el embalse se realice y se llegue a afectar 113 has en el límite sureste de la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal. Estimamos el área y sugerimos que esta sea complementada con dos propiedades má s así como el manejo del embalse. De seguirse esta recomendación, la reserva se vería beneficiada ambientalmente. N o podemos basar nuestro juico en situaciones hipotéticas futuras en otras zonas del país. · “ 1.1.2 Contabilidad de servicios ecosistémicos. Un aspecto que genera d udas la contabilidad ambiental del estudio de la OET es la contabilidad de servicios ecosisté micos, y la comparación de ambas áreas en relación a estos servicios.La contabilidad de s ervicios ecosistémicos se realizó seleccionando aquellos servicios que: ”(1) que sean productos o beneficios claramente distinguibles y cuantificables en escalas métricas; (2) que no tengan relación directa entre sí , para evitar redundancia de criterios; …”, (página 99) entre otros criterios. Este criterio deja por fuera servic ios importantísimos que los ecosistemas naturales prestan a los ambientes humanos y silvestres, pero que son difícilmente cuantificables, y que están relacionados entre sí , porque al final de cuentas la cobertura boscosa, la calidad del suelo, y la biodive rsidad son elementos comunes a todos los servicios ecosisté micos. Siempre habrá “redundancia de criterios”. Debido a est os criterios de selección, servicios ecosistémicos tan importantes como polinización, protección del suelo, protección de acuí feros, control de plagas y otros no entraron en la contabilidad comparativa de Lomas de Barbudal con ASETREK.Debo recalcar que los servicios de polinización del área inundable de Lomas de Barbudal deben ser substanciales, dada la gran diversidad de abejas que motivaron en buena parte su creación en el año 1986.” R/ Efectivamente el estudio de línea base deja por fuera la cuantificació n de muchos servicios ecosistémicos, así como muchísimos grupos taxonó micos. Para realizar estudios ambientales, debe limitarse el núm ero de objetos de estudio, de otra manera el ejercicio serí a interminable y no cumpliría uno de los requisitos básicos de un estudio sobre el que basar decisiones de manejo: el de ser realizado en un tiempo prudencial. Los servicios indicados se selecciona ron siguiendo una serie de criterios mencionados en la pá gina 99 de nuestro informe. El Dr. Lobo menciona que un servici o ecosistémico relevante es el de polinizadores. No queda claro si fue su omisión o si hace esta observación con otras intenciones, pero parece olvidar que uno de los grupos que específicamente se tratan en este estudio es precisamente el de los polinizadores, identificados todos por el Dr. Paul Hanson de la Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica.Aclarado este punto, el juicio emitido carece de base. • “ 1.1.3 Limitaciones del muestreo de campo. Para un estudio que pretende evaluar la diversida d ecosistémica y biológica de dos áreas medianamente extensas (en la escala de cientos de hectáreas), 10 meses de trabajo parecen insuficientes para hacer una verdadera valoración de la diversidad bioló gica de un sitio, a pesar de que el esfuerzo fue muy intensivo. Para algunos casos, como los muestreos de vegetación, a pesar de fundamentarse en un buen número de parcelas, la curva de acumulación de especies (págin a 125) muestra que aún falta más muestreo para estabilizar los conteos de diversidad de especies. Aquí puedo expresar mis dudas sobre las tablas de especies de plantas presentadas en este capítulo, donde aparentemente todas las muestras fueron identificad as a nivel de especie, lo que a mi parecer requiere un extenso traba jo en los herbarios nacionales.” • “En lo que se refiere al muestreo de especies de aves, no se dice el número de conteos fueron realizados, aunque se reconoce que “Debido a la corta duraci ón de este estudio, no se logró completar la información con muestreos en la é poca de llegada de especies migratorias del hemisferio norte, que sucede en la región durante los meses de Agosto-Mayo" (página 145).Debe señalarse que estudios a lar go plazo de poblaciones de aves, realizados por el Dr. Gary Stiles en Costa Ri ca y Colombia, muestran cambios temporales anuales y supra-anuales muy fuertes, provocando que durante inventarios de muchos años aún sigan presentándose especies nuevas, mientras otras desaparecen.” R/ Es correcto la observación que en este, como en todos los estudios a corto plazo , no se logra llegar al punto máximo de la curva de saturació n de especies de fauna, por lo que los estimados de diversidad para cada grupo taxonó mico se restringen a la metodología y periodo empleados. Sin embargo, esto no impide que se puedan hacer comparaciones entre sitios. La sugerencia del Dr. Lobo en ese sentido, de requerir muestreos mucho más prolongados y con más grupos, no necesariamente alteraría las co nclusiones. Indicamos aquí que ese tipo de argumentos prevendría un abordaje con estos grupos en proyectos ambientales a corto o mediano plazo. • “Una crític a semejante se podría aplicar a los muestreos de entomofauna (insectos), ya que est os se limitaron a la colocación de dos trampas Malaise (trampas hechas con cortinas y frascos) permanentes en cada sitio, de donde se colectaron insectos durante un año.Limitar este muestreo a esta técnica es insuficiente, muchos insectos de gran importancia ecosistémica no son eficientemente colectados con este mé todo, como mucha de la entomofauna de suelo, abejas, hormigas, etc. Un ejemplo es el número limitado de individuos capturados de la familia Apidae (abejas) (cuadro 56, página 195). Este cuadro muestra que dentro de Lomas de Barbudal no se colectó ningú n individuo de esta familia y sólo 11 abejas en ASETREK. Este resultado es totalmente equivocado. Estudios detallados en la región muestran que en un sólo árbol, durante su floración, puede colectars e de 30-70 especies de abejas y miles de individuos.” R/ Exacto. El nuestro es un estudio ambiental. No tiene ni el nivel de detalle ni intensidad de estudios de investigación. Los trabajos con abejas del Dr. Gordon Frankie por ejemplo se han realizado d esde principio de los años ochenta. No podemos comparar estudios cortos con el nivel de detalle que puede dar una serie de estudios por más de 30 años.Tampoco podemos esperar tener estudios a largo plazo para poder basar decisiones de manejo. • “1.1.4 Limitaciones del sistema de puntuación. El fraccionamiento de los ecosistemas en hábitats y elementos individuales, y la distribución, un poco arbitraria, de a cada elemento y nivel de semejanza entre el área afectada y el á rea de compensación, hace perder, desde mi punto de vista, la perspectiva general de cada sitio, creando una contabilidad que deja escapar diferencias importantes entre Lomas de Barbudal y ASETREK. Un ejemplo d e este problema es la diferencia de pendientes entre ambos sitios. En la pági na 52 del informe se reconoce que el área dentro de Lomas de Barbudal está entre los 10-80 msnm de altitud, con pendientes menores a 5%, mientras que ASETREK muestra elevaciones mayores a 85 msnm, incluyendo una meseta con elevación media de 140 msnm (pág 53). No se informa de la pendiente promedio de ASETREK.Esta diferencia es otra vez resaltada en la pág 214 del info rme, donde se discute la posibilidad de incluir otra finca (Brindis de Amor) como parte de la compensació n, ya que “en contraste con ASETREK, la propiedad Brindis de Amor tiene una pendiente leve”. Diferencias de pendientes son muy importantes, deberían de afectar el puntaje final según la filosofí a adoptada por los consultores. Sin embargo, en página 58, los consultores asignan 4 pts (de un máximo de 5) a los atri butos geofísicos de ASETREK. La gran diferencia de pendiente y alti tud sólo significó un punto menos en la contabilidad del estudio.” R/ Como anotamos en el considerando #7, los pesos de los indicadores pueden alterar la calificació n final y es una de las limitaciones de la metodología empleada. La preocupación del Dr. Lobo es genuina, en el sentido que el sistema de puntuació n podría oscurecer diferencias entre ambientes.Es precisamente por esta razón que en nuestro estudio contempla acciones como: (1) separar los análisis entre las diferentes coberturas; (2) incluir análisis de biodiversidad además de estructura de hábitat; (3) recomendar otras á reas para la compensación. En gran medida, el obsesionarse con la metodología empleada hace que se pierda la perspectiva de lo que se pretende realizar aquí: (1) Saber si se puede compensar el ambiente de un área con el de otra; y (2) determinar cuánto del área se debe emplear en la compensación. • “Otro ejemplo de como la contabilidad del estudio dejó escapar elementos importantes, fue la cuantificación de la importancia de las fuentes de agua. En la página 105 del estudio, en la secció n de “Fuentes de Agua”, se dice que dos fuentes de agua fueron identificadas en los sitios de estudio: Quebrada Viscoyol y Quebrada sin nombre. Después, en la misma página, concluyen: “De nuestras o bservaciones en el campo se concluye que, en término de fuentes de agua, accesibilidad a ellas y producción, ambos sitios son similares.Por lo tanto, siguiendo los criterios señalados en e l cuadro 16, ASETREK recibe un puntaje de 3 pts para este indicador. ". Sin embargo, en la pá gina 183 del informe, los responsables del análisis de la ictiofauna reconocen, al tratar de explicar la menor cantidad de especies de peces en ASETREK: “Esta notable diferencia en composición posiblemente refleje las diferencias en elevació n y en las cualidades de los microambientes acuáticos entre los sitios comparados: el de RBLB presenta una mayor número y más profundidad en pozas y remansos mientras que en el s istema de quebradas en el sitio de compensación en ASETREK el agua fluye más somera. Esta clase de observaciones se repite al final del estudio (pag 214), donde se dice “El sitio de compensación en ASETREK no posee quebradas permanentes…” . Aunque estas diferencias no fueron cuantificadas, es claro que el agua en superfici e prevalece un mayor tiempo en RBLB, efecto especialmente notable durante los meses de est ación seca”.La presencia de una fuente de agua con mayor permanencia en la época seca es un elemento importantísimo en la ecologí a del bosque seco, y debió de afectar en mayor proporción el puntaje. Sin embargo, fuera de las diferencias de ictiofauna, el efecto de esta variable fue indirecto, y no fue contabilizada directamente.” R/ Recordemos que la q uebrada Viscoyol es el límite entre la propiedad de ASETREK y Lomas de Barbudal. La quebrada no es permanente, sino que temporal o intermitente dependiendo d el año. El Dr. Lobo observa atinadamente que hay una discrepancia entre nuestra cuantificación de agua superficial y los resultados de ictiofauna. Sin embargo, recordemos que en nuestra metodología, los pesos de los indicadores se establecen antes de realizar el estudio. Cuando cuantificamos el agua, no encontramos mayores diferencias entre sitios. El puntaje asignado es similar. En el caso de ictiofauna sí observamos diferencias.Aquí el puntaje asignado difiere, “castigando” al sitio de menor diversidad. Si bien es cierto que segú n nuestro criterio estas diferencias deben deberse a los cuerpos de agua, recalificar los puntajes para cuerpos de agua no sería apropiado. • “ Un ejemplo más de este problema: en el capítulo 4.2. “Otras alternativas de compensació n”, se reconoce que ASETREK ha estado sujeto a talas y fuegos recurrentes, una observación que no habí a aparecido y ni había sido cuantificada en el resto del estudio .” R/ Esta aseveración del Dr. Lobo es incorrecta y denota cierta intencionalidad. Tanto Lomas de Barbudal, en el sitio de estudio, como ASETREK han sido sujetos a incendios recientes, tal y como se indica en las páginas 67, 81, 97 de nuestro informe. La figura 23B en la página 98 de nuestro informe muestra un tronco quemado en el potencial sitio de inundación en la reserva. Ambos ambientes está n muy degradados por el fuego y por la cacería, como tambié n lo indica el informe. • “Finalmente, no se consideraron variables relacionadas con la importancia paisajística de Lomas de Barbudal, como cuales son los ecosistemas protegidos y cuanto quedan de estos ecosistemas en la provincia de Guanacaste .Sería posible que concluir que Lomas de Barbudal protege “ ecosistemas en extinción”, a partir de la siguiente afirmació n del estudio, en sus conclusiones:“La reserva se ubica dentro de la Cuenca Hidrográfica del Río Tempisque y protege los remanentes de ambientes naturales que prácticamente han desaparecido de su entorno, como son los bosques riparios y el bosque seco maduro de bajura.” Esta categorización n o aparece en todo el estudio. Hubiera sido interesante cuantos “bosques secos maduros de bajura” y “bosques riparios” quedan en la provincia de Guanacaste, para valorar el sitio en su contexto paisajístico.” R/ Efectivamente la RBLB cumple una importantísima funció n en la protección de ambientes. Sería interesante poder cuantificar los tipos de cobertura que quedan en Guanacaste pero no es el objetivo del estudio. • “1.1.5 El marco teórico inicial es abandonado para hacer ajustes finales en las conclusiones del estudio.Al final de cuentas los autores advierten que la finca ASETREK se muestra insuficiente para compensar las pérdidas de hábitat en Lomas de Barbudal, un hecho que podrí a haber sido corroborado con análisis más integrales y no necesariamente con tables. Los autores no parecen satisfechos con la ecuación Há bitat/Hectárea, a pesar de ser el marco teórico del estudio. De este cálculo se origina la recomendación de comprar 252 has (despué s se menciona la cifra de 330 has, página 208) de la finca ASETREK para que se nivelen los puntajes finales. Sin embargo, los autores reconocen que ASETREK no posee bosques riparios, y por lo tanto proponen, sin estudios detallados, un á rea adicional de com pensación que sí contiene este hábitat. Queda la duda de có mo se justifica la recomendación de 252 o 330 has de ASETREK, siendo que ahora se piensa agregar otra propiedad cuyo puntaje no fue calculado, ni mucho menos restado, al saldo de hectá reas originalmente propuestas.” R/ Efectivamente, el método de há bitat/hectárea aplicado concluye un resarcimiento de 330 hectáreas aproximadamente.Ahí pudo terminar el estudio con la metodología aprobada. Sin embargo, en aras de maximizar la ganancia propusimos incor porar Brindis de Amor por las razones expuestas anteriormente. Esto no significa que dudemos de la metodología seleccionada, sino que somos conscientes de sus limitaciones. Recordemos que, si hay que compensar, debemos maximizar la ganancia ambiental. • “Debe resaltarse que, a pesar de esas dudas, los autores mantienen una conclusión tajante sobre la viabilidad de la compensación “ 7. Pese a las diferencias en calidad de ambiente, es posible compensar las pérdidas en el sitio pote ncial de inundación en RBLB a partir de la incorporación de há bitats evaluados en ASETREK (y otros sitios, como se señala más adelante)". No hay justificación a esta conclusión, especialmente si las propias valoraciones de los autores ponen en duda la equiparación de á reas.” R/ Esa interpretación de nuestras conclusiones es errada.Tanto el sitio de inundació n en la reserva como el sitio en ASETREK consisten en ambientes degradados, dominados por una cobertura decidua de sucesión temprana como se indica en el Cuadro 12 de nuestro inf orme (pág. 66). Empleamos la metodología Habitat/Hectárea, trat ando de maximizar el contraste entre sitios. Resulta en una compensación de 330 hectá reas aproximadamente. Eso es real y sería lo justo dado la metodologí a seguida. Sin embargo, el principio de maximizar las ganancias ambientales nos hacen recurrir a otros criterios para seleccionar áreas que pudieran adicionarse a esa propuesta de compensación. Brindis de Amor y Ciruelas poseen características que las hacen valiosas desde el punto de vista de conservació n. Se recomienda su incorporación en el plan de compensación. No hay que esperar que nuestra metodología de Hábitat/Hectaria lo resuelva. Los criterios son otros, pero igualmente válidos.El problema fundamental de los detractores de nuestro estudio es que está n obsesionados con la metodología seguida y pierden la perspectiva de lo que se está sugiriendo. A la pregunta, ¿puede ser compensado el ambiente en RBLB que sería inundado con el embalse?, la respuesta es sí. Pero una mejor compensación vendría de adicionar otras á reas. • “Al final del es tudio, se presenta la posibilidad de añadir la propiedad “Brindis de Amor”, con una extensión total de 86 Has, por poseer 15.8 has de bosque ripario, en el sector norte de la Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal. Esta á rea se adicionaría a las 252 has de ASETREK, como un área adicional que compensaría la pérdida del bosque ripario de Lomas de Barbudal por inundación. Esto agregaría una faja de bosque, como una pení nsula aislada, en el norte de la Reserva (Fig 51 del estudio). Los autores reconocen que el análisis de este fragmento adicional fue superficial (pá g 213), y no se hicieron los extensos inventarios físicos y bioló gicos practicados en ASETREK.Podrá observarse que “ Brindis de Amor” quedaría como una isla aisl ada del resto de la Reserva, creando una geometría más alargada y estrecha del sector norte de Barbudal, algo no conveniente por el importante efecto de borde que tendrí a esta sección de la reserva.” R/ De hecho el no crear esa península es lo que nos llevó, junto con el SINAC, a solicitar la incorporación de esa área de la Hacienda Ciruelas. En nuestro informe sin embargo, reconocemos los esfuerzos que se han realizado en esta última propiedad por mantener los fragmentos de bosque, de modo que de no poder incorporarla directamente se podría pensar en un arreglo para seguir manteniendo el bosque. • “1.1.6 El embalse Rí o Piedras como parte de la compensación. Al final del estudio, se adiciona una nueva idea: la consideració n del Embalse Río Piedras como parte de la compensació n del área inundada de Lomas de Barbudal, ya que podría declararse como un humedal bajo la categoría de Refugio de Vida Silvestre, constituyendo un área protegida nueva que podría contabilizarse como parte de la compensación.NO SE DAN M AYORES DETALLES DE LAS CARACTERISTICAS DEL EMBALSE Y DE SUS EFE CTOS EN ELAMBIENTE. Se trataría de un intercambio entre dos ecosistemas totalmente diferentes (un ecosistema boscoso por un humedal). Es una idea poco desarrollada en el estudio. Además, es ta propuesta desconoce los impactos ambientales del embalse, entre ellos sobre el propio río Piedras (ver sección 2. Impactos Ambientales no abordados por el E.I.A.).” R/ No. No se pretende sustituir un área con ambientes terrestres con un área con ambientes acuáticos. Lo que se sugiere claramente e n nuestro texto es que así como se tiene ASETREK+Brindis+Ciruelas se podría pensar en adicionar el Embalse como parte de la compensació n. • “ 1.1.7 Compensación biológica o traspaso de tierras al estado? De la informació n aportada por el estudio de compensación de la OET, se observa que el área de las fincas ASETREK, Brindis de Amor y Ciruelas está en mayor parte cubierta por diferentes tipos de ecosistemas forestales (bosques maduros, secundarios o deciduos).Son áreas de bosques existentes, que representan remanentes o regeneración de bosques despué s del intenso período histórico de desforestación en la provincia de Guanacaste, durante los años entre las décadas de 1950 al 1990, proceso que ha cambiado hacia la regeneración secundaria en los últimos 10-20 añ os (ver por ejemplo: Calvo- Alvarado et. al. .2009. "Deforestation and forest restoration in Guanacaste, Costa Rica: Putting conservation policies in context". Forest Ecology and Managemen t, 258, 931-940).Los propietarios de la finca ASETREK han man ifestado interés en vender sus propiedades al estado, o a mantenerlas bajo cobertura forestal para explotación turística o protección (caso de la propiedad Brindis de Amor). Pareciera muy probable que bajo un programa de incentivos a la protecció n (PSA, proyectos ecoturísticos) y bajo la actual legislación forestal, esos bosques no está n sujetos a procesos de cambio de uso de suelo inminentes o inmediatos.” R/ Tal como lo plantea el Dr. Lobo, uno podría suponer que el pago de servicios ambientales podrí a ser un estímulo para mantener las coberturas existentes en esas propiedades.Sin embargo esta es una suposición. Los PSA son efímeros, y no puede asegurarse en el tiempo que ese recurso siempre estará disponible. Por otro lado, nosotros mismos evidenciamos el impacto que el dueñ o de ASETREK hacía de su cobertura boscosa una vez finalizado el periodo de su PSA (pág. 98, Figura 23A de nuestro informe), lo que muestra que esta estrategia no es del todo efectiva. • “ Por otro lado, si se visualiza la cobertura forestal en el sector de la cuenca del río Piedras que será afectado por el proyecto PAACUME, antes y después de la ejecución del proyecto, se podrí a contabilizar que va a ocurrir una reducción drástica neta de la cobertura forestal (pérdida de 450 has de cobertura forestal, transformadas en un espejo de agua), sin ningún aumento de cobertura forestal previsible en los próximos años. Aunque 459 has de bosques dentro de fincas privadas pasarían a manos del estado por el progra ma de compensación, esto no altera el panorama de pérdida neta de cobertura forestal.No está ocurriendo una compensación bioló gica real, sólo un traspaso de tierras entre diferentes propietarios. Este traspaso sería aceptable como compensación si las tierras privadas estuvieran bajo la a menaza de pérdida de cobertura, situación que no parece probable. Al final, la situación final para las especies dentro del futuro embalse es una pérdida drá stica de hábitat, sin posibilidades para sus poblaciones, presentes y futuras, de ocupar nuevas áreas de una dimensión semejante a las perdidas por la inundación del embalse.” R/ Aquí concordamos con el Dr. Lobo. El impacto en los ambientes fue ra de la RBLB debe ser evaluado y compensado. Totalmente de acuerdo con este p unto. Pero nótese que esto debe ser parte del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, al tratarse de los ambientes fuera de la reserva. • “Pareciera má s lógico que un programa de compensación sirviera para adicionar NUEVAS áreas de bosque a la RBLB, o a fincas privadas, que establecieran un equilibrio entre pérdida de hábitat y ganancia de hábitat.Compensar áreas de bosque dentro de un área protegida, con otras áreas de bosque fuera del área protegida, no parece un canje que resulte en una verdadera compensación eco lógica para las especies silvestres, solo una compensación territorial a un á rea protegida, un objetivo loable pero insuficiente.” R/ De acuerdo en que el resarcimiento por las pérdidas que ocasionaría el proyecto como un todo debe contemplar compensar las pérdidas en la Reserva Bi ológica Lomas de Barbudal más las pérdidas fuera de ella. Esto debe existir en el plan de compensación del proyecto. · “1.1.8 Conclusiones general sobre el estudio de la OET. El informe aportado por la OET es insuficiente para definir el cambio de lí mites de Lomas de Barbudal, y no demuestra que este cambio será plenamente compensado por áreas adicionales en otros sector es de la Reserva. La finca ASETREK, estudiada con más detalle por los consultores, al final se reconoce como insuficiente para justificar el canje de tierra, y se acude precipitadamente a otras fincas cercanas para balancear la compensació n, a mi parecer un ejercicio poco serio porque no está debidamente fundamentado.Además, el desconocimiento de los impactos ambientales del embalse Río Piedras sobre la Reserva Biológica y sobre todos los ecosistemas de humedales del Bajo Tempisque debe ser conocido antes de aceptar la inundación de un sector de la Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal y de en general de los ecosistemas afectados por el futuro embalse de PAACUME.” (Ver Anexos 5 A y 5 B de esta acción de inconstitucionalidad).” R/ Ya se ha explicado el razonamiento de la anexió n de las otras propiedades. Y se insiste en mezclar el estudio de compensació n con el estudio de impacto ambiental. Tal vez lo que sea poco serio, sea emitir juicios desde el escritorio, sin conocer los sitios que integran este debate. Invitamos al Dr. Lobo a visitar la parte sur de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para que vea el estado real del ambiente allí . “Como se pudo observar de lo expuesto en este apartado, el Estudio de la OET de junio de 2017, es omiso en demostrar mediante un análisis cientí fico e individualizado el grado de impacto de la desafectación de 113 hectá reas de la RBLB.” R/ Como ya se mencionó anteriormente y explicado en repetidas ocasiones se confunde el Estudio de Línea Base con El Estudio de Impacto Ambiental.RE SUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES FINALES. El estudio de la OET intenta determinar las pé rdidas en el sitio de inundación del embalse Rio Piedras en la porción sureste de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y el valor potencial del ambiente una propiedad con coberturas similares que se ubica colindante al sitio. Las críticas y observaciones al estudio realizado por la OET se basan principalmente en objeciones al método empleado para cuantificar el área de compensació n y a un pobre entendimiento de por qué anexar otras áreas para la resarcir el daño. Los detractores del estudio claramente tienen una posición determinada y previa, y encontra rán objeciones siguiendo esa o cualquier otra metodología. Refrenda ese juicio el hecho que no hay ninguna propuesta de có mo realizar la compensación, qué metodologí a seguir, o incluso qué alternativas posibles se pueden plantear al proyecto, de parte del personal de la Escuela de Biología que con tanta vehemencia critican nuestros procedimientos.En el procedimiento seguido en nuestro informe, que incluye la aplicació n del método hábitat/hectárea así como sopesar criterios de la importancia de propiedades anexas para lograr un plan de compensació n que consideramos satisfactorio, se maximizan las diferencias entre el sitio de impacto en la reserva y los potenciales sitios de compensación. Sin embargo, basta ver las coberturas y la información que proviene de nuestros aná lisis de fauna y flora para darse cuenta que el grueso del ambiente en estos sitios es relativamente similar, lo que ju stifica su empleo para calcular el área a compensar. De real izarse el proyecto del embalse, nuestro trabajo habrá aportado información no sólo de las pérdidas en la reserva, sino que podría emplearse como un punto de partida para la compensación sobre ell as. Los números que exponemos en nuestro informe no deben int erpretarse como un absoluto, sino como lo mínimo que deberí a exigirse para compensar las pérdidas por el impacto de la inundación en esta área protegida.La discusión de si el proyecto PAACUME y su consecuente embalse sobre el Rio Piedras es conveniente para Guanacaste, debe realizarse en todas sus dimensiones, y no basarse en la posibilidad de sustituir los límites de la reserva biológica o el mecanismo utilizado para ello. De igual manera, si se debe o no modificar los límites de áreas silvestres protegidas es un análisis y discusión que deben darse ajenos a las pro puestas metodológicas de cómo realizarlos. Por ú ltimo nuestro estudio presenta un trabajo científico y objetivo, el cual no solo valida una zona un á rea de compensación sino que refiere una serie de recomendaciones para que sean tomadas en cuenta por los t omadores de decisiones”.
14. 27Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 10:12 horas de 9 de junio de 2020, se apersona Mahmood Sasa Marín. Indica que el correo solicitado es [email protected].

2 8.- Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 6:40 horas de 11 de junio de 2020, se apersona Mahmood Sasa Marín. Señala que no ha recibido información para conectarse a la vista oral.

1. 29El 11 de junio de 2020 se celebró la audiencia programada.
2. 30Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 15:55 horas de 15 de junio de 2020, se apersona Patricia Quirós Quirós, en su condición de gerenta general del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas. Indica que, concluida la vista, debe efectuar las siguientes aclaraciones: “ I. EL SITIO CONOCIDO COMO CRUCE RIO (sic) PIEDRAS ES EL UNICO (sic) LUGAR DONDE TECNICAMENTE (sic) SE PUEDE HACER EL EMBALSE. Desde los años 70s se han hecho estudios técnicos con la idea de aprovechar la diferencia de nivel que se generaba entre la llegada y la salida del Canal Oeste al Río Piedras para construir un embalse, se viene analizando desde hace cuarenta año (sic) aproximadamente, incluyéndose como tal en Plan Maestro del Proyecto de Riego de la Cuenca Baja del Río Tempisque en mil novecientos setenta y ocho. En el año 1984 SENARA amplio (sic) los estudios del Embalse Río Piedras, por medio del Consorcio BEL-TAHAL, estudio que vino reforzar la intención de utilizar el Embalse como almacenamiento y regulación de las aguas provenientes de la Laguna del Arenal. Posteriormente, se han realizado una serie de estudios sobre la disponibilidad de recurso hídrico en la cuenca del Río Tempisque y zona costera de Guanacaste, como son:1) 2002 Estudio de Desarrollo Rural de la cuenca del Río Tempisque, elaborado por la Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA);2) 2008 Convenio entre SENARA y el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, para elaborar un estudio de pre factibilidad denominado "Incremento de la disponibilidad del recurso hídrico en la cuenca del Río Tempisque y zona costera de Guanacaste",3) 2010 Estudio de factibilidad y diseño preliminar para la construcción de la presa Embalse Río Piedras. En el año 2014 se emite el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 38665-MP-MIDEPLA-MINAE-MAG del 12 de noviembre del 2014, por medio del cual se crea una comisión para liderar el Proyecto de Agua para Guanacaste (Pacífico Norte) denominado PIAAG, el cual contenía cuatro ejes fundamentales: Seguridad hídrica para las comunidades, Seguridad alimentaria, Necesidades de agua para los ecosistemas, Gestión de aprovechamiento sostenible. En el marco de dicho proyecto SENARA propuso la creación del proyecto PAACUME, para impulsar el proceso de pre inversión y posterior ejecución del proyecto. En el marco del estudio realizado por el ICAA en el año 2006, en donde se planteó como objetivo identificar y analizar alternativas que permitieran abastecer de agua potable y para riego a las comunidades, proyectos turísticos y zonas agrícolas ubicadas en la cuenca del Río Tempisque y zonas costeras norte de la Península de Nicoya, se obtuvieron como posibles propuestas:1) Trasvase Orosi, pero presentaba problemas de valores menores a los 100 l/s durante la mayor parte del año y en época seca el escurrimiento de los ríos en ese sector es menor de 1 m3/s.,2) Trasvase Dos Ríos. En este caso se presentaba problemas de contaminación con minerales tóxico limitando su utilización de las aguas para consumo humano y para agricultura,3) Trasvase Santa María. El máximo aporte del río Jalapiedras sería de 1 m3/s, representando un alto costo económico y ambiental, al tener que transitar por un área de parque con suelos inestables y fuerte pendiente, conllevando un elevado costo de mantenimiento de las obras,4) Presa La Cueva. Esta presa presenta problemas de implementación al requerir inundar una importante área de protección ambiental, reubicar el poblado de Irigaray y un tramo de la carretera interamericana y, problemas de carácter ambiental en su funcionamiento,5) PAACUME. En este caso se tomarán las aguas provenientes del Embalse Arenal y remanentes del DRAT (Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque), para llevarlas hasta el embalse en el Río Piedras, conduciéndolas posteriormente por la margen derecha del Río Tempisque y distribuirlas en áreas de vocación agropecuaria (18.639 hectáreas), riego en zonas verdes para proyectos turísticos desde el Golfo de Papagayo hasta Pinilla y, acueductos en los cantones de Carillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya, proveyendo agua potable para unas 500.000 personas para los próximos 50 años, mejorará el desarrollo socioeconómico de la provincia de Guanacaste, convirtiendo a PAACUME como la mejor opción de solución para el suministro de agua para varios usos de forma sostenible. (ver páginas 14 a 27 del Estudio de Factibilidad) Por otra parte, de acuerdo con los estudios técnicos realizados por el ICE atendiendo al contrato interadministrativo suscrito entre SENANA-ICE-MINAE 201600011 y sus adendas, Río Piedras tiene las condiciones ideales para la construcción de un embalse de gran capacidad, dadas las condiciones de topografía del área, la elevación del primer tramo del Canal Oeste y de las tierras que serán regadas en el segundo tramo del canal. (ver páginas 141 y siguientes del Estudio de Factibilidad) II. EL ESTUDIO DE LAS FINCAS CONOCIDAS COMO HACIENDA CIRUELAS Y BRINDIS DE AMOR TUVO COMO PROPOSITO (sic) ESPECÍFICO ESTUDIAR EL TEMA FORESTAL PARA COMPENSAR EL AREA (sic) DE BOSQUE RIPARIO. La necesidad de inundar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, conllevó la realización de un estudio de línea de Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. Dicho estudio fue realizado por la Organización de Estudios Tropicales OET, para determinar la integridad ecológica, relevancia y fragilidad de los ecosistemas presentes, así como biodiversidad existente en el área de la RBLB por el impacto del embalse Río Piedras, haciendo a la vez estudios en la finca adyacente ASETREK TRES AZUL S.A., finca seleccionada por su conectividad con la reserva. Aun cuando el área propuesta de ASETREK en 444.04 hectáreas para compensar las 113 hectáreas a inundar de la RBLB, se determinó en el estudio de la OET que era necesario solventar una deficiencia en el área de bosque ripario de compensación. Así en conjunto con funcionarios de la OET y SINAC se identificó una segunda finca potencial para compensar ubicada en el lindero noroeste de la reserva a nombre de 3-101-734726 S.A. (Brindis de Amor), finca sobre la cual se diagnosticó cuenta con 15.87 hectáreas de bosque ripario. La propuesta de compensación (ASETREK, y 3-101-734726 S.A.) se remitió al MINAE para que se diera el trámite del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad artículos 71 y 72, sin embargo, el CORAC consideró que la propuesta de bosque ri pario era menor, por lo que propusieron cubrir la diferencia con la finca Hacienda Ciruelas, así la propuesta de compensación para la RBLB quedaría con 444 .04 hectáreas de ASETREK TRES AZUL S.A., 80.20 hectá rea de finca 3-101-734726 S.A. y 25 hectáreas de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. (ver pá ginas 293 a 300 del estudio de Factibilidad) III. EL IMPACTO AMBIENTAL EN LA RESERVA BIOLOGICA (sic) LOMAS DE BARBUDAL POR EL CAMBIO DE uso DE LAS 113 HECTAREAS (sic) QUE SE INUN DARIAN ( sic) , ESTAN (sic ) CONTEMPLADAS EN EL ESTUDIO DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL DEL PROYECTO PAACUME QUE ESTA (sic) SIENDO ANALIZADO POR LA SETENA. Entre los años 2016 y 2017 se trabajó en el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, desarrollad o por el ICE, amparado al contrato interinstitucional SENANA-ICE-MINAE 201600011 y sus adendas. El Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, se presentó ante la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental el 07 de diciembre del 2017, expediente nú mero D1-21601-2017-SETENA. El estudio contiene entre otras cosas la definición del área de influencia, impactos del proyecto, metodología l a identificación y valoración de impactos, acciones correctivas o de mitigación, plan de gestión, compromisos ambientales. El estudio de impacto ambie ntal se encuentra en estudio ante la SETENA, siendo que el 25 febrero del 2020, se presentó el ANEXO UNICO (sic) al estudio cumpliendo con los requerimientos de la SETENA contenidos en la resolución 1338-2019 SETENA. IV. LA AUTORIZACION (sic) LEGISLATIVA PARA LA DESAFECTACIÓN DEL uso DEL SUELO DE LAS 113 HECTAREAS (sic ) DE LA RESERVA BIOLÓ GICA LOMAS DE BARBUDAL, ERA REQUISITO PREVIO PARA LA APROBACION (sic ) DEL ESTUDIO DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL DEL PROYECTO PAA CUME. El Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto Paacu me presentado a la aprobación de la SETENA contempla dentro de los componentes del proyecto la inundació n de 113 hectáreas que forman parte de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, en consecuencia para poder aprobar dicho estudio por parte de la SETENA era necesaria la autorización legislativa para desafectar esas 113 hectáreas del régimen de protecció n como reserva biológica y cambiar su uso por el de embalse, el cual tal y como se dispuso en la Ley No. 9610 pasaría a constituirse como un embalse y el SINAC definirí a la protección ambiental del mismo y estaría en tod o caso bajo la administración y tutela del SINAC en cuanto a la parte ambiental se refiere . Por tal razón, la Ley No. 9610 que autoriza la desafectació n, tiene como presupuesto indispensable para su ejecució n, que se apruebe el EsIA, componente necesario para la ejecució n integral del Proyecto PAACUME, puesto que el proyecto no se podría ejecutar sin la aprobación del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, lo cual contempla como requisito indispensable la autorización legislativa para el cambio de uso de suelo de las citadas 113 hectáreas. V. OFRECIMIENTO DE PRUEBA PARA MEJOR RESOLVER Conforme se solicitó en la Audiencia realizada el día 11 de junio del 2020, y para los efectos correspondientes, se aporta en este acto en calidad de prueba, el Estudio de Factibilidad realizado por SENARA en octubre del 2017, el Estudio de Impacto Ambient al de Octubre 2017 y ANEXO UNICO (sic) de febrero del 2020 ”.
3. 31Mediante resolución de las 14:50 horas de 17 de junio de 2020, se solicitó al Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa copia certificada del expediente legislativo n.o 20.465 que dio origen a la ley n.o 20.465.

3 2.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 14:11 horas de 23 de junio de 2020, se apersona Eduardo Newton Cruickshank Smith, en su condición de Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa. Envía copia certificada del expediente legislativo n.o 20.465 que dio origen a la ley n.o 20.465.

3 3.- Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 12:51 horas de 2 de julio de 2020, se apersonan los accionantes. Indican que, luego de analizar las pruebas aportadas por la OET, la Asamblea Legislativa y el SENARA, así como la participación de quienes asistieron a la vista oral, formulan las siguientes observaciones: “I- OBSERVACIONES SOBRE EL ESTUDIO TÉCNICO PARA DESAFECTAR LA RBLB La jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional ha desarrollado extensamente el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas , según el cual este tipo de espacios protegidos no pueden disminuirse o modificarse si no se cumplen los requisitos fijados al efecto. Lo anterior tiene una clara relación con los principios de no regresión en materia ambiental, de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, preventivo y precautorio . Uno de los requisitos esenciales es el siguiente: Que de previo a la aprobación de la ley se cuente con estudios técnicos suficientes que justifiquen la medida.

En su jurisprudencia, la Sala Constitucional ha establecido que esos estudios técnicos deben al menos: 1- realizar un análisis científico e individualizado del grado de impacto en el ambiente de la desafectación pretendida de un área silvestre protegida; 2- realizar un estudio de los terrenos adyacentes al área protegida a desafectar para determinar cuál terreno es el que reúne las mejores condiciones para compensar las hectáreas que se desafectarían; 3- plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente; 4- demostrar cómo la desafectación de las hectáreas implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades; y 5- cumplir con el requisito de que se compense el área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño y características. Las preguntas que debemos contestar entonces son las siguientes: ¿Cuenta con estudios técnicos suficientes que justifique la medida de desafectación de 113 hectáreas de la RBLB con afectación consecuente sobre el Humedal de Palo Verde que tiene protección internacional según Convención de RAMSAR?

¿Cumple el Estudio elaborado por la OET, cuyos términos de referencia fueron fijados por el SENARA, una entidad dedicada a las Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, con los criterios establecidos por la Sala Constitucional? ¿Demuestra ese Estudio, mediante un análisis científico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la desafectación de esas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB en el ambiente? ¿Plantea recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente? ¿Demuestra cómo la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades? ¿Cumple con el requisito de que se compense el área suprimida de la RBLB con otra de igual tamaño y características? • CARACTERÍSTICAS DEL ESTUDIO DE LA OET El estudio que consta en el expediente legislativo, denominado "Establecimiento de la Línea base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y Finca Adyacente", el cual fue realizado por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET), SEGÚN LOS TÉRMINOS DE REFERENCIA DEFINIDOS POR SENARA (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento) tuvo como objetivo determinar las características biológicas y geofísicas del área de la RBLB que sería sustituida por el área del embalse y evaluar los componentes de biodiversidad en UNA FINCA adyacente perteneciente a la sociedad ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., escogida por SENARA sin ningún criterio técnico , con el fin de valorar su potencial para compensar el área afectada de la RBLB.

El estudio no era para buscar en los terrenos colindantes con la RBLB un área para compensar con características ambientales lo más parecidas al área a inundar. Es decir, dicho estudio estuvo destinado a determinar la posibilidad de compensar el área de la RBLB que sería desafectada con una finca en particular, que es sobre la que se hicieron los estudios, que dicho sea de paso los estudios se realizaron sobre un área de 114 hectáreas de esa finca que mide más de 700 hectáreas. SENARA fue la que determinó que debía hacerse el estudio sobre esa parte de la finca de ASETREK. El estudio de la OET NO realizó un análisis científico e individualizado del grado de impacto en el ambiente de la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de esa Reserva Biológica. El estudio de la OET NO realizó un estudio de los terrenos adyacentes a la RBLB para determinar cuál terreno es el que reunía las mejores condiciones para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarían de la Reserva Biológica.

SENARA debió haber realizado un estudio técnico para identificar cuáles serían esas propiedades que fueran lo más parecidas en cuanto a las características biológicas con las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarían de la RBLB. En nuestra acción de inconstitucionalidad aportamos la información sobre varias de esas propiedades. Inclusive SENARA lo reconoce al aportar el oficio SINAC-CORACAT- SE-041 en su escrito de contestación, donde puede observarse en la página 47 del escrito de SENARA, la consignación que se hace de las manifestaciones del señor Wilfrán Murillo, quien indicó que “se podrí a aprovechar para la redefinición de los límites que tiene Lomas, con respecto a otro terreno que no es ASETREK, ni Brindis de Amor. Sería la oportunidad para agregar esos terrenos que el INDER ha trasladado al SINAC.” Ese tema es relevante, ya que como indicáramos en nuestra acción de inconstitucionalidad, se pudo haber considerado compensar el área a inundar mediante el cambio de categoría de terrenos de entidades públicas adyacentes a la RBLB, incorporándolos dentro de los límites de la Reserva Biológica.

Es muy probable que esos terrenos tuvieran una mejor condición ecológica que los terrenos particulares que se ha insistido en incorporar a la RBLB, sin tener que desembolsar dinero para las expropiaciones que se pretende realizar. El estudio de la OET NO plantea recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente. El estudio de la OET NO demuestra cómo la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades. Ese estudio de la OET finalmente determinó que para compensar el área de 113 hectáreas desafectadas de la RBLB debían incluirse dentro de la Reserva Biológica 332 hectáreas de la finca ASETREK, sin realizar el estudio sobre esa área, ya que se concentró el estudio en 114 hectáreas. Menciona además el estudio de la OET que como compensación deberían incorporarse también las 86 hectáreas de la finca Brindis de Amor, sin hacer un estudio como corresponde sobre las características de esa finca, y además, utilizar el embalse Río Piedras como parte de la compensación, de igual manera, sin ningún estudio.

También se incorpora como compensación al área de la RBLB una porción de la finca de Hacienda Ciruelas SP, sobre la cual NO se hizo ningún estudio. El estudio de la OET recomendó incorporar 332 hectáreas y SENARA decidió, sin criterio técnico , incorporar 444 hectáreas de ASETREK. Adicionalmente, la representante del SENARA reconoce tanto en la vista como en documentación aportada al expediente, que la incorporación a la propuesta de compensación de las fincas Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas, se realizó por recomendación del señor Manrique Montes Obando, Administrador de Lomas de Barbudal, o sea, sin criterio técnico. Ese Estudio tampoco cumple con el requisito de que se compense el área suprimida de la RBLB con otra de igual tamaño y características. •“A CONFESIÓN DE PARTE RELEVO DE PRUEBAS”: OPINION DE MAHMOOD SASA MARÍN, coordinador general del Estudio elaborado por la OET, mediante documento presentado como prueba para mejor proveer, así como su participación en la vista El representante de la OET indicó lo siguiente al inicio de su respuesta a la Sala Constitucional: “En Costa Rica, el tema de compensación ambiental no ha sido suficiente discutido y no hay directrices claras de cuándo y cómo debe realizarse, cuáles metodologías emplear, ni cómo debe evaluarse.

Si bien es cierto que disponemos de algunas leyes y reglamentos que tangencialmente tocan el tema de compensación y se refieren a medidas de compensación, las referencias sobre el resarcimiento ambiental en nuestra legislación son muy generales y el marco legal carece del nivel de especificidad sobre compensación. Esto lo exponemos en nuestro informe (pág. 32-37). Como consecuencia de esta situación, no se dispone de mayor experiencia en la compensación ambiental, especialmente en aquella que involucra áreas silvestres protegidas. En ese sentido nuestro estudio debe considerarse un trabajo pionero en este tema .” (el subrayado no es del original) Obsérvese que el representante indica que el estudio de la OET es un estudio que por PRIMERA VEZ se realiza en el país, y que este es únicamente sobre COMPENSACIÓN AMBIENTAL. Continúa diciendo él en la respuesta a ese Tribunal Constitucional lo siguiente: “El estudio que realiza nuestro equipo de la Organizaci ón para Estudios Tropicales, cuyos resultados y recomendaciones se presentan en el informe “Establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y finca adyacente”, tenía como objetivo determinar las características biol ógicas y geofísicas de un área dentro de la zona protegida Reserva Bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) que potencialmente sería inundada de establecerse el embalse sobre el Río Piedras como parte del proyecto de irrigación PAACUME del SENARA.

Además de esta caracterizació n, se solicitó evaluar el potencial de compensación que tendría una propiedad adyacente de realizarse este impacto, denominada en el informe ASETREK. Para realizar esta evaluación, nuestro grupo se decantó por una metodología basada en un enfoque de puntuación, denominada Hábitat/Hectárea. Sin embargo, también se emplearon criterios distintos a los derivados de esta metodología para llegar a sugerir un plan de compensación. El nuestro es un estudio de línea base y compensación. Las sugerencias, observaciones o críticas a dicho estudio deben ser enfocadas a sus alcances y dimensiones. Nuestro estudio no contempla, ni pretende hacerlo, una valoración del impacto ambiental del proyecto embalse del Rio Piedras ni del Proyecto PAACUME. Tampoco constituye una valoración de la aprobación social de ese proyecto o sus impactos. Los objetivos del estudio siguieron los lineamientos solicitados por SENARA en sus “términos de referencia” (el subrayado no es del original) En relación a (sic) la incorporación de las propiedades de BRINDIS DE AMOR y de HACIENDA CIRUELAS, el representante de la OET señala claramente que en el caso de la propiedad de BRINDIS DE AMOR solo hubo una evaluación de vegetación, la cual incluso fue muy superficial, y el fragmento en la HACIENDA CIRUELAS efectivamente no fue evaluado.

Incluso indica que la propiedad de BRINDIS DE AMOR efectivamente fue identificada después de que se apostara por compensar con ASETREK. En el documento que el señor representante de la OET presente a la Sala Constitucional como prueba para mejor proveer, este se concentró en comentar sobre las observaciones que hizo el coadyuvante Lobo al estudio de la OET. Llama la atención que incluso el representante de la OET coincide con el coadyuvante Lobo en varias de las observaciones que este hizo, dentro de las cuales citamos las siguientes que son muy relevantes para confirmar el alcance limitado del estudio técnico elaborado por la OET. Veamos: El Dr. Lobo señaló en su coadyuvancia lo siguiente: “Por o tro lado, si se visualiza la cobertura forestal en el sector de la cuenca del río Piedras que será afectado por el proyecto PAACUME, antes y despué s de la ejecución del proyecto, se podría contabilizar que va a ocurrir una reducción dr ástica neta de la cobertura forestal (pérdida de 450 has de cobertura forestal, transformadas en un espejo de agua), sin ningún aumento de cobertura forestal previsible en los próximos añ os.

Aunque 459 has de bosques dentro de fincas privadas pasarían a manos del estado por el programa de compensación, esto no altera el panorama de pérdida neta de cobertura forestal. No está ocurriendo una compensación biológica real, sólo un traspaso de tierras entre diferentes propietarios. Este traspaso sería aceptable como compensación si las tierras privadas estuvieran bajo la amenaza de pérdida de cobertura, situación que no parece probable. Al final, la situación final para las especies dentro del futuro embalse es una pérdida drástica de hábitat, sin posibilidades para sus poblaciones, presentes y futuras, de ocupar nuevas áreas de una dimensión semejante a las perdidas (sic) por la inundación del embalse”. El representante de la OET manifestó que coincide con esa observación del Dr Lobo. En su documento presentado ante este tribunal constitucional, indicó que efectivamente el impacto en los ambientes fuera de la RBLB debe ser evaluado y compensado, enfatizando además que eso debe ser parte del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, al tratarse de los ambientes fuera de la reserva.

En esa aseveración, el representante de la OET señala claramente cuál fue el alcance del estudio contratado por SENARA con la OET, y que el impacto ambiental fuera de la RBLB debería ser realizado mediante otro tipo de estudio. En otro apartado de su coadyuvancia, el Dr. Lobo indica lo siguiente: "1.1.8 Conclusiones general sobre el estudio de la OET. El informe aportado por la OET es insuficiente para definir el cambio de límites de Lomas de Barbudal, y no demuestra que este cambio será plenamente compensado por áreas adicionales en otros sectores de la Reserva. La finca ASETREK, estudiada con más detalle por los consultores, al final se reconoce como insuficiente para justificar el canje de tierra, y se acude precipitadamente a otras fincas cercanas para balancear la compensación, a mi parecer un ejercicio poco serio porque no está debidamente fundamentado. Además, el desconocimiento de los impactos ambientales del embalse Río Piedras sobre la Reserva Biológica y sobre todos los ecosistemas de humedales del Bajo Tempisque debe ser conocido antes de aceptar la inundación de un sector de la Reserva de Lomas de Barbudal y de en general de los ecosistemas afectados por el futuro embalse de PAACUME." Ante esa observación del coadyuvante, el representante de la OET señaló lo siguiente: "Ya se ha explicado el razonamiento de la anexión de las otras propiedades.

Y se insiste en mezclar el estudio de compensación con el estudio de impacto ambiental. " (subrayado no es del orig inal) Otra de las observaciones del Dr. Lobo en su coadyuvancia es la siguiente: "Como se pudo observar de lo expue sto en este apartado, el Estudio de la OET de junio de 2017, es omiso en demostrar mediante un análisis científico e individualizado el grado de impacto de la desafectación de 113 hectáreas de la RBLB." Ante esa observación, el representante de la OET vuelve a salir al paso indicando que el Dr. Lobo confunde el Estudio de Línea Base con El Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. Señala de esa manera que el estudio realizado por la OET es de un alcance muy limitado, ya que es un estudio únicamente para compensar el área a inundar de la RBLB. Por otro lado, nos parece importante resaltar una respuesta que dio el representante de la OET ante preguntas de los señores magistrados en la vista realizada sobre las limitaciones que tuvo el estudio que ellos realizaron relacionadas con el plazo para hacer el estudio.

Precisamente ese es uno de los diferentes cuestionamientos que hizo el Dr. Lobo en su coadyuvancia y que vino a ratificar el representante de la OET en la vista. Claramente indicó que el plazo que SENARA les fijó para realizar el estudio fue muy corto para poder hacer un estudio a profundidad sobre toda la biodiversidad que sería irreparablemente afectada por la inundación. Por lo señalado en los párrafos anteriores es que decimos que a confesión de parte, relevo de pruebas. El representante de la OET reconoció que su trabajo no fue un estudio sobre el impacto ambiental de las consecuencias ni las razones para desafectar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB. Que su estudio fue para compensar área a inundar por otras áreas. También indicó que tuvieron limitaciones en cuanto al plazo para realizar la investigación y que no se hizo ningún tipo de estudio sobre la propiedad de HACIENDA CIRUELAS y que sobre la propiedad de BRINDIS DE AMOR solo se realizó un estudio muy superficial de vegetación (no se estudió la biodiversidad de esa propiedad relacionada con insectos, aves, mamíferos, peces en los cuerpos de agua, etc). • OPINION DE LA PGR SOBRE EL ESTUDIO DE LA OET La Procuraduría señaló que no puede valorar técnicamente el estudio de la OET, ni la forma en que se definió la propuesta final de compensación del área desafectada de la RBLB.

Sin embargo, es clara la Procuraduría al indicar que en caso de determinarse que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación del área silvestre protegida sean insuficientes técnicamente, la ley impugnada resultaría inconstitucional por violación al principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental. Pero también señala la PGR que aunque se constate la suficiencia del estudio de la OET y de la propuesta final de compensación, debe advertirse que ese estudio técnico únicamente justificaría la validez de la compensación practicada, y, como tal, no es un estudio té cnico que justifique directamente la decisión de desafectar una parte de la RBLB. En otras palabras, una cosa es un ESTUDIO PARA COMPENSAR ÁREAS, y otra es el ESTUDIO PARA JUSTIFICAR LA DECISIÓN DE DESAFECTAR. La Procuradurí a es contundente en este tema, cuando señala que ... " atendiendo a la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, el estudio que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para justificar la reducción de un área silvestre protegida debería ser un estudio que determine la necesidad y conveniencia de adoptar ese tipo de medida."(el subrayado y resaltado no es del original).

Señala la Procuraduría, que si no se constata la necesidad y conveniencia de desafectar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión. ESE ESTUDIO PARA JUSTIFICAR LA DECISIÓN DE DESAFECTAR, PARA DETERMINAR LA NECESIDAD Y CONVENIENCIA DE ADOPTAR ESE MEDIDA, NO SE HIZO, Y POR LO TANTO TAMPOCO FORMA PARTE DEL EXPEDIENTE LEGISLATIVO DE LA LEY QUE ESTAMOS IMPUGNANDO. Adicionalmente, la PGR, ha sido muy clara al señalar lo siguiente: ''En caso de determinarse que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación de la RBLB son insuficientes técnicamente, la ley impugnada resultaría inconstitucional por violación a los principios de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, precautorio, preventivo y de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, pues no se estaría garantizando que la variación de los límites aprobada no afecta la integridad de la RBLB y no se estaría mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectación de una parte de dicha Reserva Biológica.

También, ello resultaría contrario a la obligación que establece el artículo 3 de la Convención RAMSAR de favorecer la conservación de las zonas húmedas inscritas en la lista de humedales de importancia internacional." También señala la PGR que debe "... valorarse si existe sustento técnico suficiente para justificar la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB para ser utilizada en la ejecución del proyecto PAACUME. Si no se constata ese fundamento, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión, y por no comprobarse el motivo de urgente interés nacional al que la Convención RAMSAR sujeta la posibilidad de modificar el área de los sitios de importancia internacional." Pero especial énfasis deseamos hacer a la observación que hace la PGR para el caso en que el proyecto PAACUME no sea desarrollado, al menos, no en los términos que está planteado actualmente.

Si por alguna razón el proyecto no es desarrollado y tampoco se ejecutan las expropiaciones necesarias para efectuar la compensación propuesta, la Ley 9610 habría desafectado la RBLB en vano, sin existir una justificación válida y sin haber compensado y mitigado los efectos generados por esa disminución. Ello constituiría una violación al principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, precautorio, preventivo y de no regresión, e, incluso, una violación a la Convención RAMSAR al no existir un motivo de urgente necesidad para justificar la disminución del área de uno de los sitios de importancia internacional. • REVISIÓN DEL EXPEDIENTE LEGISLATIVO SOLICITADO COMO PRUEBA PARA MEJOR PROVEER PARA DETERMINAR QUÉ TIPO DE ESTUDIOS SE PRESENTARON COMO JUSTIFICACIÓN PARA DESAFECTAR LAS 113 HECTÁREAS DE LA RBLB, ASÍ COMO LA NO DISPOSICIÓN DE LOS DIPUTADOS DE RECIBIRNOS EN AUDIENCIA O CONSIDERAR AL MENOS LAS OBSERVACIONES QUE LES HICIMOS POR ESCRITO Y QUE CONSTAN EN EL EXPEDIENTE LEGISLATIVO.

De la revisión del expediente legislativo de más de 2.600 folios puede observarse que los únicos estudios que constan en ese voluminoso expediente son precisamente el Estudio preparado por la OET; un Documento Perfil del Proyecto PAACUME elaborado por el SENARA (visible a partir del folio 505); y un documento también elaborado por el SENARA sobre una consulta que se hizo en junio de 2017 supuestamente en las comunidades cercanas al embalse que se construiría en la zona de Río Piedras y que inundaría 850 hectáreas de las cuales 113 hectáreas son de la RBLB. Obsérvese que en la única asamblea que se hizo para explicar sobre ese proyecto llegaron 51 personas. En otras palabras, SENARA consultó a 51 personas sobre el proyecto de la represa, del embalse y de la propuesta de compensación. . (visible a partir del folio 622 del expediente). Llama poderosamente la atención que no se consultó a los vecinos de la RBLB, dentro de los cuales estamos nosotros, como representantes de HACIENDA CIRUELAS y de BRINDIS DE AMOR.

Se pretende inundar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB con la cual colindamos y no nos consultan. Tampoco se consultó a los otros vecinos de la RBLB. Es más, según puede observarse en los folios 1500 y 1501, los suscritos solicitamos una audiencia a la Comisión Especial Legislativa de Guanacaste que tramitó el expediente del proyecto de ley que se convirtió en la ley que estamos impugnando. En esa nota solicitando la audiencia le hicimos ver a los diputados de la Comisión que las coordenadas registradas en el proyecto relacionadas con la finca BRINDIS DE AMOR estaban incompletas ya que estaban ignorando una servidumbre de paso a través de las 87 hectáreas para dar acceso a otra propiedad enclavada en el centro del área geográfica de la propiedad de BRINDIS DE AMOR. También se les hice (sic) ver en la nota que no existía ningún tipo de estudio sobre la propiedad de la Hacienda Ciruelas. Posteriormente, y antes de la votación en segundo debate, enviamos otra nota a todos los diputados, al Presidente de la República y a los ministros del MINAE, MAG, PRESIDENCIA y HACIENDA, haciéndoles ver que mediante la aprobación del proyecto de ley se estaría incurriendo en un gasto por concepto de expropiaciones que podrían rondar los DIEZ MILLONES DE DÓLARES y que existían otras opciones mucho menos onerosas, incluyendo unos terrenos del Estado a los cuales podría cambiársele la categoría de manejo y convertirlos en parte de la RBLB donde la protección de esos terrenos es total, comparable incluso con la categoría de manejo que tiene un Parque Nacional.

Mediante esa nota, que puede observarse en el expediente legislativo entre los folios 1936 y 1955, solicitábamos se devolviera el expediente a primer debate para hacerle las modificaciones correspondientes. Lamentablemente, tanto diputados como miembros del Poder Ejecutivo hicieron caso omiso de nuestra petición. En relación con el requerimiento de la legislación ambiental y la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, en el expediente legislativo NO EXISTE EL ESTUDIO TÉCNICO QUE SE REQUIERE PARA VALORAR SI SE DESAFECTA O NO UN ÁREA SILVESTRE PROTEGIDA. Ese estudio que se requiere, y que no está en el expediente legislativo, debe al menos cumplir con los siguientes lineamientos establecidos por ese tribunal constitucional y la legislación ambiental: 1.- realizar un análisis científico e individualizado del grado de impacto en el ambiente de la desafectación pretendida de un área silvestre protegida; 2.- realizar un estudio de los terrenos adyacentes al área protegida a desafectar para determinar cuál terreno es el que reúne las mejores condiciones para compensar las hectáreas que se desafectarían; 3.- plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente; 4.- demostrar cómo la desafectación de las hectáreas implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades; y 5.- cumplir con el requisito de que se compense el área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño y características.

No solo no está en el expediente legislativo, sino tampoco se le suministró al Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque (CORACAT) , el cual, después de aprobado el proyecto de ley en segundo debate, y luego de que la Asamblea Legislativa no les ampliara el plazo para referirse a la versión final del proyecto, indicó, mediante nota enviada a la Secretaría del Directorio Legislativo para que se incorporara al expediente, que "es necesario que existan los estudios técnicos ambientales, jurídicos y financieros suficientes que justifiquen la sele cción adecuada tanto del área a desafectar, como de las áreas que servirí an como compensación. Debe verificarse la existencia de estos estudios dentro del expediente de este proyecto de ley, ya que a la fecha este Consejo no cuenta con tal informac ión." (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644 del expediente legislativo).

(El resaltado y subrayado no es del original) II.- OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LAS RESPUESTAS DE PATRICIA QUIRÓS, REPRESENTANTE DEL SENARA, EN LA VISTA, ASÍ COMO SOBRE LA PRUEBA PARA MEJOR PROVEER APORTADA POR EL SENARA Revisando lo que la representante del SENARA indicó en la vista, así como de los documentos aportados como prueba para mejor proveer queda claro que fue SENARA quien contrató a la OET. Que fue SENARA quien fijó el plazo y términos de referencia para ese trabajo que debía hacer la OET. Que el Estudio para la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas no se hizo. Que lo que hizo SENARA fue contratar un estudio para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se pretende inundar, con otras tierras escogidas por SENARA. Que lo que SENARA tiene, y no se presentó en el expediente legislativo es un ESTUDIO DE FACTIBILIDAD SOBRE LA REPRESA DEL RIO PIEDRAS realizado por el ICE, el cual nada tiene que ver con el Estudio que se requiera para valorar la desafectación de un área silvestre protegida.

Que existe un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, también elaborado por el ICE, pero para el proyecto de PAACUME, el cual tampoco consta en el expediente legislativo, pero en todo caso tampoco versa sobre el tipo de estudio que se requiere para desafectar un área silvestre protegida. El mismo Procurador General de la República, cuando contestó algunas preguntas de los señores magistrados, fue claro al señalar que ese tipo de estudios elaborados por el ICE no son los estudios que se requieren para desafectar un área silvestre protegida, y adicionalmente el ICE no tiene esas competencias. Dicho sea de paso, existe un pronunciamiento de la PGR de hace unos 5 años señalando que el ICE no tiene competencias legales para realizar actividades fuera del ámbito de acción de su ley constitutiva y reformas, así como de la ley de fortalecimiento del ICE. III.- OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LA PARTICIPACIÓN DEL COADYUVANTE JORGE LOBO SEGURA EN LA VISTA El coadyuvante Jorge Lobo Segura, bió logo experto en esa materia, volvió a señalar lo que había indicado en su escrito de coadyuvancia, que "el informe o estudio de la OET es insuficiente, parcial e incorpora un principio de compensación, supuestamente cuantitativo, donde modificando el tamaño de un área de compensación se puede igualar el área perdida dentro un área protegida.

Esto es equivocado, ya que las poblaciones o especies afectadas por la pérdida de un área protegida no necesariamente aparecerán, en su abundancia original en un área de compensación, aunque se aumente muchas veces su área, al no existir en el área de compensación los hábitats y recursos requeridos por esta especie, o los núcleos poblacionales o las fuentes para la migración de poblaciones que garanticen su repoblamiento. Diferencias drásticas en la calidad del hábitat, especialmente en el grado de alteración humana de los ecosistemas, como las que se detectaron entre Lomas de Barbudal y la finca ASETREK, no se equilibran con el aumento del área de esta última. Esta inflación del área para compensar menos biodiversidad no va a resultar en que las especies afectadas van a restaurarse en el área de compensación, especialmente si en el área de compensación tenemos hábitats muy diferentes al área afectada dentro del Parque Nacional o Reserva Biológica.

En el área que será inundada de Lomas de Barbudal hay bosques riparios, y posiblemente otros hábitats no cuantificados por el estudio, que no están representados en ASETREK." Para el coadyuvante Lobo, luego de analizar a profundidad el Estudio realizado por la OET, es claro que dicho estudio utilizado para justificar la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, NO realizó un análisis científico e individualizado del grado de impacto en el ambiente de la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas de esa Reserva Biológica; NO realizó un estudio de los terrenos adyacentes a la RBLB para determinar cuál terreno es el que reunía las mejores condiciones para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarían de la Reserva Biológica; NO planteó recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente; NO demostró cómo la desafectación de las 113 hectáreas implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades; NO cumplió con el requisito de que se compense el área suprimida de la RBLB con otra de igual tamaño y características.

Lo más relevante de su participación en la vista fue su aseveración de que sería un precedente preocupante que la Asamblea Legislativa, la SETENA y la Sala Constitucional consideraran este estudio como válido. Si eso fuera así, podría abrirse un portillo, más bien un portón, que llevarí a a propiciar la afectación de los límites de más áreas protegidas, fundamentados en la compensación con fincas privadas de área mayor, pero con ecosistemas mucho más alterados de los protegidos. La contabilidad ecosistémica y el método Hábitat por Hectárea, avalarían este tipo de compensaciones . Es evidente entonces que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación son insuficientes y tienen falencias técnicas, por lo que la ley impugnada claramente violentaría el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, pues no se estaría garantizando que la variación de los límites aprobada no afecta la integridad de la RBLB y no se estaría mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectación de una parte de dicha Reserva Biológica.

Consecuentemente, se violentaría el principio precautorio, principio preventivo y no existiría respaldo técnico de que la medida legislativa adoptada no afecta el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. IV.- OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LA PARTICIPACIÓN DEL PRESIDENTE DE LA REPÚBLICA, EL MINISTRO DEL MINAE Y EL MINISTRO DE AGRICULTURA Y GANADERÍA El Presidente de la República y sus ministros señalaron que de este proyecto depende el agua para Guanacaste, señalando que sin el proyecto de PAACUME no habrá agua para consumo humano, tampoco habrá agua para la agricultura ni para los desarrollos inmobiliarios residenciales, comerciales y de turismo, en la cuenca media del Tempisque y los poblados costeros de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya, LO QUE ES ABSOLUTAMENTE FALSO. Consideramos que mediante esa aseveración pretenden ejercer una presión psicológica y social sobre los magistrados que conocen de esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, tratando de ponerlos en una situación de que si fallan a favor de la acción de inconstitucionalidad estarían dejando sin agua a esos cantones de la provincia de Guanacaste afectando seriamente su desarrollo.

Veamos por qué no es cierto lo que señalan. Por un lado, el mismo proyecto de PAACUME indica que sólo un 10% de la producción de agua tendrá la finalidad de satisfacer necesidades de consumo de agua potable. Este punto es muy relevante ya que en las argumentaciones del SENARA y especialmente en las del SINAC del MINAE, se habla de dos fines públicos de igual valor, como lo son la conservación y protección ambiental de la RBLB por un lado, y el acceso al agua potable por otro. Del análisis de toda la documentación que respalda el proyecto PAACUME se concluye que de los 20 metros cúbicos por segundo que se trasegarían para la margen derecha del río Tempisque para llevar agua a los cantones de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya, ÚNICAMENTE EL 10 %, SEAN 2 METROS CÚBICOS POR SEGUNDO SON PARA CONSUMO HUMANO DE AGUA POTABLE. Por otro lado, se ha publicitado mucho que el PAACUME favorecerá al turismo, sin embargo sólo un 7.5% de la cantidad de agua supuestamente se destinaría para tal fin.

Pero, debe hacerse una precisión sobre el uso de esa agua, ya que esa agua es para IRRIGACIÓN de propiedades vinculadas al turismo, no para el consumo humano que estaría contemplado dentro del 10% mencionado en el párrafo anterior. Eso significa que el 82.5% de la producción de agua del proyecto PAACUME se destinará a riego para agricultura, especialmente de monocultivos de grandes productores. Así las cosas, es falso lo que afirman, pero adicionalmente está totalmente descontextualizada la información, ya que la realidad de los requerimientos de agua potable para los cantones de Nicoya, Santa Cruz y Guanacaste es muy distinta hoy de cuando fue concebido por parte de SENARA ese proyecto hace mucho más de 10 años. Cuando SENARA concibió el proyecto de PAACUME había problemas de abastecimiento de agua potable en Carrillo y Santa Cruz, PERO, dichos problemas ya se resolvieron mediante acueductos que tardó muchos años el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA) de construir.

Nos referimos a los acueductos de SARDINAL- EL COCO- OCOTAL en el cantón de Carrillo, y el de NIMBOYORES en el cantón de Santa Cruz. Entre ambos acueductos se abastecerá de agua potable a 80.000 personas por los siguientes 50 años, aparte de las 140.000 personas que ya reciben agua potable por medio de ASADAS. Eso cubre la totalidad de la población de esos cantones. Adicionalmente, ya se autorizó la operación de una planta desalinizadora en Playa Conchal para abastecer de agua los requerimientos del desarrollo inmobiliario y turístico en esa zona del cantón de Santa Cruz. El costo de ambos pozos y acueductos fue de una fracción del costo del megaproyecto de PAACUME el cual se estima sea superior a los $500 millones de dólares proyectados para el desarrollo del proyecto PAACUME contemplando la construcción de una represa para embalsar agua y luego canalizarla mediante 350 kilómetros de canales.

Por otro lado, conviene traer nuevamente a colación lo manifestado por la organización denominada "Frente por las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de Costa Rica" la cual señala que el proyecto de PAACUME "lo venden" como un proyecto salvador para Guanacaste por el embalse que se haría dentro de la Reserva Biológica, pero no se señala que el agua ya está embalsada en el Lago Arenal, el reservorio más grande del país, que tiene ese como uno de sus propósitos, que ya surte de agua a la margen izquierda de la cuenca del Río Tempisque y nada impide que surta de agua al resto de la provincia guanacasteca. ¿Por qué no se usa directamente? Eso significaría cambiar el diseño del proyecto de PAACUME como bien reconocen los mismos funcionarios de SENARA, en el sentido de que si no pueden disponer de las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB para inundarlas, deberían entonces cambiar el proyecto para embalsar una menor cantidad de agua y complementar con otras medidas.

Como vemos, sí es posible llevar agua potable y de riego a la margen derecha del Tempisque sin necesidad de cercenarle 113 hectáreas de gran valor ecológico a la RBLB. Incluso, conviene repasar lo que señaló oportunamente el coadyuvante Lobo sobre este tema al indicar que "...no hay estudios que se hayan presentado en el expediente legislativo contemplando otras opciones como podría ser la de terminar la construcción de los canales de riego pendientes para aprovechar el agua del embalse del Arenal, ni tampoco estudios sobre la capacidad hídrica de los mantos acuíferos disponibles para explotación en los cantones de Nicoya, Santa Cruz y Carrillo." No se vale entonces hacer creer a la Sala Constitucional y a la opinión pública que estamos ante dos fines públicos de igual rango (acceso al agua potable, que en todo caso sería del 10% del total del agua del proyecto PAACUME y la protección del ambiente a través de una Reserva Biológica única en el país que incluso tiene protección internacional).

Si se quieren contraponer fines públicos, debería ser entonces AGUA PARA RIEGO, O LA PROTECCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE, específicamente, la protección de una RESERVA BIOLÓGICA ÚNICA EN COSTA RICA con categoría de protección equivalente a un PARQUE NACIONAL, y además forma parte del Humedal de Palo Verde el cual le brinda adicionalmente una protección internacional. • ¿EXISTEN OTRAS OPCIONES PARA LLEVAR AGUA PARA RIEGO A LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RIO TEMPISQUE Y AGUA POTABLE PARA LOS CANTONES DE NICOYA, SANTA CRUZ Y CARRILLO, O EL PROYECTO DE PAACUME ES LA ÚNICA OPCIÓN? Por lo que consta en el expediente legislativo y en los documentos aportados a esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, el mismo SENARA, en la página 8 de su contestación de nuestra acción de inconstitucionalidad señala que no existe posibilidad de reubicar o disminuir el volumen del embalse sin afectar significativamente el alcanc e del PAACUME.

¿Qué quiere decir esto? Que sí existe otras formas de llevar agua a la margen derecha del río Tempisque, pero debería replantearse el proyecto. De hecho, una de las justificaciones del PAACUME más efectistas era el tema del acceso al agua potable de los habitantes de los cantones de Santa Cruz, Nicoya y Carrillo. Incluso en la página 9 de su respuesta señalan con dramatismo que el PAACUME servirá para llevar agua a SARDINAL de Carrillo, demostrando de esta forma los personeros de SENARA que están desactualizados sobre ese tema, ya que, como hemos señalado anteriormente, esa escasez de agua fue resuelta por el ICAA. La otra justificación, que es el agua para irrigación de proyectos turísticos costeros, también ya está siendo resuelta por el ICAA, el cual autorizó a uno de esos proyectos turísticos a utilizar agua del mar desalinizándola. Como se puede apreciar, las necesidades han cambiado.

PAACUME no trata entonces de agua potable. Ya ese tema, que de todas maneras representa el 10% del total del agua de PAACUME, fue resuelto por el ICAA. Entonces todo se reduce a afectar la RBLB para permitir desarrollar ese proyecto para irrigar terrenos de desarrollos turísticos (que podrían irrigarse mediante desalinización del agua del mar), y la utilización de agua para proyectos agrícolas. Claramente no hubo un estudio para determinar si había otra opción para llevar agua a la margen derecha del río Tempisque. En el documento denominado "Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal" (visible a los Folios 622-726 del expediente legislativo), ante una de las preguntas formuladas por uno de los participantes, el representante del SENARA en esa actividad indicó que " si no se logran obtener las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, el proyecto cambia totalmente, ya que sin estas 113 hectá reas de la RBLB las condiciones de la presa, la cantidad de agua a embalsar, el costo del proyecto y el diseñ o tendría que cambiar totalmente." ( ver Folio 661 del expediente legislativo).

¿QUÉ SIGNIFICA ESO? Que sí es posible llevar agua a la cuenca media del río Tempisque y a comunidades costeras, pero el diseño del proyecto PAACUME tendría que cambiar . ¡Ese estudio es el que falta! Eso hace que la ley #9610 sea inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión en materia ambiental. Por otro lado, conviene recordar lo que la PGR ha señalado en relación con el Estudio de la OET. Para la PGR, aunque se constate la suficiencia del estudio de la OET y de la propuesta final de compensación, debe advertirse que ese estudio técnico únicamente justificaría la validez de la compensación practicada, y, como tal, no es un estudio técnico que justifique directamente la decisión de desafectar una parte de la RBLB . La Procuraduría es contundente en este tema, cuando señala que ...

" atendiendo a la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, el estudio que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para justificar la reducción de un área silvestre protegida debería ser un estudio que determine la necesidad y conveniencia de adoptar ese tipo de medida."(el subrayado y resaltado no es del original). En este caso, un estudio en ese sentido, sería aquel que fundamente técnicamente la necesidad y conveniencia de desafectar parte de la RBLB. Es decir, un estudio que determine que la única alternativa para desarrollar el proyecto PAACUME y el embalse Río Piedras, es desafectando parte de la Reserva Biológica. Dicho sea de paso, dicho estudio no se ha realizado. Señala la Procuraduría, que si no se constata la necesidad y conveniencia de desafectar 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violació n a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión.

V.- CONCLUSIÓN Por todo lo anterior, así como por las argumentaciones presentadas en nuestra acción de inconstitucionalidad y en la respuesta que hicimos de los alegatos presentados en el expediente por los coadyuvantes activos, el coadyuvante pasivo, la Procuraduría General de la República, el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento y el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, solicitamos respetuosamente a este Tribunal declarar la inconstitucionalidad de la Ley #9610, “MODIFICACIÓN DE LÍMITES DE LA RESERVA BIOLÓ GICA LOMAS BARBUDAL PARA EL DESARROLLO DEL PROYECTO DE ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA PARA LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RÍ O TEMPISQUE Y COMUNIDADES COSTERAS”, publicada en el Alcance #199 de La Gaceta del 23 de noviembre del 2018, por violar los artículos 7, 11, 45, 50, y 176 de la Constitución Política; el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 208 bis del Reglamento de Orden, Dirección y Disciplinalnterior (sic) de la Asamblea Legislativa para el proceso de formación de la ley, el cual esparámetro (sic) de constitucionalidad; ylos (sic) principios constitucionales de no regresividaden materia ambiental, in dubio pro natura, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, economía, y eficiencia y equilibrio presupuestarios”.

1. 34En los procedimientos se han cumplido las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez ; y,

Considerando:

I.Objeto de la acción. Los accionantes cuestionan la constitucionalidad de la ley n.º 9610 de 17 de octubre de 2018, denominada “Modifica límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del proyecto de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río tempisque y comunidades costeras”, p or considerarla contraria a los artículos 7, 11, 45, 50 y 176 de la Constitución Política, así com o a los principios constitucionales de no regresividad en mate ria ambiental, in dub io pro natura, razonabilidad y pr oporcionalidad, economía y eficiencia, equilibrio presupuestario y seguridad jurí dica. Agregan, además, que en la tramitación de la ley se violentó el artículo 208 bis del Reglament o de la Asamblea Leg islativa, por haber sido aplicado de forma improcedente.

II.Sobre la admisibilidad de la acción y la legitimación de los accionantes. La acción de inconstitucionalidad es un proceso con determinadas formalidades, que deben ser satisfechas a los efectos de que la Sala pueda válidamente conocer el fondo de la impugnación. El artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establece los presupuestos de admisibilidad de la acción de inconstitucionalidad. En primer término, se exige un asunto previo pendiente de resolver, sea en vía judicial o administrativa (en el procedimiento para agotarla), en que se haya invocado la inconstitucionalidad como medio razonable para amparar el derecho o interés que se considera lesionado. En el párrafo segundo y tercero, la ley establece, de manera excepcional, presupuestos en los que no se exige el asunto previo, tales como: inexistencia de lesión individual y directa por la naturaleza del asunto, defensa de intereses difusos o colectivos, o bien, cuando sea formulada directamente por el Contralor General de la República, el Procurador General de la República, el Fiscal General de la República y el Defensor de los Habitantes.

Ahora, en cuanto a la necesidad de un asunto previo pendiente de resolver en sede administrativa, es necesario, que este trate del procedimiento que agota la vía administrativa, el cual, de conformidad con el artículo 126 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se da a partir del momento en que se interponen los recursos ordinarios ante el superior jerarca del órgano que dictó el acto final, pues de lo contrario la acción resultaría inadmisible. Asimismo, existen otras formalidades que deben ser cumplidas, a saber, la determinación explícita de la normativa impugnada, debidamente fundamentada, con cita concreta de las normas y principios constitucionales que se consideren infringidos, la autenticación por abogado del escrito en el que se plantea la acción, la acreditación de las condiciones de legitimación (poderes y certificaciones), así como la certificación literal del escrito en el que se invocó la inconstitucionalidad de las normas en el asunto base, requisitos todos que, en caso de no ser aportados por la parte accionante, pueden ser prevenidos para su cumplimiento por la Presidencia de la Sala.

En el caso particular, para fundamentar su legitimación, los accionantes alegan la defensa de un interés que atañ e a la colectividad en su conjunto, como lo es el derecho de gozar de un ambiente sano. Sin embargo, formulan diversos tipos de alegatos, por lo que resulta necesario analizar su admisibilidad de forma separada en cada uno de ellos:

1)En cuanto a la acusada violación a los artículos 7, 11 y 50 de la Constitución Política y a los principios constitu cionales de no regresividad en materia ambiental e in dubio pro n atura, la acción resulta admisible, ya que los argumentos formulados se encuentran directamente relacionados con la tutela y protecció n del ambiente; supuesto en el cual la Sala ha reconocido en su jurisprudencia la existenc ia de un interés difuso para procur ar su tutela.

2)Sobre la transgresión reclamada al artí culo 176 de la Constitució n Política y a los principios de equilibrio presupuestario, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y econom ía y eficiencia, este Tribunal considera que la acció n resulta admisible, pues, en el fondo, se cuestiona la disposición y buen manejo de fondos públicos, lo que, al estar referido a la actividad financiera del Estado y al cumplimiento de criterios de economía y eficiencia, ha sido aceptado por la Sala como presupuesto de legitimación.

• 3)En relación c on la acusada violación al artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, al numeral 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa y al principio de seguridad jurí dica, la acció n se declara i nadmisible. Sobre este punto , los accionantes acusan que la ley n.º 9610 violenta el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, ya que se priva, sin indemnización previa, de la propiedad privada a tres personas jurídicas para incorporarle a la RBLB casi 500 hectáreas de propiedades pri vadas como compensación. Reclaman que la aprobación de la ley que impone tales limitaciones requiere de 38 votos y, en el caso concreto, si bien se superó esa cantidad, bu ena parte del procedimiento parlamentario se realizó mediante un procedimiento abreviado basado en el artí culo 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, lo que implica la inconstitucionalidad de la ley por violación al procedimient o parlamentario, ya que ese procedimiento abreviado está vedado para proyectos que requieren para su aprobació n el voto de una mayoría calificada de diputados.

Mencionan que por la forma en que se decide expropiar la propiedad de Brindis de Amor para incorporarla a la RBLB, se deja por fuera y enclavada dentro de la reserva, una propiedad de aproximadamente 14 hectá reas perteneciente a la socie dad Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa Rica Pacífico del Mar CMP S.A. Acusan que existe una nota que el Instituto Geográfico Nacional envió a la Asamblea Legislativa (oficio DIG-0388-2018) en respuesta a la consulta que se le hizo me diante oficio AL-DSDI-OFI-0313-2018, de la que se deriva una violación al principio de seguridad jurídica; lo anterior, por cuanto se constata l a existencia de inconsistencias y errores en las coordenadas incluidas en la ley finalmente aprobada, que impiden tener certeza sobre cuá ntas hectáreas deben expropiarse y cuáles son los límites verdaderos de la reserva. Cuestionan , además , que no se haya i ndemnizado previamente las propiedades privadas afectadas.

Al respe cto, la Sala descarta la existencia de algún t ipo de interés difuso o colectivo en esos alegatos de los accionantes. Todos esos argumentos se encuentran r elacionados de una u otra forma con el derecho de propiedad privada y su ev entual transgresión , lo que requeriría de la exis tencia de un asunto base en el que se hubiera invocado la inconstitucionalidad como medio para amparar el derecho o interé s reclamado, lo que se echa de menos en este caso. Por consiguiente, tales alegatos, no son susceptibles de ser analizados por el fondo.

A mayor abundamiento, en lo referente específicamente a las acusadas inconsistencias y errores en cuanto a la debida definición o delimitación de los linderos de la RBLB, tambi én debe tomarse en consideració n que tanto la president a de la Asamblea Legislativa como SENARA argumentan que las coordenadas de delimitación de la reserva biológica señaladas en la ley cuestionada son correctas. Se alega, en particular, que en un trabajo conjunto entre el MINAE y el SENARA se realizaron los estudios y replanteamientos topográficos de campo necesarios, lo que permitió una adecuada precisión geográfica de ubicación y delimitación real del área de la reserva de interés, mediante el uso de instrumentos tecnológicos de precisión geográfica. Se constata con lo anterior, que en el sub lite se plantea una discusión eminentemente técnica sobre la debida ubicación y delimitación geográfica de tales linderos.

En cuyo caso, resolver tal controversia, previa revisión y ponderación de los diversos parámetros técnicos que rigen la materia e, incluso, evacuar y valorar el pertinente material probatorio, supone una discusión que excede, sobradamente, el propósito y la naturaleza del control de constitucionalidad, en los términos de los artículos 10 de la Constitución Política y 73 y siguientes de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Por el contrario, tal discusión en propia de ventilarse en las vías ordinarias, con la respectiva amplitud probatoria.

III.Sobre las coadyuvancias. El artículo 83 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción C onstitucional establece que en el plazo de 15 días posteriores a la primera publicación del edicto a que se refiere el párrafo segundo del artículo 81, las partes que figuren en los asuntos pendientes a la fecha de la interposición de la acción, o aquellos con interés legítimo, podrán apersonarse a fin de coadyuvar en las alegaciones que pudieren justificar su procedencia o improcedencia, o para ampliar, en su caso, los motivos de inconstitucionalidad en relación con el asunto que les interesa.

En la especie, mediante resolución de las 15:23 horas de 21 marzo de 2019, la Presidencia de la Sala aceptó las coadyuvancias activas de Mario Andrés Boza Loría y Jorge Artu ro Lobo Segura y la coadyuvancia pasiva de Luis Renato Alvarado Rivera, Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería; además, rechazó la coadyuvancia formulada por Juan Carlos Peralta, quien manifestó a personarse en representación de la Asociación para el Bienestar y Amparo de los Animales del Cantó n de San José, por no aportar la personería jurídica que acr editara su condición, a pesar de que se le previno .

En este acto, se rechaza la solicitud de coadyuvancia planteada por Henry José Picado Cerdas, toda vez que se apersonó extemporáneamente. La primera publicación de la resolución de curso de esta acción en el Boletín Judicial se efectuó el 19 de febrero de 2019; sin embargo, el señor Picado remitió su escrito el 2 de noviembre de 2019.

IV.Sobre la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley n.° 20.465 que posteriormente dio origen a la ley n.° 9610. De previo a resolver los alegatos de fondo, se considera pertinente exponer los motivos que sustentaron esa iniciativa legislativa, en el proyecto legislativo n.° 20.465:

“Guanacaste es una zona de vital importancia para el desarrollo social y económico del país. En los últimos años ha experimentado un crecimiento exponencial del sector turismo con un desarrollo inmobiliario significativo; además de ser una zona agrícola con características especiales, donde las condiciones climáticas y topográficas permiten tener una rotación de cultivos según la época del año, variando desde la producción de arroz, caña de azúcar, hasta la producción intensiva de melón y sandía, sin dejar de lado la producción ganadera y acuícola.

Estas condiciones han propiciado un incremento en la demanda de agua, tanto por el crecimiento vegetativo de la población como para satisfacer las necesidades de todas las actividades productivas, en la región climática más seca del país y afectada en gran medida por las sequías cada vez más frecuentes producidas por el fenómeno El Niño.

Ante lo anterior, una eficiente gestión del agua se torna clave en la planificación del desarrollo de dicha región. La Estrategia Nacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (Egirh, 2005) señaló que las competencias por el uso del recurso hídrico en esta zona (y otras del país) podrían devenir en conflictos entre usuarios si no se aplicaban las medidas correctivas necesarias. Al respecto, se hace hincapié en la necesidad de una inversión significativa en infraestructura hídrica, la que requiere la provincia con apremio.

El retraso en una inversión sostenida en materia de infraestructura hídrica por varios años ha propiciado que ya se manifiesten varios conflictos por el uso del agua como, por ejemplo, los relacionados a pretendidos aprovechamientos de agua de los acuíferos Sardinal y Nimboyores, con el Acueducto Sardinal – El Coco – Ocotal y el hoy Acueducto de Abastecimiento de las Comunidades Costeras de Santa Cruz, respectivamente.

Esta situación obliga a priorizar, y ejecutar con celeridad, políticas públicas para la gestión integrada del recurso hídrico y que se garantice la seguridad hídrica en la provincia. Este tipo de políticas debe establecer un aprovechamiento controlado y sostenible mediante infraestructura de regulación que contribuya a disminuir los impactos derivados del estrés en la disponibilidad de agua, tanto en hogares residenciales, sectores productivos y zonas de desarrollo inmobiliario. La gestión debe ir enfocada en administrar la oferta hídrica en los meses de mayor lluvia para mejorar la condición en época seca.

El Plan Nacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (PNGIRH, 2008) dispuso como acción inmediata implementar el llamado Plan de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste en la línea estratégica 8.3.3.2, bajo el objetivo de “Regular la oferta hídrica para permitir su disponibilidad durante todo el año y atender la vulnerabilidad al cambio climático”.

Como resultado de la mesa de trabajo por Guanacaste: Agua e Infraestructura Hídrica, implementada por la Administración Solís Rivera, se retoma y dispone la ejecución de este proyecto. Esta Administración le ha dado una visión integral a la problemática del agua en Guanacaste, con el fin de asegurar una gestión integrada del agua en el país y, en particular, en esta provincia y atender la seguridad hídrica y alimentaria a largo plazo.

Por su importancia, esta línea de acción estratégica fue incluida dentro del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2015-2018 “Alberto Cañas Escalante”, bajo la línea programática 1.9 del sector ambiente, siendo que bajo el ejercicio de rectoría del sector ambiente, energía, mares y ordenamiento territorial se contempla el desarrollo e implementación del Programa Integral de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste - Pacífico Norte (Piaag), que integra actividades, obras y proyectos en el inmediato, corto, mediano y largo plazos.

El Piaag integra una serie de acciones estratégicas para el desarrollo de proyectos de infraestructura hidráulica de regulación y control de agua para satisfacer la demanda de agua para las poblaciones y el uso en riego en las llanuras del Tempisque. Además, contiene acciones de monitoreo e investigación de agua subterránea, así como promoción y desarrollo de alternativas tecnológicamente novedosas, acciones de conservación y uso eficiente del agua, y la adaptación al cambio climático.

El Piaag tiene como objetivo asegurar el aprovechamiento óptimo del recurso hídrico en la provincia de Guanacaste para satisfacer las demandas de agua por parte de las comunidades y las distintas actividades productivas, mejorando el acceso al agua en cantidad y calidad adecuada. Para ello contempla cuatro ejes estratégicos:

I- Seguridad hídrica para las comunidades (derecho humano acceso al agua - sistemas de AyA y acueductos comunales - asadas).

II- Seguridad alimentaria (incremento de la producción alimentaria con sistemas de riego).

III- Necesidades de agua de los ecosistemas (promover la sostenibilidad de los ecosistemas.

IV- Gestión de aprovechamiento sostenible (mejorar el aprovechamiento del agua disponible, con prioridad el agua subterránea).

Conforme a los ejes I y II, el Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterránea, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) desarrolla el Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), que se constituye, por su ámbito y alcance en beneficios, en el proyecto más robusto y estratégico.

PROYECTO DE ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA PARA LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RÍO TEMPISQUE Y COMUNIDADES COSTERAS (PAACUME) El Paacume tiene como objetivo potenciar el desarrollo socioeconómico de la provincia de Guanacaste mediante un mejor aprovechamiento de los recursos hídricos provenientes del Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal-Dengo-Sandillal (Ardesa) y demás fuentes disponibles, como medidas de adaptación al cambio climático en un marco de sostenibilidad y equidad.

El proyecto consiste en generar las condiciones técnicas y tecnológicas para un mejor aprovechamiento de las aguas en el Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque (DRAT), las cuales provienen de la generación hidroeléctrica del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) en el Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal, Dengo, Sandillal (Ardesa).

Contiene la automatización de la Presa Derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B y Canal Oeste Tramo I hasta el embalse Río Piedras, contemplando la construcción de un embalse de almacenamiento en el río Piedras, ampliación y construcción del Canal Oeste Tramos II y III desde este hasta río Tempisque. Además, las líneas de conducción secundarias y terciarias para riego agropecuario y áreas de desarrollo turístico, obras de entrega de agua para las poblaciones que será administrada por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, todo desde la planicie del río Tempisque hasta la zona costera. Igualmente, integra el proyecto la construcción de casa de máquinas para generación eléctrica en el punto de presa.

El objetivo fundamental es la provisión de agua, accesible en cantidad, calidad y oportunidad -de 20 metros cúbicos por segundo- para diferentes usos potenciales. Se proyecta beneficiar al menos a 204 mil personas y cubrir al menos 17 mil hectáreas bajo riego. De este caudal quedarán disponibles 2 metros cúbicos por segundo para el abastecimiento a largo plazo de comunidades de cantones de Santa Cruz, Nicoya y Carrillo y que será administrada por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Además, el proyecto contempla al menos 1.5 metros cúbicos por segundo de agua para riego como apoyo a la actividad turística en la zona costera y con ello beneficiar las comunidades costeras con la liberación de aguas subterráneas hoy usadas en riego.

Este proyecto no solo permitirá el acceso sostenible al agua por parte de las comunidades y el sector productivo, sino que además pretende armonizar y regular la explotación racional de los principales recursos subterráneos en acuíferos en la margen derecha de la cuenca media del río Tempisque, pues permitirá al Estado la regulación del uso máximo de pozos para estas actividades. La construcción de la presa sobre el río Piedras implica un embalse con un espejo de agua de aproximadamente 850 hectáreas, de las cuales, conforme al levantamiento de campo realizado por el Senara, 113 hectáreas se encuentran dentro de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB). El sitio de presa se ubicará en un estrechamiento natural del cauce de este río entre las coordenadas longitud oeste 358930, latitud norte 1163180 y longitud oeste 359690, latitud norte 1155330 a una elevación de nivel de agua máxima de 50.50 m.s.n.m.

Esta presa tendrá como función crear un represamiento para el almacenamiento del agua, que será captada por el Senara en la presa Miguel Pablo Dengo ubicado en el río Santa Rosa. A partir de este sitio será conducida el agua por medio del Canal Oeste, Tramo I, que tiene una longitud de 21 km y una capacidad hidráulica de 55 metros cúbicos por segundo. Es importante destacar que antes que el Canal Oeste Tramo I interseque con el río Piedras se da una caída natural, es precisamente esta caída la que permite concebir un sitio de almacenamiento. El proyecto se ubicará en la región Chorotega, provincia de Guanacaste. Su área de influencia comprende los cantones de Bagaces, Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya. Sin embargo, el área de riego solo cubre algunos distritos de los cantones de Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya. Ubicación:

Cantón Distrito Cantón Distrito Nicoya San Antonio Carrillo Filadelfia Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Palmira Bolsón Belén Cartagena Sardinal Diriá Así las cosas, la ubicación de la presa en el río Piedras obedece a una condición topográfica única que no permite ser trasladada a otro sitio; por tanto, esta ubicación y diferencia de nivel entre la entrada del canal que lo abastece y la salida del canal que permitirá llevar el agua hasta el río Tempisque determinan el nivel máximo de embalse y la capacidad de este para abastecer con 20 metros cúbicos por segundo al Paacume.

En algún momento se valoró la posibilidad de construir un dique para evitar la inundación de esta área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal y un túnel de más de 2 kilómetros para evacuar las aguas; sin embargo, resultó que el sitio del dique coincide con una falla geológica que haría imposible su construcción por el alto riesgo que genera a la obra.

No existe posibilidad de reubicar o disminuir el volumen del embalse sin afectar significativamente el alcance del Paacume y con ello los beneficios para la población guanacasteca, con lo cual se determinó la necesidad de contar con 113 hectáreas a de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para ser inundadas.

Resulta de vital importancia que este embalse se desarrolle a plenitud, para lo cual es indispensable tener como área inundable esta extensión. Senara ha demostrado que esta extensión de embalse, incluida la zona dentro de la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal (113 hectáreas), es la única vía para hacerlo con el fin de atender la demanda hídrica en el ámbito del proyecto de forma sostenible. Beneficiarios del proyecto Con Paacume se beneficiarán con riego tres cantones de la provincia de Guanacaste, a saber: Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Nicoya. Adicionalmente, Paacume destinará 2 metros cúbicos por segundo de agua para consumo humano (cuyo tratamiento y distribución estará a cargo del AyA), lo que implica solucionar el déficit con un horizonte de 50 años de aproximadamente 500.000 personas, además de que con la generación hidroeléctrica en sitio de presa de producirán 7 MW por año y en materia de riego cubrirá un área estimada en 1.875 ha en el sector turístico en la zona costera, liberando agua subterránea hoy usada con este fin. Esto además del agua dispuesta para el riego productivo.

Tabla 1. Proyección de la población del período 2016-2020 Por cantón y distrito Cantón/distrito 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Nicoya 54396 54958 55512 56053 56591 Nicoya 25727 25971 26216 26454 26693 Mansión 5737 5745 5756 5760 5768 San Antonio 6933 6974 7015 7055 7091 Quebrado Honda 2565 2573 2579 2580 2587 Sámara 4309 4373 4436 4499 4561 Nosara 6241 6405 6559 6720 6873 Belén de Nosarita 2884 2917 2951 2985 3018 Santa Cruz 64118 63345 66561 67758 68939 Santa Cruz 25739 26134 26518 26901 27278 Bolsón 1977 2010 2047 2081 2113 Veintisiete de Abril 8112 8313 8519 8717 8912 Tempate 5770 5888 6007 6123 6240 Cartagena 4510 4620 4727 4834 4935 Cuajiniquil 2285 2350 2416 2476 2543 Diriá 4530 4609 4684 4762 4834 Cabo Velas 3896 3979 4060 4141 4223 Tamarindo 7299 7442 7583 7723 7861 Carrillo 42325 43251 44157 45047 45939 Filadelfia 8425 8527 8618 8711 8804 Palmira 5986 6144 6296 6445 6594 Sardinal 17720 18119 18517 18909 19296 Belén 10194 10461 10726 10982 11245 Total 160839 163554 166230 168858 171469 Fuente: INEC,2016.

Los beneficiarios potenciales del proyecto están compuestos por la población general de la provincia de Guanacaste. Esta provincia cuenta con una población proyectada por el Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC) de 371.375 habitantes para el 2.016, más la población flotante que está compuesta por el turismo nacional y extranjero estimándose en más de un millón de personas al año, a esto se le suma otra población compuesta por trabajadores de las diferentes empresas que incluye el turismo y que permanecen entrando y saliendo del área.

El Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA) ha estimado que para el 2025 habrá una población, dentro del área del proyecto, equivalente a más de 220.000 habitantes como usuarios de los acueductos principales de la zona (Senara, 2006).

En el año 2002 se registró el ingreso de 1.113.359 turistas. La tendencia al crecimiento es constante, ya que para el 2014 se duplicó el número de visitación al país.

Contrario al panorama de pobreza de la región Chorotega, esta es una de las zonas que mayor desarrollo turístico ha experimentado. En sus costas se asientan los principales complejos hoteleros que existen en el país. Se estimó, en el año 2005, que la capacidad instalada en los hoteles de la zona del proyecto era para 140.812 personas en temporada alta y se proyectaba que para el año 2025 alcanzará las 230.900 personas (Senara, 2006).

Debe señalarse que el recurso más amenazado en la actualidad es el agua debido principalmente a la sobreexplotación de los acuíferos para consumo humano, aspecto que se agrava aún más en las zonas turísticas por la amenaza de salinización de los pozos. Con la capacidad instalada en el 2005 la demanda promedio de agua potable se estimó en 570 l/s y con el crecimiento sostenido al 2025 alcanzaría los 935 l/s.

El área de riego agropecuario se estima en 17000 ha en donde se podrían beneficiar 1.067 productores agropecuarios entre grandes, medianos y pequeños. La distribución de los propietarios se presenta en la tabla 2.

Tabla 2. Distribución de productores por cantón Cantón Nú mero de beneficiarios Nicoya 84 Santa Cruz 482 Carillo 505 Total 1067 Fuente: Sena ra, 2017 Tabla 3. Distribución del uso actual del suelo en el á rea de influencia del PAACUME.

Por cantó n en hectáre as Uso actual del suelo Carrillo (ha) Nicoya (ha) Santa Cruz (ha) Tot al (ha) Total (%) Áreas de protección 962 188 2396 3546 8.5 Áreas protegidas 327 269 596 1.4 Arroz 874 507 1380 3.3 Bosque 659 448 1355 2462 5.9 Caña de Azúcar 11282 616 1612 13510 3 2.6 Charral 90 203 293 0.7 Forestales 19 33 52 0.1 Frutales 25 7 95 352 0.8 Industria 32 32 0.1 Melón 3 91 391 0.9 Pacas 1814 1814 4.4 Palma 46 46 0.1 Pastos 4945 1464 9960 16370 39. 5 Sorgo 37 37 0.1 Urbano 328 268 596 1.4 ÁREA TOTAL 20166 2716 18595 414 77 100 ÁREA REGABLE 17749 2080 14071 33900 81 .7 Fuente: Senara. 2016. Trabajo de campo re alizado en el mes de febrero de 2016.

Esta tabla 3 refleja el área total de cobertura del proyecto que corresponde a 41.477 hectáreas y el área regable, en la que se excluyen para los tres cantones las áreas de protección, áreas protegidas, bosque, charral, forestales, industria y la zona urbana, que suman un total de 33.900 hectáreas potencialmente regables.

Uso propuesto del suelo A partir de la oferta de agua que introduce el Paacume, se identifica el área que efectivamente se va a regar. Para las áreas que no sean posibles de abastecer con el proyecto se deberá buscar y analizar posteriormente la opción que resulte factible y viable dentro de las potenciales alternativas de solución. En el caso del abastecimiento de agua para consumo humano, lo que se está proponiendo es una reserva a futuro sobre un uso que es prioritario.

Con base en la determinación de los cultivos que se ubican dentro del área regable del proyecto y considerando que el área potencial de riego supera el área posible de regar con el agua disponible, se determinará una propuesta de cultivos a regar a partir del uso del suelo, la cual se utilizará como referencia para la determinación de la demanda de agua y para la valoración financiera y económica del proyecto.

En la tabla 4 se presenta el uso propuesto del suelo ajustado según la disponibilidad de la oferta de agua para uso agropecuario.

De acuerdo con el caudal disponible, la demanda de agua puede variar según las épocas de siembra propuestas, eficiencia del método de riego y disponibilidad de agua.

Tabla 4. Uso propuesto del suelo, épocas de siembra y cosecha segú n la oferta de agua disponible Cultivos Época siembra É poca cosecha Total (has) Total (% ) Arroz Enero-Julio Abril, noviembre 1 400 8.2 Caña de Azúcar Dic-abril 8500 50 Forrajes Mayo Enero-dic 600 3.5 Frutales febrero-abril 400 3.5 Hortalizas E nero-Mayo, Jul, Set, Nov, Dic Enero-setiembre nov 400 2.4 Melón Nov-Enero Enero-Mayo 600 2.4 Pacas Mayo Enero-Dic 4000 23.5 Raíces y tubérculos Noviembre-Febrero Febrero-Abril Junio-Noviembre 700 4.1 Sandía Nov, Marzo, Abril En, Feb, Marzo, Mayo, Jun, Jul, Agost o 400 2.4 TOTAL 17.000 100 Uso potencial del suelo La tabla de uso potencial del suelo refleja una propuesta de cultivos en un tiempo estimado de tres años plazo después de iniciada la operación del sistema de riego, en la cual se mantienen los mismos cultivos, y las épocas de siembra. Hay un aumento de área de producción, porque se considera que se optimiza la operación del sistema de riego y aumenta la eficiencia de los métodos de riego utilizados. En la tabla 5 se desglosa el área de siembra de cada uno de los diferentes sistemas de producción y se observa que se incrementan las áreas sembradas de caña de azúcar, frutales, pacas, raíces y tubérculos y sandía.

Tabla 5. Cultivos potenciales, épocas de siembra, cosecha y áreas potencialmente regables Cultivos Época siembra É poca cosecha Total (has) Total (%) Arroz Enero-Julio Abril, noviembre 1400 7.5 Caña de Azúcar Dic-abri l 8500 45.2 Forrajes Mayo Enero-dic 1000 5.3 Frutales Febrero-abril 1000 5.3 Hortalizas Enero-mayo, jul, set, nov, dic Ene ro-setiembre nov 400 2.1 Melón Nov-enero Enero-mayo 1000 5.3 Sandía Nov, marzo, abril En, feb, marzo, mayo, jun, ju l, agosto 500 2.7 Pacas Mayo Enero-dic 4000 21.3 Raíces y tubérculos Noviembre-febrero Febrero-abril junio-noviembre 1000 5.3 TOTAL 18.800 100 Las 18.800 hectáreas tienen su máxima demanda en el mes de abril con un total de 16,35 m3 /s.

Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, nos encontramos ante una obligada decisión de realizar la desafectación de un área silvestre protegida, que según estipula la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente solo podrá reducirse mediante una ley de la República, después de realizar los estudios técnicos que justifiquen esta medida. En este sentido, la Sala Constitucional ha emitido vasta jurisprudencia con respecto al artículo 38 de la ley citada, al establecer que para la reducción de las áreas silvestres protegidas se necesitan dos requisitos esenciales: una ley de desafectación y la previa realización de estudios técnicos suficientes que justifiquen la medida…

…En ese sentido, la propuesta que se plantea se considera no contraviene el principio de irreductibilidad y de no regresión contenido en los instrumentos internacionales como el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica y el Convenio de Washington, ya que la desafectación territorial o espacial del área protegida es un acto excepcional y reforzado, que cumple con los requisitos técnicos y legales que tienen como fin impedir todo tipo de regresión en esta materia.

Los estudios técnicos y la necesidad de desafectar el área protegida ha sido de conocimiento de las instancias regionales y nacionales y cuenta con la aprobación en primera instancia del Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación (Corac), según acuerdo número 01 en sesión extraordinaria celebrada el día 5 de julio del año 2017 y posteriormente por el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Conac), en sesión extraordinaria número 3-2017 del día 11 de julio de 2017, han valorado dichos estudios y realizan observaciones de importante consideración.

En virtud de lo anterior, el Consejo Regional del Área del Conservación Arenal Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación valoró los estudios técnicos respectivos de acuerdo con la recomendación dada por el Comité Técnico, a la luz de lo dispuesto por el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente N.° 7554 (y el desarrollo jurisprudencial -Voto 2014-0121287 Sala Constitucional- y antecedentes de análisis en la materia -Oficio N.º 09082 CGR y el Informe de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa AL-DEST- IJU-117- 2016) y siendo que mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo 16849-MAG, de 23 de enero de 1986, publicado en La Gaceta N.° 45 de 5 de marzo de 1986, se crea la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, identificándose en el cuerpo considerativo de dicho decreto los siguientes objetos de conservación: 1) Flora y fauna de la sabana seca arbolada de bajura. 2) Bosque ripario de tierras bajas. 3) Bosque caducifolio de tierras bajas. 4) Al menos 10 nacientes y parte de la cuenca del río Cabuyo. 5) Fauna entomológica única.

Esta instancia procedió a analizar de acuerdo con el estudio presentado los posibles impactos que podrían generarse en estos objetos de conservación según el estudio presentado por la Organización de Estudios Tropicales. Aunado a ello, tales objetos de conservación se han homologado a los actuales elementos focales de manejo del área protegida, establecidos en el Plan General de Manejo emitido mediante resolución R-Sinac-Conac-24-2016 vigente desde fecha 3 de noviembre de 2016, llegando dicho órgano colegiado a las siguientes conclusiones resumidas en la tabla 6:

Tabla 6. Conclusiones del Corac Arenal-Tempisque Objeto de conservación según decreto ejecutivo Relación con los elementos focales establecidos en Plan General de Manejo Conclusión técnica Flora y fauna de la sabana seca arbolada de bajura Bosque seco No se verá afectada, ya que el área a inundar no contempla este tipo de ecosistema (sabana seca arbolada) Bosque ripario de tierras bajas Bosques siempre verdes al interior de la eco-región y bosques de galería El tipo de cobertura bosque ripario, es de suma preocupación en el tema de escasa representatividad a nivel de la RBLB. Esta cobertura está representada únicamente en un 8,0% (216,17 has) de área total de la RBLB. Los estudios determinaron que el bosque ripario dentro del sitio de inundación en la reserva corresponde a un 11,4% (24,64 has) del área total de esa cobertura en la RBLB. El área de bosque ripario en la finca Brindis de Amor representa un 7,40 % (15,87 has).

Esto sumado a las 2,2 has de Asetrek suman 18.07 has de bosque ripario como propuesta de compensación. Presentándose una diferencia de aproximadamente 6,57 has de bosque ripario para compensar este tipo de ecosistema Bosque caducifolio de tierras bajas Bosque seco Considerando el resultado obtenido por la aplicación de la metodología, tanto para calidad de hábitat como para diversidad y composición de comunidades, el sitio de compensación Asetrek es inferior en calidad de ambiente, composición y biodiversidad al sitio de la RBLB que sería inundado por el Embalse Río Piedras, razón por la cual, al Objeto de conservación según decreto ejecutivo Relación con los elementos focales establecidos en Plan General de Manejo Conclusión técnica considerar la condición más adecuada para la RBLB, la OET recomienda que se adquieran como mínimo 332 hectáreas de la Finca Asetrek para compensar las 113 ha que deberán ser desafectadas de la Reserva Biológica.

Según (Quesada, 2008), “para revertir áreas de pastos en bosques a través de métodos de regeneración natural, deben tener una ubicación estratégica a fuentes semilleras y cercanía a parches boscosos”, condiciones que presenta el área propuesta en las fincas Asetrek y Brindis de Amor Al menos 10 nacientes y parte de la cuenca del río Cabuyo Sistema fluvial de la cuenca baja del Tempisque El área a inundar no afectaría ninguna naciente, por el contrario, las nacientes principales del río Cabuyo y quebrada Amores se ubican algunas dentro de la finca Brindis de Amor y otras en la propiedad colindante Fauna entomológica única Bosque seco Bosques siempre verdes al interior de la eco-región y bosques de galería Sistema fluvial de la cuenca baja del Tempisque Este tipo de fauna no se verá afectada, ya que los ecosistemas asociados se están contemplando en la propuesta de compensación. Los resultados del estudio brindan datos importantes respecto la composición de comunidades Asimismo, según se lee en el mismo acuerdo del Consejo Regional (acuerdo 01 de la sesión extraordinaria de 5 de julio de 2017) dicha instancia ha verificado que el informe técnico remitido a esta instancia para su consideración ha cumplido con el contenido requerido por los numerales 71 y 72 del Decreto Ejecutivo 34433-Minae, Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, y concluye que salvo las consideraciones realizadas en el objeto de conservación denominado bosque ripario, técnicamente se puede afirmar que: a) Los objetos de conservación que fundamentan la creación de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal no están siendo afectados, y b) Que el área es compensada por otra de igual tamaño que cumple con los mismos fines y semejantes condiciones ecosistémicas.

Finalmente, señalan que mediante ley de la República se autorice la desafectación del área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y consecuentemente se dé la compensación con la compra del área correspondiente, así definido por los estudios técnicos.

De igual manera, al ser Costa Rica parte de la Convención Ramsar se al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (Minae) realizar la comunicación respectiva a la Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, ya que el área a desafectar es tanto un área silvestre protegida como un Sitio Ramsar así designado en diciembre de 1991 dentro del Sitio Ramsar Palo Verde…

…En cumplimiento de lo anterior, de conformidad con la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, el estudio de impacto ambiental a desarrollar para la eventual construcción de la obra establecerá las medidas necesarias a fin de reducir al máximo los posibles efectos que sobre el ambiente genere la construcción del sistema de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río Tempisque y comunidades costeras…

…En enero de 2016 el Senara suscribió el convenio entre la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (OET) y el Senara para realizar el estudio para el establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la RBLB y finca adyacente.

El objetivo del estudio consistió en elaborar y definir la línea base que permita determinar la integridad ecológica, relevancia y fragilidad de los ecosistemas presentes, así como la biodiversidad existente en el área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal a ser impactada directamente por el Embalse Río Piedras. A la vez, se efectúa un análisis comparativo entre un área de la RBLB y terrenos aledaños previamente seleccionados para conocer las condiciones de similitud y factibilidad de utilizarse como zona de reemplazo y que sea ecológicamente equivalente.

Área de compensación Los terrenos evaluados para el área de compensación son propiedad nombre de Asetrek Tres Azul S.A., cédula jurídica N.° 3-101-370259, cuyo representante es el Sr. Ramón Aguilar Facio, cédula de identidad N.° 9-0001-0541, plano catastrado N.° 5-666-1976, folio real N.° 034932-000, situada en el distrito primero Bagaces, del cantón cuarto Bagaces, de la provincia de Guanacaste, con un área de registro de 751 hectáreas.

El procedimiento realizado por la OET para la evaluación de la compensación se basa en una metodología llamada: Hábitat/Hectárea, un sistema de puntajes, desarrollado por investigadores australianos, el cual identifica una serie de indicadores de calidad de ambiente y asigna valores a cada uno de los factores de los hábitats a evaluar. Se realizaron dos evaluaciones de compensación de forma independiente, una basada en indicadores de calidad de hábitat y la otra basada en diversidad y composición de comunidades, ambas adaptadas al bosque seco tropical. Adicionalmente, la metodología usada por la OET fue modificada con el fin de incluir otros indicadores (geofísicos, servicios ecosistémicos, entre otros).

El puntaje final resulta de la suma de los valores determinados para cada indicador y representa la calidad de hábitat o la composición de comunidades en relación con el hábitat de referencia (RBLB). A partir del resultado obtenido en el estudio fue posible estimar el número de hectáreas que se requieren para lograr un nivel de calidad como el de la referencia y así compensar las 113 hectáreas por inundar en la RBLB. Es importante señalar que el estudio realizado por la OET consideró un área en la RBLB de 131,07 hectáreas, pues fue durante la ejecución de este que el Senara realizó el trabajo de campo en topografía para elaborar el plano definitivo sobre el área efectiva requerida para el embalse, que dio como resultado las 113 hectáreas, todas incluidas dentro de las 131,07 hectáreas estudiadas por la OET.

El estudio realizado por la OET (sobre 131,07 hectáreas), al considerar el área establecida determinó que este sector de la RBLB cuenta con tres tipos de cobertura forestal: bosque deciduo en 96,05 hectáreas, bosque secundario en 9,13 hectáreas y bosque maduro en 24,71 hectáreas. Este último en adelante será llamado bosque ripario, debido a que está relacionado con los cauces de la zona y compuesto por remanentes de vegetación que subsisten en las riberas de los ríos y quebradas, constituido por especies siempre verdes. Además, la finca cuenta con 1,18 hectáreas en área no forestal y pastos.

El área de bosque ripario en Asetrek corresponde a pequeñas áreas fragmentadas, situación que llevó a no considerar su existencia para efectos de la asignación de puntajes en la evaluación realizada en el estudio para determinar el área de compensación requerida.

Las conclusiones del estudio revelan, según la calidad de hábitat, que es necesario un área equivalente entre 290 y 332 hectáreas para compensar el área a inundar en la RBLB, debido a que la finca estudiada representa entre el 34,00% y el 51,20% del sitio de referencia, que corresponde a las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB. Estas diferencias indican que la finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. ha sido más perturbada y al no contar con cobertura de bosque ripario se requerirán 332 hectáreas para la compensación, considerando el valor máximo probable que da como resultado la metodología aplicada.

Por otra parte, aplicando la metodología para diversidad y composición de comunidades, Asetrek contiene 30,90% de la referencia (113 hectáreas de la RBLB), es decir, la reserva cuenta con una riqueza de especies mayor de los grupos taxonómicos estudiados, por lo que se necesitan 290 hectáreas para compensar la pérdida en la RBLB.

En conclusión, considerando el resultado obtenido por la aplicación de la metodología, tanto para calidad de hábitat como para diversidad y composición de comunidades, el sitio de compensación Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. es inferior en calidad de ambiente, composición y biodiversidad al sitio de la RBLB que sería inundado por el Embalse Río Piedras, razón por la cual al considerar la condición más adecuada para la RBLB, la OET recomendó que se adquieran como mínimo 332 hectáreas de la Finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. para resarcir las pérdidas de la RBLB.

La finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A., como extensión para la compensación y estudiada por la OET, tiene un área total de 751 hectáreas, de las cuales una parte importante está dedicada a la producción agrícola y ganadera.

Al considerar el área de compensación propuesta como resultado del estudio elaborado se realizó un análisis del sitio para valorar la extensión que se debería proponer para la compensación de las 113 hectáreas a inundar de la RBLB, atendiendo a los siguientes parámetros fundamentales:

1- Cumplir con el área mínima requerida para la compensación obtenida del estudio, que corresponde a 332 hectáreas.

2- Considerar que el área por adquirir para compensación cuente con la cantidad de bosque suficiente, según los tipos de cobertura que se encuentran en el área por inundar de la RBLB.

3- Que el área a comprar incluya las 189,30 hectáreas que fueron estudiadas por la OET para las respectivas comparaciones entre el sitio potencial de compensación y el sitio de referencia (RBLB).

4- Que el área se pueda integrar adecuadamente al resto de la RBLB, respetando entre ellas el mayor porcentaje de colindancia posible.

5- Que el área propuesta para la compensación permita la conectividad de la RBLB con las áreas de protección que se considera dejar alrededor del futuro Embalse Río Piedras como anillo de protección, principalmente en la margen izquierda de este.

6- Que se limite al máximo el lindero del área propuesta con áreas con cobertura no forestal, potreros o pastos, ya que estos pueden incrementar y facilitar el riesgo de incendios dentro de la RBLB.

7- Uniformizar el lindero de la propiedad, para que el área de compensación permita el adecuado manejo por parte de la administración del Sinac en la RBLB.

Una vez analizados los parámetros anteriores, el resultado obtenido denota que el área que se debería comprar de la Finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. es de 444,04 hectáreas. De estas se estima una presencia de bosque deciduo en 286,67 hectáreas, bosque secundario en 59,50 hectáreas, pastizales en 73,23 hectáreas y un área no forestal, es decir, un área de pastos con otras hierbas nativas de 18,50 hectáreas. Es importante indicar que el área seleccionada de la finca cuenta además con un área de bosque ripario de 6,14 hectáreas, distribuida en pequeñas secciones que, por su no conectividad o por encontrarse en la zona de impacto directo del embalse, no se consideraron para la aplicación de la metodología utilizada en el estudio para determinar el área de la compensación.

Si bien es cierto que el área propuesta de 444,04 hectáreas como compensación a las 113 hectáreas que serían inundadas de la RBLB cumple con los requerimientos establecidos con base en los resultados de la metodología de calidad de hábitat aplicada en el estudio por parte de la OET, la realidad es que esta área solo tiene un área de 2,2 hectáreas de un bosque maduro o ripario con características similares al encontrado en el área por inundar en la RBLB.

En estas circunstancias, se estimó pertinente la búsqueda de una superficie adicional que pueda solventar esta deficiencia de bosque ripario del área de compensación en la Finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A., cumpliendo con los parámetros mencionados anteriormente, identificándose luego de un trabajo de campo conjunto entre expertos de la OET, funcionarios de la RBLB del Sinac y del Senara, dos fincas potenciales para compensación, ubicadas en el lindero noroeste de la RBLB.

Estas propiedades se encuentran a nombre de Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. y Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. En este sentido, y según las inspecciones de campo realizadas en forma conjunta de expertos de la OET, Sinac y Senara, apoyados en imágenes aéreas tomadas con un dron volando a baja altura, se determinó que las propiedades de Brindis de Amor poseen un estimado inicial de 16,41 hectáreas de bosque ripario y Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. posee un estimado de bosque ripario de 8,49 hectáreas, conformado por una cobertura boscosa constituida por especies siempre verdes y que es comparable en calidad con el encontrado en el sitio potencial de inundación en la RBLB.

El área de bosque ripario en Brindis de Amor representa un 7,40% del área cubierta por ese tipo de bosque dentro la RBLB actualmente; de ahí la importancia de incorporar esta área a la RBLB.

Otro aspecto importante es que el área de bosque ripario en esta finca puede constituirse un área núcleo de especies para repoblar otros ambientes riparios en la propiedad. Aunque esta situación no es cronológicamente correspondiente a la pérdida en la RBLB, según la OET, sí es una considerable ventaja ya que esta área núcleo permite a corto plazo una restauración e incorporación de nuevos bosques riparios, situación que no se estaría dando en la propiedad de Asetrek Tres Azul S.A.

El bosque deciduo (45,74 hectáreas), así como el secundario (6,63 hectáreas) en Brindis de Amor han sido protegidos por al menos veinte años y no hay registros de talas ni fuegos recientes, por lo que están en mejor condición de estructura y composición que los encontrados en el sitio de potencial impacto en la RBLB o en la propiedad de Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. Aunque no es el objetivo principal, la anexión de este tipo de bosque de Brindis de Amor a la RBLB implica una ganancia significativa en estas coberturas forestales también.

El estudio de línea base de biodiversidad para la RBLB evidenció el incremento en diversidad de diferentes grupos taxonómicos como respuesta a fuentes de agua más permanentes, condición que se ve muy favorecida en la Finca Brindis de Amor que posee varias fuentes de agua permanentes, incluyendo el río Cabuyo y sus afluentes, lo que da un valor agregado a esta finca.

Existen estudios de la Dra. Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Ángeles), los cuales señalan que tropas de monos carablanca (Cebus capuccinus) de la RBLB utilizan los bosques dentro de Brindis de Amor como sitios de alimentación y descanso, es decir, hay evidencia de un constante flujo de animales entre la RBLB y Brindis de Amor como sitio de forrajeo, lo que demuestra la importancia biológica de esta propiedad para ser incorporada a la RBLB.

Finalmente, es importante mencionar que el estudio realizado por la OET establece un área de compensación que considera la condición actual de los terrenos que se están valorando, sin hacer referencia a las mejoras que a futuro tendrán al incorporarse a un régimen de protección como lo es la reserva.

Ante ello, se procedió a identificar un área de bosque ripario que permita compensar el faltante en hectáreas para este tipo de ecosistema, manteniendo la conectividad ecosistémica del área protegida, concluyendo que la propiedad de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. presenta tales condiciones y permite compensar un área de 8,49 hectáreas de bosque ripario.

Adicionalmente, se concluye que, la mejor opción, para completar la compensación del bosque ripario es necesario adquirir un área de 40,00 hectáreas propiedad de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., la cual contiene 8,49 hectáreas de bosque ripario.

Según las capas de cobertura mencionadas anteriormente, esta finca posee un total de 33,64 hectáreas de bosque ripario, donde la mayoría de este tipo de bosque se encuentra bordeando la quebrada Amores, donde el área seleccionada para compensación posee un área de 8,49 hectáreas de bosque ripario, 2,44 hectáreas de bosque secundario, 26,91 hectáreas de bosque deciduo y 2,16 hectáreas de pastos.

Por su parte, es de esperar que dentro de los beneficios que a futuro tendrá la regeneración de pastizales que posee Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. se encuentra la contribución al establecimiento de bosque secundario, la fijación de carbono (CO2), protección de suelos, ganancia de cobertura, protección de la biodiversidad y de la belleza escénica del lugar, protección de fuentes de agua, a la vez que contribuye a aumentar su valor ecológico, económico y social, es decir, la nueva superficie establecida bajo el régimen de protección tendrá una tendencia a mejorar su condición actual, tanto en calidad de hábitat como en diversidad y composición de comunidades.

Según indica Quesada, R. (2008), en su Manual para promover la regeneración natural en pastos degradados en el Pacífico central y norte de Costa Rica, “para revertir áreas de pastos en bosques a través de métodos de regeneración natural deben tener una ubicación estratégica a fuentes semilleras y cercanía a parches boscosos”, condiciones que presenta el área propuesta en las fincas Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. y Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A.

Estas condiciones hacen predecir que si bien en la actualidad las 91,74 hectáreas (zona de pastizales de 73,23 hectáreas y un área no forestal de 18,51 hectáreas) en Asetrek Tres Azul S.A., 18,18 hectáreas de pastos en Brindis de Amor y 2,16 hectáreas de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A., en pocos años, bajo un régimen de protección como el de la RBLB y un manejo controlado de fuegos, estas superficies podrán incorporarse a las distintas etapas de sucesión de bosques secundarios.

Así las cosas, de acuerdo con los resultados expuestos en el estudio realizado por la OET y lo planteado en la comisión de alto nivel del Piaag, la propuesta definitiva de compensación es:

1. 1De la finca Asetrek Tres Azul S.A un total de 444,04 hectáreas, conforme al plano del área propuesta.

2- La totalidad de la Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A., con un área de registro de 86,96 hectáreas conforme al plano.

3- Un área de la finca de 40,00 hectáreas de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. En total, la compra de 571 hectáreas, lo que representa un factor de 5 veces el área que se verá afectada en la RBLB, con una equivalencia directa en tipos de bosques, conforme a lo que se indica en la tabla 7.

Tabla 7. Comparación de área por tipo de bosque entre el área afectada de la RBLB y el área propuesta para compensación Tipo de cobertura Área afectada en la RBLB (Ha)¹ Área de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. (Ha) Área de Brindis de Amor S.A. (Ha) Área de la finca Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A.

Área total propuesta de compensación (Ha) Bosque maduro (Ripario) 24,71 6,14 16,41 8,49 31,04 Bosque secundario 9,13 59,5 6,63 2,44 68,57 Bosque deciduo 96,05 286,67 45,74 26,91 359,32 Pastos 0,79 73,23 18,18 2,16 93,57 Áreas no forestales 0,39 18,5 - - 18,5 TOTALES 131,07 444,04 86,96 40 571 ¹A pesar de que el área requerida de la RBLB es de 113 hectáreas, la OET realizó el estudio sobre 130,64 hectáreas, razón por la cual se usa este valor para realizar la comparación.

Con las medidas de compensación propuestas se alcanza el objetivo de conservación y, por ende, se puede afirmar:

1. 1Que los objetos de conservación que fundamentan la creación del “área protegida” no están siendo afectados.

2- Que el área es compensada por otra de igual tamaño que cumple con los mismos fines y semejantes condiciones ecosistémicas.

Así, con base en todo lo anterior, sometemos a conocimiento de la Asamblea Legislativa de la República de Costa Rica el proyecto de ley adjunto para su respectiva aprobación”.

V.Sobre la normativ a cuestionada . La ley n.° 9610, “Modifica límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del proyecto de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río tempisque y comunidades costeras” aquí impugnada, dispone lo siguiente:

“ARTÍCULO 1- Se rectifica y se delimita el área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, creada mediante Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 16849-MAG, de 23 de enero de 1986, para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume). El área protegida parte de un punto ubicado en el río Cabuyo de coordenadas en el Sistema CRTM05 X 350792,224 y Y 1163050,33 y continúa por el límite con la propiedad de Inversiones y Desarrollos Costa del Pacífico del Mar CPM S.A. con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 350789,49 1163035,00 350791,24 1163029,34 350807,65 1163039,24 350860,78 1163033,04 350904,17 1162996,79 350926,55 1162988,11 350941,81 1162995,47 350955,83 1163002,42 350969,08 1163011,56 350982,63 1163018,04 351017,83 1163030,71 351012,37 1163052,81 351005,44 1163066,34 351003,92 1163079,71 350984,98 1163093,58 350972,68 1163107,21 350950,56 1163126,09 350943,93 1163156,21 350952,93 1163181,98 350970,50 1163210,11 350992,89 1163237,45 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351024,23 1163256,00 351033,66 1163260,80 351044,41 1163269,24 351055,66 1163284,78 351070,84 1163295,85 351112,40 1163342,33 351154,71 1163329,45 351178,30 1163323,39 351208,35 1163317,78 351224,46 1163320,12 351228,50 1163327,66 351222,73 1163333,76 351207,63 1163346,77 351196,42 1163364,26 351190,92 1163377,96 351179,41 1163436,66 351174,72 1163470,39 351196,01 1163539,96 351111,00 1163557,85 351048,91 1163571,70 350995,85 1163536,09 350968,12 1163506,96 350953,66 1163484,35 350852,88 1163489,22 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 350776,31 y Y 1163485,43 y continúa por el límite con las propiedades de parcelas del Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (Inder) hasta las coordenadas X 350768,00 y Y 1164185,00 con calle pública, continuando por este límite con las siguientes coordenadas X351032, 34 - Y 1164082,68, hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 351196,45 y Y 1164006, 78 para continuar por el límite con la propiedad de Brindis de Amor de Liberia S.A. con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351208,40 1163948,88 351205,07 1163930,87 351183,76 1163885,51 351168,33 1163875,81 351162,81 1163867,47 351142,57 1163854,77 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351134,59 1163853,31 351125,57 1163854,38 351118,39 1163824,72 351104,14 1163812,39 351084,83 1163798,46 351077,45 1163786,20 351072,85 1163765,75 351085,49 1163750,30 351088,12 1163731,90 351119,83 1163700,82 351132,15 1163661,14 351157,15 1163654,53 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 351206,67 y Y 1163648,75 y continúa por el límite con la propiedad de Pijije Land & Catlle S.A. por este límite con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351253,78 1163364,28 351258,30 1163280,40 351220,93 1162997,48 351222,96 1162988,68 351247,63 1162954,13 351256,53 1162934,68 351269,15 1162918,67 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 351302,12 y Y 1162871,48 y continúa por el límite con la propiedad de Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351365,34 1162759,02 351440,05 1162595,92 351448,83 1162554,72 351449,11 1162533,02 351454,11 1162478,50 351472,15 1162355,93 351500,47 1162279,35 351518,55 1162244,91 351543,46 1162184,88 351551,79 1162158,15 351432,12 1162149,87 351209,01 1162185,45 351187,00 1162183,34 351188,09 1161793,04 351502,63 1161852,51 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 351515,21 y Y 1161744,31 en el borde derecho de la quebrada Amores y continúa por el borde derecho de la quebrada Amores aguas abajo, hasta llegar a la colindancia con la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y Hacienda Ciruelas en las coordenadas X 350789,57 y Y 1161768,04 y continuar por esta colindancia por las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 350790,15 1161613,41 350785,81 1161228,86 350789,68 1161183,19 350791,04 1161167,04 350795,25 1160846,79 350800,55 1160421,99 350799,64 1160335,52 350800,14 1160281,28 350801,79 1160245,59 350800,52 1160195,69 350798,08 1160160,24 350801,03 1160107,03 350800,36 1160028,38 350801,19 1159986,81 350803,26 1159906,01 350802,27 1159826,86 350805,01 1159703,16 351310,43 1159706,98 351412,68 1159708,91 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351492,03 1159704,06 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 351682,28 y Y 1159583,24 y continúa por el límite con la propiedad de Pecuaria Burro Blanco S.A. con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351693,37 1159582,02 351699,78 1159578,77 351718,51 1159556,48 351783,14 1159506,94 351822,29 1159480,03 351922,99 1159411,18 351950,86 1159396,35 351959,86 1159388,54 352044,38 1159323,76 352147,75 1159245,22 352261,23 1159159,68 352415,42 1159046,85 352466,45 1158998,81 352481,43 1158988,92 352667,28 1158924,85 352688,10 1158916,85 352753,23 1158891,79 353010,27 1158802,12 353309,73 1158468,01 353288,77 1158275,33 353233,52 1157784,00 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 353204,48 y Y 1157684,37 con límite con calle pública y continúa por el límite con las propiedades de parcelas del Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (Inder) con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 353301,19 1157687,26 353422,15 1157675,97 353420,74 1157670,05 353445,74 1157634,59 353446,48 1157610,47 353466,68 1157558,35 353466,54 1157511,56 353424,55 1157466,95 353404,80 1157460,50 353416,03 1157405,22 353414,27 1157357,28 353425,75 1157331,84 353411,01 1157298,58 353436,01 1157298,92 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 353509,38 1157310,17 353519,07 1157308,57 353529,94 1157304,06 353569,44 1157265,57 353589,23 1157270,92 353620,35 1157283,86 353655,52 1157301,51 353735,20 1157295,12 353759,24 1157291,03 353765,64 1157282,12 353788,49 1157258,82 353804,91 1157220,35 353798,51 1157186,50 353899,03 1157172,56 353948,65 1157163,91 353978,61 1157148,03 354040,93 1157083,11 354082,37 1157116,37 354113,40 1157132,84 354156,22 1157149,90 354191,82 1157140,76 354209,75 1157164,94 354239,93 1157191,03 354269,91 1157215,77 354318,98 1157255,52 354371,34 1157288,65 355152,91 1157572,73 355153,68 1157554,28 355153,42 1157541,98 355148,96 1157437,83 355162,22 1157411,32 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 355186,96 y Y 1157380,57 y continúa por el límite con la propiedad de Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 CRTM05 Y 355267,66 1157319,23 355280,54 1157302,05 355290,98 1157267,12 CRTM05 CRTM05 Y 355306,74 1157213,48 355358,68 1157137,98 355393,26 1157136,98 355520,54 1157135,06 355527,56 1157134,33 355529,22 1157133,83 355532,28 1157131,76 355576,16 1157100,42 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 355640,83 y Y 1157053,32 y continúa por el límite con área el Embalse Piedras con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 357387,23 1157808,22 357568,01 1157570,98 357654,97 1157519,88 357839,97 1157485,68 357951,98 1157473,56 357970,95 1157439,54 357889,84 1157355,61 358042,96 1157438,46 358161,70 1157177,29 358138,59 1157068,30 358323,74 1157185,12 358359,72 1157159,08 358509,60 1157014,90 358502,54 1156966,90 358448,49 1156921,94 358391,46 1156907,00 358424,27 1156713,93 358123,11 1156617,23 358011,88 1156412,31 358013,80 1156339,30 357943,72 1156272,36 357787,65 1156234,51 357581,33 1155961,68 357330,18 1155862,93 357166,23 1155935,11 356796,13 1155423,58 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 356819,57 1155441,85 356848,69 1155473,36 356898,70 1155480,31 356927,72 1155495,28 356964,77 1155536,25 357010,81 1155560,20 357067,86 1155605,15 357280,75 1155463,90 357276,71 1155424,90 357266,69 1155402,91 357237,65 1155369,93 357206,61 1155339,96 357168,58 1155319,00 357137,55 1155292,02 357089,55 1155300,07 357061,53 1155283,10 356971,49 1155263,19 356906,45 1155239,25 356881,44 1155236,28 356844,33 1155135,30 356938,29 1155080,19 357096,38 1155132,04 357192,39 1155131,94 357451,44 1155133,67 357534,47 1155151,58 357613,47 1155134,50 357679,40 1155052,42 357831,44 1155071,26 357861,68 1155289,27 357873,84 1155441,28 357893,89 1155492,27 357961,96 1155546,21 358009,07 1155643,18 358070,07 1155629,11 358100,99 1155550,06 358176,98 1155521,98 358255,05 1155574,91 358296,03 1155555,86 358254,92 1155450,89 358303,83 1155361,82 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 358352,78 1155306,76 358422,83 1155341,69 358460,82 1155327,65 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 358468,82 y Y 1155324,64 y continúa por el límite con la propiedad de Martillos del Pacífico S.A. e Inversiones Campos Bastos S.A. con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 358078,42 1153210,85 358052,54 1153079,89 358035,89 1152995,89 358027,73 1153002,71 358017,28 1152991,86 358014,03 1152985,24 358016,18 1152975,09 358028,51 1152967,54 358029,61 1152960,38 358020,05 1152917,97 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 358003,37 y Y 1152867,19 con el límite del Canal del Oeste y continúa por este límite con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 357987,04 1152862,79 357965,43 1152858,83 357955,02 1152858,35 357719,07 1152857,73 357706,37 1152857,25 357693,74 1152855,87 357681,24 1152853,60 357513,20 1152816,95 357510,98 1152816,61 357508,66 1152816,51 357506,52 1152816,67 357147,55 1152865,39 357133,75 1152866,00 357119,77 1152864,18 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 357106,47 1152859,98 357021,10 1152824,37 357015,47 1152822,93 357009,65 1152823,18 357004,15 1152825,10 356922,84 1152867,46 356917,41 1152871,60 356913,68 1152877,32 356912,09 1152883,94 356906,42 1152972,99 356896,96 1153005,91 356874,56 1153031,90 356843,34 1153046,18 356480,00 1153124,95 356459,09 1153126,67 356438,46 1153122,90 356419,55 1153113,91 356335,74 1153059,44 356315,88 1153050,59 356294,23 1153048,28 356272,89 1153052,73 356161,24 1153094,95 356154,04 1153098,15 356147,24 1153102,13 356140,95 1153106,83 355982,04 1153240,15 355975,60 1153246,28 355969,99 1153253,17 355965,30 1153260,71 355918,25 1153348,70 355917,46 1153351,59 355917,12 1153354,39 355914,92 1153407,09 355911,92 1153425,64 355904,67 1153443,00 355893,56 1153458,20 355608,94 1153764,30 355592,44 1153777,87 355572,96 1153786,61 355551,87 1153789,91 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 355418,20 1153792,82 355397,48 1153796,45 355378,68 1153806,12 355363,61 1153820,93 355180,01 1154065,99 355157,53 1154086,41 355129,08 1154097,03 355098,76 1154096,31 354896,27 1154052,27 354880,94 1154050,88 354864,75 1154053,10 354849,62 1154058,94 354576,10 1154203,36 354433,03 1154324,09 354418,90 1154333,64 354403,07 1154340,00 354386,64 1154342,84 354303,13 1154348,05 354295,93 1154349,88 354289,88 1154354,22 354285,87 1154360,34 354233,16 1154488,47 354215,42 1154514,94 354188,76 1154532,44 354157,41 1154538,17 353982,68 1154534,82 353973,71 1154537,07 353771,23 1154587,77 353767,53 1154588,80 353763,90 1154590,04 353760,34 1154591,47 353736,40 1154601,84 353688,53 1154622,59 353679,19 1154625,95 353669,30 1154628,16 353659,23 1154629,10 353636,13 1154629,80 353618,11 1154636,50 353607,82 1154652,72 353609,49 1154671,81 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 353613,45 1154680,80 353619,92 1154706,48 353617,60 1154732,89 353606,74 1154757,11 353549,31 1154843,27 353547,79 1154846,09 353506,08 1154923,06 353462,19 1155004,07 353460,75 1155007,46 353459,94 1155011,05 353459,81 1155014,62 353461,64 1155046,29 353455,69 1155081,41 353435,04 1155110,51 353403,79 1155127,79 353362,77 1155139,63 353298,99 1155158,04 353286,40 1155160,57 353273,36 1155161,05 353260,70 1155159,46 353198,44 1155146,32 353185,58 1155147,90 353176,35 1155157,01 353114,84 1155280,55 353090,32 1155314,62 353056,21 1155339,15 353016,10 1155351,58 352980,50 1155356,55 352969,91 1155361,45 352963,84 1155371,41 352948,49 1155431,13 352877,03 1155527,85 352831,88 1155547,07 352783,14 1155551,78 352758,44 1155547,78 352735,03 1155541,19 352692,71 1155516,02 352659,82 1155479,65 352557,62 1155323,39 352552,53 1155318,10 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 352545,87 1155315,01 352538,52 1155314,55 352484,90 1155321,10 352470,01 1155330,88 352407,64 1155437,35 352376,05 1155467,66 352333,27 1155476,90 352292,12 1155462,29 352210,74 1155404,33 352197,79 1155400,68 352125,01 1155405,70 352108,19 1155405,09 352037,71 1155387,74 352030,91 1155387,23 352024,32 1155389,03 352018,72 1155392,93 351929,50 1155481,04 351906,65 1155496,85 351879,80 1155503,93 351852,18 1155501,43 351846,04 1155499,77 351838,64 1155499,19 351831,54 1155501,35 351714,18 1155562,53 351705,85 1155567,63 351644,04 1155611,72 351629,11 1155620,13 351612,73 1155625,17 351595,67 1155626,63 351550,03 1155625,62 351527,22 1155625,11 351501,29 1155621,91 351488,71 1155618,38 351328,47 1155564,48 351322,36 1155563,44 351316,21 1155564,32 351253,83 1155583,44 351246,79 1155587,27 351241,82 1155593,54 351210,35 1155655,52 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 351192,53 1155678,79 351167,53 1155694,11 351138,71 1155699,45 351029,02 1155699,35 351022,62 1155700,39 351016,88 1155703,43 351012,41 1155708,13 350977,52 1155759,40 350974,91 1155764,87 350974,06 1155770,86 350974,50 1155809,95 350972,36 1155829,23 350965,62 1155847,44 350954,68 1155863,50 350872,71 1155957,11 350868,46 1155965,00 350868,09 1155973,94 350894,78 1156116,68 350886,57 1156169,18 350847,17 1156205,02 350794,06 1156208,32 350771,95 1156202,04 350763,75 1156201,47 350755,99 1156204,25 350750,00 1156209,90 350714,12 1156261,53 350710,83 1156269,57 350711,26 1156278,23 350769,74 1156489,41 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 350773,38 y Y 1156507,46 y se continúa con el límite de parcelas del Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (Inder) con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 350774,41 1156525,86 350772,82 1156544,23 350749,41 1156691,18 350743,74 1156713,66 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 350734,16 1156734,78 350720,96 1156753,88 350670,90 1156814,09 350670,96 1156816,33 350671,80 1156844,73 350656,92 1156910,13 350650,99 1156925,02 350634,00 1156973,49 350628,28 1156985,85 350611,44 1157013,47 350599,04 1157044,34 350571,18 1157098,51 350541,95 1157132,54 350424,28 1157312,46 350387,20 1157428,88 350383,26 1157511,27 350264,65 1157646,88 350234,20 1157669,67 350192,72 1157696,17 350182,62 1157707,58 350162,29 1157729,07 350153,29 1157746,74 350150,06 1157755,22 350141,71 1157794,53 350124,72 1157814,01 350108,98 1157829,52 350096,88 1157843,03 350019,73 1157869,57 349992,99 1157871,40 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 349929,76 y Y 1157901,11 límite del Canal Oeste y se continúa este límite con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 349926,74 1157911,94 349906,38 1157937,12 349877,70 1157952,17 349540,73 1158048,80 349528,32 1158059,14 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 349497,01 1158122,27 349495,16 1158134,22 349525,20 1158328,26 349529,02 1158342,63 349574,56 1158461,26 349574,73 1158520,15 349537,05 1158562,77 349478,58 1158569,81 349452,04 1158563,21 349437,09 1158561,16 349422,05 1158562,37 349407,61 1158566,78 349340,69 1158595,39 349330,89 1158600,53 349322,03 1158607,16 349314,31 1158615,10 349222,77 1158725,62 349212,94 1158736,23 349202,02 1158745,68 349190,07 1158753,86 348949,14 1158899,96 348941,36 1158908,67 348939,77 1158920,24 348944,91 1158930,73 349006,62 1158996,71 349018,80 1159013,75 349026,14 1159033,37 349028,14 1159054,23 349026,51 1159099,54 349012,33 1159142,20 348977,37 1159170,48 348932,68 1159175,44 348903,20 1159170,24 348888,68 1159173,26 348880,24 1159185,46 348882,55 1159200,11 348886,94 1159207,60 348895,67 1159228,89 348897,99 1159251,78 348893,69 1159274,38 CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 348876,13 1159325,30 348873,12 1159337,48 348825,21 1159643,42 348820,26 1159657,91 348813,64 1159671,71 348785,35 1159722,75 348783,07 1159729,47 348783,28 1159736,57 348822,94 1159924,80 348826,45 1159936,36 348874,51 1160056,54 348883,53 1160072,57 348896,40 1160085,70 348912,25 1160095,02 349017,67 1160139,59 349034,45 1160149,22 349048,43 1160162,60 349058,78 1160178,95 349075,11 1160213,31 349082,83 1160245,69 349076,69 1160278,41 349057,77 1160305,80 349051,90 1160311,35 349043,46 1160323,18 349043,35 1160333,77 349048,67 1160342,93 349067,25 1160361,20 349091,49 1160395,64 349102,00 1160436,43 349097,43 1160478,30 349056,90 1160597,13 349031,79 1160631,69 348999,44 1160659,69 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 348956,78 y Y 1160688,89 con límite de la calle pública que comunica el poblado de San Ramón de Bagaces y se continúa este límite con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 349060,09 1160695,02 349080,77 1160703,77 349095,03 1160718,99 349154,41 1160824,72 349200,75 1160910,96 349215,26 1160946,13 349218,97 1160961,76 349244,63 1161071,69 349367,55 1161254,50 349390,20 1161296,86 349389,51 1161329,14 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 349384,50 y Y 1161343,08 con límite parcela del Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (Inder) y se continúa este límite con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 349404,67 1161348,56 349428,08 1161371,77 349480,63 1161385,52 349521,00 1161435,85 349627,32 1161459,23 349757,40 1161533,12 349823,97 1161624,17 349828,29 1161733,09 349783,25 1161817,49 349760,83 1161816,80 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 349752,43 y Y 1161825,58 con el río Cabuyo, continuando aguas arriba hasta llegar a las coordenadas iniciales X 350792,224 y Y 1163050,33.

ARTÍCULO 2- Se autoriza el cambio de uso del suelo y la desafectación de los artículos 13 y 33 de la Ley N.° 7575, Ley Forestal, de 13 de febrero de 1996, para el Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), incluyendo el área desafectada que está comprendida dentro de los límites que se describen a continuación:

Se parte de un punto ubicado en el límite entre Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. y la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal en coordenadas X 356819,57 y Y 1155441,85 y continúa por el límite del Embalse Piedras con las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 356848,69 1155473,36 356898,70 1155480,31 356927,72 1155495,28 356964,77 1155536,25 357010,81 1155560,20 357067,86 1155605,15 357280,76 1155463,90 357276,71 1155424,90 357266,69 1155402,91 357237,65 1155369,93 357206,61 1155339,96 357168,58 1155319,00 357137,55 1155292,02 357089,55 1155300,07 357061,53 1155283,10 356971,49 1155263,19 356906,45 1155239,25 356881,45 1155236,28 356844,33 1155135,30 356938,29 1155080,19 357096,38 1155132,04 357192,39 1155131,94 357451,44 1155133,67 357534,48 1155151,58 357613,47 1155134,50 357679,40 1155052,42 357831,45 1155071,26 357861,68 1155289,27 357873,84 1155441,28 357893,90 1155492,27 357961,96 1155546,21 358009,07 1155643,18 358070,07 1155629,11 358100,99 1155550,06 358176,98 1155521,98 358255,05 1155574,91 358296,03 1155555,86 358254,92 1155450,89 358303,83 1155361,82 358352,78 1155306,76 358422,83 1155341,69 358460,82 1155327,65 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas X 358468,82 y Y 1155324,64 límite con la propiedad de Martillos del Pacífico S.A. y continuando en línea recta dirección norte, por el límite con Martillos del Pacífico S.A. a las coordenadas X 358653,97 y Y 1156392,64.

A partir de esas coordenadas se continúa por el límite con Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. y la quebrada sin nombre aguas arriba por las siguientes coordenadas:

CRTM05 X CRTM05 Y 358638,97 1156393,65 358568,95 1156384,72 358493,90 1156352,80 358431,91 1156368,86 358361,88 1156350,93 358331,87 1156354,97 358294,84 1156327,00 358277,79 1156287,01 358229,74 1156248,05 358196,69 1156202,08 358168,68 1156198,11 358116,63 1156155,16 358106,59 1156126,16 358095,58 1156112,17 358073,58 1156113,19 358033,60 1156141,24 358006,61 1156156,27 357979,61 1156158,30 357945,58 1156137,33 357898,56 1156126,38 357864,55 1156121,41 357830,52 1156104,45 357786,48 1156066,49 357768,44 1156039,50 357772,36 1155955,48 357750,30 1155909,49 357720,29 1155896,52 357686,32 1155932,57 357634,32 1155948,62 357607,28 1155914,65 357601,25 1155883,65 357573,22 1155855,67 357559,21 1155848,68 357526,22 1155862,72 357488,21 1155860,76 357484,21 1155863,76 357471,20 1155857,78 357447,20 1155859,80 357429,17 1155838,82 357315,07 1155763,92 357281,07 1155769,96 357265,06 1155762,98 357199,02 1155731,04 357169,01 1155725,07 357145,01 1155730,09 357089,98 1155709,15 357032,92 1155664,20 357019,90 1155646,21 356890,78 1155555,33 356831,73 1155514,38 356829,70 1155485,38 Hasta llegar a las coordenadas iniciales X 356819,57 y Y 1155441,85 ubicadas en el límite entre Asetrek Tres Azul S.A. y la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal.

ARTÍCULO 3- Se autoriza al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac) el uso, para fines propios, de la madera aprovechable extraída del área del embalse de almacenamiento río Piedras del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Aguapara la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume). Asimismo, podrá autorizar la donación a los ministerios, sus órganos desconcentrados, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas, los gobiernos locales o las asociaciones de desarrollo integral, previa solicitud por escrito ante el Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque.

ARTÍCULO 4- El Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) será la entidad responsable de realizar el estudio ambiental del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), que deberá incluir las medidas de prevención, mitigación y compensación del área desafectada afecta en el artículo 2 de la presente ley, las cuales deben ser implementadas por el desarrollador.

El estudio de impacto ambiental deberá considerar la línea base aprobada por las entidades y avalada por el Consejo Regional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), sin perjuicio de los términos de referencia que emita la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena), conforme al marco jurídico correspondiente.

ARTÍCULO 5- El área del Embalse Río Piedras, que incluye el anillo de protección, forma parte integral del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume) que desarrollará el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento(Senara), que permitirá el almacenamiento y la regulación del agua proveniente del Complejo Hidroeléctrico Arenal Dengo Sandillal (Ardesa) con posterior conducción y distribución equitativa para abastecer las necesidades de consumo productivo agropecuario, generación hidroeléctrica, fomento turístico y el abastecimiento poblacional, este último por medio del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA), además de aquellas otras actividades que sean necesarias para el cumplimiento de los objetivos propuestos por Paacume.

Del canon que cobre el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (Minae) a los usuarios por concepto de uso y aprovechamiento de agua, se destinará un cincuenta por ciento (50%) al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac) para la implementación del Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional.

ARTÍCULO 6- Finalizadas las obras de construcción y puesto en operación el Embalse Río Piedras por parte del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara), el área de embalse, que incluye el anillo de protección, se constituirá en un ecosistema de humedal administrado por el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac) y conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 33 de la Ley N.° 7575, Ley Forestal, de 13 de febrero de 1996. Deberá existir estricta coordinación con Senara para la utilización del agua conforme a diversos usos requeridos. El Poder Ejecutivo, mediante el Sinac, realizará los estudios necesarios para otorgar a dicho espacio una categoría de manejo, que no deberá contraponerse al uso que se le dé al agua producto del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume).

Para la elaboración del Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional, se conformará una comisión con representación del Sinac, Senara y la Municipalidad de Bagaces.

TRANSITORIO ÚNICO- El Poder Ejecutivo realizará las modificaciones al Plan General de Manejo de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, y dictará las reglamentaciones necesarias para la autorización de acciones de rehabilitación ecosistémica y gestión adaptativa en las áreas de compensación que requieran acciones de esta naturaleza, en el plazo de un año a partir de la inscripción a nombre del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (Minae).

Rige a partir de su publicación.

Dado en la Presidencia de la República, San José a los diecisiete días del mes de octubre del año dos mil dieciocho ”.

VI.Sobre los alegatos de inconstitucionalidad. A los efectos de resolver los cuestionamientos planteados, se procederán a agrupar los alegatos admisibles de los accionantes de la siguiente manera:

A.- Sobre la acusada violación a los artículos 7 y 50 de la Constitución Política y a l os principios de no regresión en materia ambiental, objetivació n de la tutela ambiental , precautorio o in dubio pro natura y legalidad. Según quedó acreditado en este proceso, la desafectación del á rea que se discute , no es a los efectos de dejar ese terreno desprotegido ambientalmente, sino de darle un cambio de uso que igualmente pretende su tute la, con mayor extensió n, y al mismo tiempo, procurar de este un aprovechamiento sostenible. Ese aspecto es primordial, toda vez que muchos de los pronunciamientos de este Tribunal en relación con una desafectación, se han circunscrito a la compens ación de una desafectación, en el sentido de desprender a un ter reno, de forma absoluta, de su tutela ambiental especial para destinarla a cualquier otro fin diverso y contrap uesto al de protección ambiental .

De ahí que, la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal ha sido incisiva en la necesidad de que el Poder Legislativo cuente con un estudio técnico previo que justifique el porqué, ambientalmente, ya no es necesaria esa tutela y, po steriormente dispuso, ademá s, su compensació n, como retribució n ambiental. En el s ub examine, no es posible para las autoridades del Estado alterar el hábitat de un á rea protegida, sino es dentro de los límites que acepta su propio régimen de protecció n. De ahí que, aun cuando el área que se requiere alterar siempre va a ser protegida, pero la altera fuera de esos lí mites au torizados por ley, dada su naturaleza de uso, se requi rió acudir igualmente a un proceso de desafectación legal que los autorice a real izar tales modificaciones . Este es el caso de la ley de estudio. Adviértase el contenido del artículo 6 de la norma impugn ada, en el que igualmente se concede a ese terreno desafectado un a tutela ambiental especial:

“ARTÍCULO 6- Finalizadas las obras de construcción y puesto en operación el Embalse Río Piedras por parte del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara), el área de embalse, que incluye el anillo de protección, se constituirá en un ecosistema de humedal administrado por el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac) y conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 33 de la Ley N.° 7575, Ley Forestal, de 13 de febrero de 1996. Deberá existir estricta coordinación con Senara para la utilización del agua conforme a diversos usos requeridos. El Poder Ejecutivo, mediante el Sinac, realizará los estudios necesarios para otorgar a dicho espacio una categoría de manejo, que no deberá contraponerse al uso que se le dé al agua producto del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume).

Para la elaboración del Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional, se conformará una comisión con representación del Sinac, Senara y la Municipalidad de Bagaces. ” Ciertamente la construcción de ese proyecto, aun cuando finalmente su resultado será destinado a la protecció n ambiental, implicará un impacto para el área, dada la modificación de l hábitat de la zona a inundar para el embalse , de ahí que de ba verificarse previamente si el mismo es indispensable y compensable. Tal como quedó acreditado desde la exposició n de motivos del proyecto de ley que culminó con la normativa impugnada, la situació n de desabastecimiento del recurso hídrico en la provincia de Guanacaste, es un hecho palmario desde hace varios años. De ahí que diferentes administraciones han buscado dar soluciones a esta situación . Veamos:

“Los beneficiarios potenciales del proyecto están compuestos por la población general de la provincia de Guanacaste. Esta provincia cuenta con una población proyectada por el Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC) de 371.375 habitantes para el 2.016, más la población flotante que está compuesta por el turismo nacional y extranjero estimándose en más de un millón de personas al año, a esto se le suma otra población compuesta por trabajadores de las diferentes empresas que incluye el turismo y que permanecen entrando y saliendo del área.

El Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA) ha estimado que para el 2025 habrá una población, dentro del área del proyecto, equivalente a más de 220.000 habitantes como usuarios de los acueductos principales de la zona (Senara, 2006).

En el año 2002 se registró el ingreso de 1.113.359 turistas. La tendencia al crecimiento es constante, ya que para el 2014 se duplicó el número de visitación al país.

Contrario al panorama de pobreza de la región Chorotega, esta es una de las zonas que mayor desarrollo turístico ha experimentado. En sus costas se asientan los principales complejos hoteleros que existen en el país. Se estimó, en el año 2005, que la capacidad instalada en los hoteles de la zona del proyecto era para 140.812 personas en temporada alta y se proyectaba que para el año 2025 alcanzará las 230.900 personas (Senara, 2006).

Debe señalarse que el recurso más amenazado en la actualidad es el agua debido principalmente a la sobreexplotación de los acuíferos para consumo humano, aspecto que se agrava aún más en las zonas turísticas por la amenaza de salinización de los pozos. Con la capacidad instalada en el 2005 la demanda promedio de agua potable se estimó en 570 l/s y con el crecimiento sostenido al 2025 alcanzaría los 935 l/s.

El área de riego agropecuario se estima en 17000 ha en donde se podrían beneficiar 1.067 productores agropecuarios entre grandes, medianos y pequeños … La Estrategia Nacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (Egirh, 2005) señaló que las competencias por el uso del recurso hídrico en esta zona (y otras del país) podrían devenir en conflictos entre usuarios si no se aplicaban las medidas correctivas necesarias. El Plan Nacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (PNGIRH, 2008) dispuso como acción inmediata implementar el llamado Plan de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste en la línea estratégica 8.3.3.2, bajo el objetivo de “Regular la oferta hídrica para permitir su disponibilidad durante todo el año y atender la vulnerabilidad al cambio climático”…Como resultado de la mesa de trabajo por Guanacaste: Agua e Infraestructura Hídrica, implementada por la Administración Solís Rivera, se retoma y dispone la ejecución de este proyecto..

Por su importancia, esta línea de acción estratégica fue incluida dentro del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2015-2018 “Alberto Cañas Escalante”, bajo la línea programática 1.9 del sector ambiente, siendo que bajo el ejercicio de rectoría del sector ambiente, energía, mares y ordenamiento territorial se contempla el desarrollo e implementación del Programa Integral de Abastecimiento de Agua para Guanacaste - Pacífico Norte (Piaag), que integra actividades, obras y proyectos en el inmediato, corto, mediano y largo plazos…Conforme a los ejes I y II, el Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterránea, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) desarrolla el Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), que se constituye, por su ámbito y alcance en beneficios, en el proyecto más robusto y estratégico”.

Es decir, la necesidad de atender esta problemá tica había sido o bjeto de estudio por varios años po r parte de las autoridades competentes. Precisamente, por Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 38642-MP-MAG del 30 de noviembre de 2014, se requirió una declaratoria de emergencia por sequía en algunos sectores del país, entre ellos l a región Cho rotega por afectación de 11 de sus cantones. Esa zona presenta más de 5 meses de dé ficit hídrico al año, dada la afectación del fenó meno del Niñ o y del cambio climático. Esta situación tampoco ha sido aje na para este Tribunal. En sentencia n.° 20 18-7758 de las 9:15 horas del 18 de mayo de 2018, por ejemplo, ante la falta de suministro d e agua potable por dí as, d e fuentes de captació n en Nicoya, y debido al problema de sal inización de esa zona, esta Sala ordenó al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, que en el plazo de 6 meses contado a partir de la comunic ación de esa sentencia, realizara el estudio hidrogeológico en la zona de influencia, sugerido por la Oficina Cantonal de Nicoya del ICAA, con la finalidad de buscar fuentes sostenibles en el tiempo que permit ieran la ejecución de un proyecto para satisfacer la demand a presente y futura de las comunidades de Cuesta Grande, Maquenco y Terciopelo.

Luego de ello, debían proponer alguna solución temporal o permanente y ejecutarla en el plazo de los 12 meses siguientes a ese periodo previo. En el ínterin, debía n distribuir a la comunidad de Ma quenco agua potable de calidad mediante camiones cisterna u otro mecanismo alternativo, si existía faltante de líquido, hasta tanto no se lograra una solución definitiva a los hechos que dieron motivo a ese amparo. Igualment e, ha sido conocida la situació n del acueducto de Sardinal, el cual ya contaba con el estudio de “Análisis del Impacto de la Sequía en el Acuífero Sardinal 2015 ” ( véase en ese se ntido las sentencias 2016-6417 y 2017-1163). Los diversos estudios previos y el trabajo de campo realizado por vari as autoridades, precisamente derivaron en la propuesta del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), y así fue expuesto y justificado a los legisladores. La exposición de motivos indica al respecto:

“…el Servicio Nacional de Agua Subterránea, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) desarrolla el Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), que se constituye, por su ámbito y alcance en beneficios, en el proyecto más robusto y estratégico.

PROYECTO DE ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA PARA LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RÍO TEMPISQUE Y COMUNIDADES COSTERAS (PAACUME) El Paacume tiene como objetivo potenciar el desarrollo socioeconómico de la provincia de Guanacaste mediante un mejor aprovechamiento de los recursos hídricos provenientes del Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal-Dengo-Sandillal (Ardesa) y demás fuentes disponibles, como medidas de adaptación al cambio climático en un marco de sostenibilidad y equidad.

El proyecto consiste en generar las condiciones técnicas y tecnológicas para un mejor aprovechamiento de las aguas en el Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque (DRAT), las cuales provienen de la generación hidroeléctrica del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) en el Sistema Hidroeléctrico Arenal, Dengo, Sandillal (Ardesa).

Contiene la automatización de la Presa Derivadora Miguel Pablo Dengo B y Canal Oeste Tramo I hasta el embalse Río Piedras, contemplando la construcción de un embalse de almacenamiento en el río Piedras, ampliación y construcción del Canal Oeste Tramos II y III desde este hasta río Tempisque. Además, las líneas de conducción secundarias y terciarias para riego agropecuario y áreas de desarrollo turístico, obras de entrega de agua para las poblaciones que será administrada por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, todo desde la planicie del río Tempisque hasta la zona costera. Igualmente, integra el proyecto la construcción de casa de máquinas para generación eléctrica en el punto de presa.

El objetivo fundamental es la provisión de agua, accesible en cantidad, calidad y oportunidad -de 20 metros cúbicos por segundo- para diferentes usos potenciales. Se proyecta beneficiar al menos a 204 mil personas y cubrir al menos 17 mil hectáreas bajo riego. De este caudal quedarán disponibles 2 metros cúbicos por segundo para el abastecimiento a largo plazo de comunidades de cantones de Santa Cruz, Nicoya y Carrillo y que será administrada por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Además, el proyecto contempla al menos 1.5 metros cúbicos por segundo de agua para riego como apoyo a la actividad turística en la zona costera y con ello beneficiar las comunidades costeras con la liberación de aguas subterráneas hoy usadas en riego.

Este proyecto no solo permitirá el acceso sostenible al agua por parte de las comunidades y el sector productivo, sino que además pretende armonizar y regular la explotación racional de los principales recursos subterráneos en acuíferos en la margen derecha de la cuenca media del río Tempisque, pues permitirá al Estado la regulación del uso máximo de pozos para estas actividades. La construcción de la presa sobre el río Piedras implica un embalse con un espejo de agua de aproximadamente 850 hectáreas, de las cuales, conforme al levantamiento de campo realizado por el Senara, 113 hectáreas se encuentran dentro de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB). El sitio de presa se ubicará en un estrechamiento natural del cauce de este río entre las coordenadas longitud oeste 358930, latitud norte 1163180 y longitud oeste 359690, latitud norte 1155330 a una elevación de nivel de agua máxima de 50.50 m.s.n.m.

Esta presa tendrá como función crear un represamiento para el almacenamiento del agua, que será captada por el Senara en la presa Miguel Pablo Dengo ubicado en el río Santa Rosa…” Se trata de un proyecto constituido por cuatro componentes: el embalse río Piedras (el cual incluye la automatización del sistema, la casa de m áquinas y la presa y el embalse propiamente dicho), la ampliación del Canal Oeste desde el río Piedras hasta el río Tempisque con una longitud de aproximadamente 55 kilómetros, la constr ucción de la red de distribución en la margen derecha del río Tempisqu e (aproximad amente 300 kilómetros de longitud) y la propuesta de implementación de un Plan de Desarrollo Regional para el área directa e indirectamente afe ctada por el proyecto, proceso que está en etapa de conceptualización y formu lación.

Resulta importan te advertir que, desde la propia exposición de motivos , se estableció con claridad, la imperiosa necesidad de realizar tal proyecto especí ficamente en esa zona, al advertirse a los legisladores lo siguiente:

“ …Así las cosas , la ubicación de la presa en el río Piedras obedece a una condición topográfica única que no permite ser trasladada a otro sitio; por tanto, esta ubic ación y diferencia de nivel entre la entrada del canal que lo abastece y la salida del canal que permitirá llevar e l agua hasta el río Te mpisque determinan el nivel máximo de embalse y la capacidad d e este para abastecer con 20 metros cúbicos por segundo a l Paacume.

En algún momento se v aloró la posibilidad de construir un dique para evitar la inundació n de esta área de la Reserva Biológic a Lomas Barbudal y un túnel de más de 2 kilómetro s para evacuar las a guas; sin embargo, resultó que el sitio del dique coincide con una fall a geológica que haría imposible su construcción por el alto riesgo que genera a la obra.

No existe posibilidad de reubicar o disminuir el volumen del embalse sin afectar significativamente el alcance del Paacume y con ello los beneficios para la población guanacasteca, con lo cual se determinó la necesidad de contar con 113 hectáreas a de la Reser va Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para ser inundadas.

Resulta de vital importancia que este embalse se desarrolle a plenitud, para lo cual es indispensable tener co mo área inun dable esta extensión. Senara ha de mostrado que esta extensión de embalse, incluid a la zona dentro de la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal (113 hectá reas), es la única vía par a hacerlo con el fin de atender la demanda hídrica en el ámbito del proyecto de forma sostenib le. Beneficiarios del proyecto.

Con Paacume se beneficiarán con riego tres cantones de la provincia de Guanacaste, a saber: Carrillo, Santa Cruz y Ni coya. Adicionalmente , Paacume destinará 2 metros cúbicos por segundo d e agua para consumo humano (cuyo tratamiento y distribució n estará a cargo del AyA), lo que implica solucionar el déficit con un horizont e de 50 años de aproximadamente 500.000 personas, además de qu e con la generación hidroeléctrica en sitio de presa d e producirán 7 MW por año y en mate ria de riego cubrirá un área estima da en 1.875 ha en el sector turístico en la zona costera, liberando ag ua subterránea hoy usada con este fin. Esto además del agua dispuesta para el riego productivo.” (El resaltado no es del original).

Es decir, el fundam ento para llevar a cabo la desafectación en cuestión estaba dado desde la misma exposició n de motivos. Ciertamente, la Ley Orgánica del A mbiente establece lo s iguiente:

“Artículo 38.- Reducción de las áreas silvestres protegidas. La superficie de las áreas si lvestres protegidas, patrimonio natural del Estado, cualquiera sea su categorí a de manejo, sólo podrá reducirse por Ley de la Repú blica, después de realizar los estudios técnicos que justifiquen esta medida.” En el sub examine, precisamente por la parti cularidad que tiene esta desafectación para el establecimiento de otros planes de manejo de protecció n, r esulta atendible exigir un estudio técnico, pero no para que justifique q ue esa área no requier e ser protegida ambientalmente , pues, en realidad no se pretende desafectarla para desprotegerla a nivel ambiental y darle cualquier uso diverso , sino modificar su condición de tutela y de aprovechamiento ambiental sostenible, respecto de lo cual se reconoce un evidente impacto sobre esta, y por ello lo aportad o es un estudio de compensació n, que así lo garantice y ret ribuya al ambiente por una situació n de necesidad.

El informe final del estudio “Establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y finca adyacente”, f ue realizado por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales, a solicitud de SENARA, para que se refiriera a las especificaciones del artículo 72 del Reglam ento a la Ley de Biodiversidad ( véase el oficio del 14 de junio de 2017 adjunto al expediente). Ese reglamento , en los ordinales 71, 72 y 73 dispone lo siguiente:

“Artículo 71. —Declaratoria, modificación o cambio de categorí a de manejo de áreas silvestres proteg idas. Para la declaratoria, modificación o cambio de categoría de manejo de ASP, deberá elaborarse un informe té cnico, que estará coordinado por la instancia respectiva de SINAC.

Artículo 72.—Sobre el informe té cnico . El informe técn ico para los efectos del artículo anterior, deberá contener los objetivos de creación del área propuesta y recomendaciones sobre la categorí a de manejo más adecuada, con las justificaciones técnicas co rrespondientes. Dentro de los criterios utilizados para elaborar este informe, definir los objetivos y emitir tales recomendaciones, se considerará n al menos los siguientes:

• a)Relevan cia y fragilidad de los ecosistemas, poblaciones silvestres, atributos geoló gicos o geomorfológicos que incluye el área propuesta.
• b)Dimensiones estimadas de los ecosistemas más relevantes, atributos geoló gicos o geomorfoló gicos que contiene el área propuesta.
• c)Estado de conservación de dichos ecosistemas, poblaciones silvestres má s relevantes, atributos geológicos o geomorfológicos y potencial compr obado para la recuperación ecológica de sitios degradados dentro del área propuesta.
• d)Relevancia y naturaleza de los bienes y servicios ambientales que suministra el área propuesta para las comunidades locales circunvecinas.
• e)Potencial comprobado del área propuesta para aquellos usos que sean compatibles con la categoría de manejo recomendada.
• f)Régimen d e tenencia de la tierra (estatal, privada o mixta) en el área propuesta.
• g)Existencia de recursos financieros suficientes para adquirir los terrenos del á rea pr opuesta y asegurar su adecuada protección y manejo en el largo plazo.
• h)Consulta obli gatoria a poblaciones indígenas o comunidades locales que puedan ser afectadas, impactadas con la creación o modificación de á reas silvestres protegidas.

Dicho informe con los documentos pertinentes deberán ser remitidos al CORAC, para su consideració n y de ser pro cedente, remitirlo al CONAC para lo que corresponda.

Cuando la modificaci ón implique elevar la categoría de manejo existente, además deberá considerarse dentro d el informe técnico respectivo la exposición de las razones concretas que motivan la pr opuesta de cambio en la categoría de manejo.

Artículo 73.—Restauració n, recuperación y rehabilitación de ecosistemas, especies y sus servicios ambientales. El SINAC deber á definir, desarrollar y fomentar acciones de manejo para lograr la conservación, la r estauració n, la recuperación y rehabilitación de ecosistemas y sus componentes, t eniendo como fundamento estudios científicos, planes de manejo u otros instrum entos de planificación de las áreas silvestres protegidas, en concordancia con los objetivos de su declara toria, entre ellas manejo y/o erradicación de especies exóticas invasora s, recuperación de suelos y cobertura vegetal, control y prevención de incendios forestales, mitigación de desastres naturales, y control de poblaciones de especies nativas oportun istas, y regulación de ciclos hidrológicos.” Es por ello que es e estudio fue sometido a conocimie nto del Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Temp isque (CONAC), el cual lo aprobó en las condiciones expuestas por el criterio técnico dado por el ACAT, y estableciendo expresamente que ese estudio no es equivalente n i sustit uye al Estudio de Impacto Ambiental que debe realizarse al proyecto PAACUME. Precisamente por ello, la normativa impugnada incorpora otras disposiciones y en el artículo 4 específicamente establece su elaboración :

“ARTÍCULO 4- El Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (Senara) será la entidad responsable de realizar el estudio ambiental del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras (Paacume), que deberá incluir las medidas de prevención, mitigación y compensación del área desafectada afecta en el artículo 2 de la presente ley, las cuales deben ser implementadas por el desarrollador.

El estudio de impacto ambiental deberá considerar la línea base aprobada por las entidades y avalada por el Consejo Regional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (Sinac), sin perjuicio de los términos de referencia que emita la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena), conforme al marco jurídico correspondiente.” A partir de lo expuesto anteriormente, contrario a lo señalado por los accionantes, se denota que el proyecto de ley no careció de sustento técnico, pues se basa en los resultados de diversos estudios que denotan la necesidad de dotar de agua a esa comunidad, de la limitación de fuentes para su obtención y del estudio “Establecimien to de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica L omas de Barbudal y finca adyacente”, realizado por la Organizació n para Estudios Tropicales, a fin de garantizar una debida compensación en la mod ificación de la categoría de manejo de protección de esa á rea en particular, fundamentado técnicamente conforme a la metodología optada para su elaboración.

Aunado a ello, fue aportado al expediente legislativo el resultado de la consulta obligatoria ; así como la propuesta de compensación elaborada por SENARA, SINAC y el PIAAG en un estudio complementario, elaborado en marzo de 2018, de previo a la emisión por parte de la Comisión Especial Legislativa del dictamen afirmativo unánime (17 de julio de 2018) que culminó con esta ley, en el que a partir del estudio de la OET y de la valoración que hicieron de las tres propiedades en cuestión (ASETREK, BRINDIS DE AMOR y HACIENDA CIRUELAS), fueron reforzadas las razones para implementar este proyecto y modificar el uso a la zona en cuestión; así como la forma en que esta sería compensada. En ese estudio se determinó, luego de un análisis de campo, que de la finca Hacienda Ciruelas resultaba viable adquirir 25.000 ha, de las cuales 7,16 representan bosque ripario, 2,42 ha de bosque secundario, 13,13 ha de bosque deciduo y 2,28 ha de pastos, complementando la información de la finca Brindis de Amor, que había sido valorada por la OET.

El informe “Establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y finca adyacente”, determinó las características biológicas y geofísicas del área dentro de la zona protegida Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) que potencialmente sería inundada de establecerse el embalse sobre el Río Piedras como parte del proyecto de irrigación PAACUME del SENARA. Además, evaluó el potencial de compensación que tendría una propiedad adyacente de realizarse este impacto, denominada en el informe ASETREK, aplicando una metodología basada en un enfoque de puntuación, denominada Hábitat/Hectárea.

Ahora bien, el cuestionamiento de los accionantes y de algunos coadyuvantes es que los estándares utilizados por el estudio de cita resultan insuficientes para autorizar una desafectación del área en cuestión y de sus impactos; sin embargo, tal como se indicó, el estudio de marras estaba limitado a valorar las condiciones que debían ser compensadas, a los efectos de valorar los impactos que implicarán modificar el plan de uso de esa zona. Por otro lado, la ejecución del proyecto PAACUME, también está condicionado a la realización y aprobación de otros estudios técnicos-científicos, tal como el estudio de impacto ambiental contemplado en el ordinal 4 de la normativa impugnada. De esta forma, no solo resulta improcedente que este Tribunal revise la pericia con la cual fue realizado un estudio técnico, lo cual ameritaría una discusión de legalidad en el que diferentes expertos tengan amplitud de oportunidad para sostener sus criterios y debatirlos lo que no es propio de un proceso de constitucionalidad, sino que, lo más importante, es que esta ley igualmente sujeta la construcción y ejecución del proyecto en cuestión a la realización del estudio técnico complementario.

De lo contrario esa área no podrá ser intervenida. Lo anterior, por cuanto se reitera, esta ley no desafectó esa área para ser utilizada para cualquier fin despojándola de su tutela ambiental, sino que lo hizo únicamente a los efectos de someterla a otro tipo de manejo de protección ambiental y sujetó ese proyecto a la realización previa del estudio de impacto ambiental, en el cual deberán ser previstos todos los impactos, medidas de mitigación y corroborar la compensación adecuada. Así las cosas, si bien ese estudio de impacto ambiental no se realizó de previo a la aprobación de la ley, lo cierto es que, dada la particularidad de este proyecto y en las condiciones en que se aprobó la desafectación de ese terreno para modificar su uso y protección ambiental, manteniendo su tutela fuera de cualquier uso diverso al justificado, y condicionando el mismo al resultado que eventualmente arroje el estudio de impacto ambiental, no se considera vulnerado el principio de objetivación del derecho ambiental.

La necesidad técnica de suplir de agua a la región chorotega para implementar ese proyecto fue justificada a los legisladores desde su exposición de motivos. Existen decretos ejecutivos que declaran la emergencia por sequía en esa área desde el 2014, y desde años atrás las autoridades competentes han buscado diferentes opciones para atender esa problemática, aunque ello no se haya escrito en un solo y único documento, como aducen los accionantes.

Es decir, el interés público de atender esa situación es una cuestión evidente y manifiesta . Asimismo, en el escrito de coadyuvancia presentado por el Ministro de Agricultura, se resumen los beneficios del proyecto en: a) un impacto positivo a favor de unos 500 mil agricultores ( en su mayoría pequeños y medianos); b) recuperación de mantos acuíferos en la zona; c) aumento en la capacidad de riego en unas 18 mil hectáreas hoy en día afectadas por las sequías y el cambio climático; d) creación de un espejo de agua de 850 hectáreas; e) reducción del déficit hídrico de la zona.

También se observa durante la tramitación legislativa que se expuso a los legisladores que ese sitio en particular era el único adecuado para realizar el proyecto en cuestión, por lo que, precisamente, partiendo de los impactos que evidentemente tendrá un cambio de hábitat, se diligenció una compensación ambiental de esa zona (ver a manera de ejemplo comparecencias de folios 1326, 1327 y ss, 1332, 1334, 1335, 1342, 1351 y ss, 1357 y ss). Ciertamente, una compensación no basta con aumentar la cabida del terreno que se sustituye, toda vez que hay que procurar condiciones similares de vegetación y fauna. Sin embargo, tampoco implica que deba exigirse idénticas condiciones, pues con el tiempo podrían obtenerse incluso mayores beneficios ambientales. Según la doctrina, el principio fundamental en el que se basa la compensación ambiental, es que el resarcimiento no sea menor al costo ambiental del impacto que se vaya a producir.

Su intención es compensar los servicios ambientales que prestaban los ecosistemas que fueron afectados por el cambio de uso. Para ello no existe una única metodología de medición, y lo más relevante es que deba procurarse maximizar esa ganancia ambiental. A esa condición apuntaló el estudio realizado por la OET. Partieron de que la compensación debía maximizar la ganancia al ambiente, por lo que al inicio contaron con el hecho de que un área de 332 hectáreas de un ambiente similar al encontrado en ASETREK, funcionaría para compensar lo que se perdería en el sitio de impacto en RBLB. Esa es la razón de la proporción 3:1 que se indica en el informe. Sin embargo, a fin de maximizar esa ganancia ambiental que debe procurar un plan de compensación, es que se advirtió que podía resultar conveniente emplear, además , otras propiedades que dispusieran de elementos importantes para la conservación, adicionales al área en ASETREK , igualmente por el tipo de bosque ripario.

En la pág. 217 de ese estudio, se expusieron las razones por las cuales considera ron que el embalse que se formaría en la zona de inundación debía ser parte de la misma compensación. Asimismo, a unque otras áreas no fueron analizadas con la profundidad que lo hicieron en ASETREK, sugirieron otras propiedades adyacentes para mejorar la propuesta de compensación. Una de esas propiedades es Brindis de Amor, cuya selección no fue casual, sino valorada por estar ubicada en el extremo noroeste de la RBLB, la cual atraviesa uno de las pocas quebradas permanentes de la zona (río Cabuyo) y mantiene una breve cobertura riparia. La vegetación en este sitio sí fue evaluada, como se indica en las páginas 210–216 del informe. Además, tomaron en consideración en el informe, los estudios ininterrumpidos por más 25 años en el área de la Dr a. Susan Perry (Universidad de California, Los Ángeles), que señalan que tropas de monos carablanca (Cebus capuccinus) de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal utilizan los bosques dentro de Brindis de Amor como sitios de alimentación y descanso.

Es decir, hay evidencia de un constante flujo de animales desde y hacia la reserva. Por ello, el empleo de la propiedad Brindis de Amor como sitio de forrajeo demuestra la importancia biológica de esta propiedad y lo acertado que sería protegerla. La decisión de anexar una fracción de la Hacienda Ciruelas obedece a evitar dejar una península en el contorno de la RBLB de anexarse Brindis de Amor, lo que contravendría las nociones básicas del diseño de reservas, que trata de minimizar el efecto de borde y su afectación a las especies que se desean proteger. Además, esa fracción contiene también un fragmento de cobertura riparia. De manera que se trata de un criterio técnico de maximización del beneficio ambiental, que no fue tomado en cuenta solo por la extensión del terreno, sino por el recurso agregado y maximizado que implicaría mayores y mejores condiciones equivalentes de compensación.

En consecuencia, para los profesionales, tal valoración inicial resultó suficiente tomándose en consideración que son anexos complementarios, no la finca principal ASETREK, y que, en todo caso, serán igualmente valoradas en el estudio de impacto ambiental posteriormente. En el estudio se acreditó que e l área de impacto en la parte sureste de la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal no es un humedal, ni está conectado con los humedales del Parque Nacional Palo Verde. Además, Lomas de Barbudal, el Parque Nacional Palo Verde y las propiedades sugeridas adicionalmente, no se encuentran en el Área de Conservación Guanacaste (patrimonio de la UNESCO), sino en el Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque (ACAT). Es por ello que, en el informe se hizo tal sugerencia sin demeritar la compensación ya prevista. Así lo expuso la OET: “…Siguiendo esta metodología concluimos que: (1) Sí es posible hacer una equivalencia ecológica entre los dos sitios (RBLB y ASETREK); (2) Que la compensación en área es una proporción de 3:1.

Sin embargo, tal como especificamos en nuestro informe, nuestra recomendación fue solicitar aún más para resarcir las pérdidas en la reserva, en aras de mejorar el resarcimiento en términos del ambiente. La incorporación de estas dos propiedades en nuestra recomendación final no requería mayor evaluación pues constituyen una anexión complementaria más no esencial dada la metodología trazada. Si bien es cierto que la propiedad de Ciruelas no fue evaluada, es importante aclarar que en la propiedad de Brindis de Amor realizamos un levantamiento de la estructura y composición vegetal tal como se especifica en nuestro informe.” Igualmente, la incorporación de la propiedad Ciruelas fue justificada por razones de localización y corredor para las especies, lo que sí fue constatado por ese grupo de estudio, al realizar la investigación de la zona aledaña a la finca principal. La controversia de la suficiencia del periodo de estudio y de la metodología empleada, se reitera, es una cuestión técnica que no compete ser dilucidada en esta jurisdicción.

En todo caso, si bien se comprobó que la realización de este estudio se programó para que se ejecutara en el plazo de diez meses y no de dos años, ello no constituye en sí mismo una falencia que lo descalifique, toda vez que, siguiendo la metodología en él diseñada, necesariamente se llegaría a la misma conclusión , independientemente del tiempo que se tarde en realizarlo. En la prueba recibida por este Tribunal en la audiencia oral, el señor Mahmood Sasa Marín, coordinador del estudio de la OET, en relación con este aspecto, señaló que los resultados no deberían cambiar ante un plazo mayor. En todo caso y a los efectos de asegurar la protección ambiental, la desafectación del área en cuestión, igualmente está sujeta a la aprobación de un estudio de impacto ambiental, que deberá ser revisado y aprobado posteriormente por SETENA.

El estudio “Establecimiento de la línea base de biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y finca adyacente” valorado en su oportunidad por los legisladores, fue elaborado, a solicitud de SENARA, por la Organización para Estudios Tropicales, la cual tiene presencia científica en el país y en esa área desde 1970, cuando se creó la Estación Biológica Palo Verde , lo que hoy es el Parque Nacional Palo Verde, en el que participaron profesionales debidamente identificados y utilizaron una metodología científica específica. Además, fue avalado por el SINAC y SENARA, e inscrito en la Vicerrectorí a de Investigación de la Universidad de Costa Rica y aprobado en el Consejo de Investigación del Instituto Clodomir o Picado, también de la misma universidad, sin que l a Escuela de Biología haya manifestado sus reservas oportunamente ante sus elaboradores. Así las cosas, no resulta irrazonable que los legisladores hayan adoptado la ley en cuestión tomando en consideración el criterio técnico ahí externado, al igual que lo hace este Tribunal actualmente, al no ser instancias técnicas para cuestionar y revisar sus alcances, ni determinar el cumplimiento de cada requerimiento legal de este.

Nótese que no consta siquiera la interposición de un proceso judicial de legalidad posterior a esta ley, en que se haya cuestionado y anulado ese estudio, para sugerir que deba restársele el valor técnico aportado. Asimismo, aunque se alegue que el referido estudio no fue coordinado por la instancia respectiva del SINAC, lo cierto es que el mismo sí fue avalado por este, como ya se indicó. Finalmente, la compensación ofrecida en esta ley fue de 5 a 1 para mejorar el resarcimiento ambiental, pues a cambio del uso de las 113 hectáreas actuales, la reserva recibirá más de 5 00 hectáreas, que vendrían a formar parte de esta, incluyendo esas mismas 113 has, pero con un hábitat acuático y de protección diferente. En ese sentido, no solo entra en ponderación la protección ambiental, sino también la necesidad de procurar el suministro a una gran parte de la población guanacasteca, de un líquido que es vital para los seres humanos, como el dotar de agua.

De ahí que deban ser valorados todos los escenarios posibles y adoptar las medidas menos lesivas para todas las partes y los derechos involucrados, en atención a lo que procura un desarrollo sostenible. Tampoco se violenta el principio de no regresión ambiental de la reserva biológica Lomas de Barbudal, por el contrario, la normativa impugnada está garantizando un fortalecimiento en materia de protección y administración en temas ambientales, ya que se incrementa el área de la reserva, se protegen e incorporan áreas con humedales naturales (río Cabuyo y Quebrada Amores), se asignan recursos económicos para la administración y manejo de recursos naturales, se integra la coordinación entre instituciones para el manejo y elaboración de los planes correspondientes en materia ambiental, y, finalmente , incorpora un nuevo ecosistema de humedal, el cual, además de ser un nuevo destino para las aves acuáticas, será un ecosistema que contribuirá a la adaptación y al cambio climático en toda la provincia de Guanacaste.

Más allá de lo sugerido en el estudio de la OET de adquirir como mínimo 332 ha, la propuesta legislativa que finalmente fue aprobada y respaldada por órganos técnicos nacionales como SENARA y el SINAC, incorporó en la propuesta de compensación de este proyecto, muchas más hectáreas, a fin de facilitar el manejo y control de incendios. Asimismo, al incorporar las propiedades Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas, permitió contar con bosque ripario en condiciones adecuadas de conservación, y poder conservar también, al estar dentro del área del proyecto, las nacientes principales del río Cabuyo y quebrada Amores, que se encuentran en esas fincas. De otro lado, la elaboración del Plan General de Manejo de Uso Sostenible y Racional de este proyecto, estaría a cargo de una comisión que contaría con representación del SINAC, S ENARA y la Municipalidad de Bagaces, y que, según expuso el SINAC, contemplaría criterios importantes sobre la categoría de manejo especial de ese embalse y sus beneficios ecosistémicos: “•Se definiría con mayor claridad las competencias de cada institución y se definirían mejor los mecanismos y procedimientos para el ordenamiento y uso de los recursos. •Bajo la categoría de oficial de Humedal se tendría mayores oportunidades de ordenar el uso para que la sociedad local, nacional e internacional logren contar con bienes y servicios de calidad producidos por el recurso bien conservado entre ellos: educación, investigación, agua, recreación y turismo. •Permitirá prevenir y controlar con mayor eficiencia y rigurosidad diferentes actividades ilícitas como invasión de tierras y tala ilegal, cacería y pesca furtiva e incendios forestales. • Al asignar una categoría de manejo al Embalse e incorporarlo como sitio Ramsar, el país estaría cumpliendo responsablemente con los compromisos internacionales como país signatario de la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de importancia Internacional; Convención Ramsar aprobada mediante Ley número 7224 del 02 de abril de 1991. • El otorgar el estatus oficial como Humedal facilitará el proceso de ordenamiento de la actividad turística donde grupos locales y microempresarios de la zona podrían integrase a desarrollar un turismo rural sostenible, como alternativa socieconómica. • Con la creación de esta área protegida se estaría fortaleciendo una importante zona que funge como Corredor Biológico entre la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, Parque Nacional Palo Verde y el Corredor Biológico Nambiral. • Se estaría integrando la sociedad civil local e instituciones locales relacionadas para coordinar y efectuar una planificación y gestión ambiental integral a través del Consejo Local del Humedal, aprovechando de manera eficiente los recursos y capacidad instalada de cada una de las instituciones relacionadas. • La categoría de Humedal permitirá planificar, ordenar y efectuar un uso armonioso y sostenible de los recursos naturales con un nivel de fricción o conflicto bajo, como si posiblemente ocurriría si se asignara una categoría de Parque Nacional o Reserva Biológica. • El contar con un área silvestre núcleo, servirá de justificación y motivación a instancias locales, regionales y entes internacionales a cooperar técnica y financieramente para promover el desarrollo de acciones orientadas a la conservación y actividades socio productivo de carácter sostenible en el territorio de la cuenca en general. •El asignar una categoría de manejo para el ordenamiento y el uso sostenible de Embalse, estaría contribuyendo de forma significativa para la conservación de los ecosistemas y especies de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, ya que además de favorecer la conectividad y desplazamiento de las especies, fungirá también como zona de amortiguamiento y disminución de presión hacia los recursos de la Reserva”.

Se debe recordar, que los ambientes registrados de una determinada zona no son estáticos , sino dinámicos, por lo que con el tiempo se pueden lograr modificaciones, incluso más positivas en el ecosistema.

Por consiguiente, la l ey cuestionada no resulta inconstitucional, contó con estudios previos y criterios técnicos expresados por las autoridades competentes a lo largo de las comparecencias legislativas, entre estos S ENARA, SINAC , MINAE, S ETENA, MAG y OET y, además, dispone la obligación de realizar un estudio de impacto ambiental, el cual deberá contemplar de previo, todos los impactos y medidas de mitigación que procedan para garantizar que, efectivamente, no sea lesionado el ambiente, así como también, determine que se producirá una compensación, no solo en tamaño, sino de naturaleza ecológica hasta donde razonablemente sea posible en este último supuesto. En criterio de este Tribunal, se trata de una ley condicionada, cuya eficacia queda supeditada a que el estudio de impacto ambiental pendiente del proyecto PAACUME, confirme los resultados previos, y se ajuste a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, a las exigencias de un desarrollo sostenible, de equilibrio ecológico y de un ambiente sano, y al bienestar general de la población, que sirva para justificar la medida, así como para determinar que la compensación del área contemple tanto el elemento cuantitativo como el cualitativo , por lo que no llevan razón al indicar que se violenta el principio precautorio.

P or otro lado, los accionantes cuestionan que no se notificó a RAMSAR sobre la desafectaci ón del á rea de la RBLB, ni tampoco del cambio en los lí mites de esa reserva bioló gica, lo que supone una omisión que infringe los compromi sos internacionales de nuestro país y, por ende, una vio lación al ar tículo 7 de la Constitució n Política. Al re specto procede indicar que, si bien la “Fic ha técnica para ampliación del Sitio Ramsar Palo Verde, Costa Ri ca” evidencia que la RBLB forma parte d e ese sitio , el inciso 2 del artículo 4 del instrumento internacional mencionado faculta a los Estados a retirar l os humedales o reducirlos, por m otivos urgentes de interés nacional, en cuyo caso debe compensarse, en la medida de lo posible, la pérdida de recursos y, en particular, crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y la protección de una porción adecuada de su hábitat original, en la misma región o en otro lugar.

Prec isamente, corresponde a cada Estado determinar los “motivos urgentes de interés nacional ”, por lo que no se considera irrazonable que la Asamblea Legislativa emita una ley que tenga como parte de sus fines dotar de recurso hí drico a parte de la pr ovincia de Guanacaste y así ve lar por su aprovechamiento sostenible. Asimismo, de la lectura del convenio referido no se desprende alguna obligació n (que i mplique algú n vicio de inconstitu cionalidad) de comunicar a RAMSAR previamente la desafectación del área proteg ida y, en todo caso, basta ría con realizar la notificación correspondiente, ya que el Estado, siempre y cuando cumpla con los compromisos int ernacionales que adquirió y con los p arámetros internos (como l os que ha fijado esta jurisdicción), tiene la potest ad de hacerlo. Por consiguiente, se desestiman los alegatos de los accionantes.

B.- Sobre la acusada trans gresión al ar tículo 176 de la Constitución Pol ítica y a los principios de equilibrio presupuestario, razonabil idad y proporcionalidad , economía y efic iencia. Los accion antes aducen qu e no se hicieron estudi os socioeco nómicos que justifiquen po r un lado la desafectac ión y por el otr o el aumento de l a RBLB con casi 500 hectáreas de terrenos privados. Reprochan que no se contaba con el financiamiento mí nimo para adquirir el área, p rotegerla y manejarla ; y que ni siqu iera exist ía un avalúo de las p ropiedades. Manif iestan que no se cumplió con el requi sito de verificar la existencia de recursos financieros suficientes para a dquirir los terrenos del área propuesta, y que el ordinal 3 6 de la Ley del Ambiente establece que para cre ar nuevas áreas silvest res protegidas propiedad del Estado, cualquiera que sea la categoría de manejo que é l establezca, deberá cumplirse previamente, entre otros requisitos, con el financiamiento mínimo para adqu irir el área, protegerl a y manejarla.

Sosti enen que ese requisito no s e cumplió en el caso de la le y n.º 9610. Indican que el presupuesto ordinario del 2018, en ejecución para cuando se apro bó la ley n.º 9610, no contenía una partida presupuestaria para pa gar las expropiaciones de las prop iedades pri vadas que se incorporaron a la RBLB. A gregan que ese incumplimiento vio lenta el principio de equilibrio presupuestario (artículo 176 de la Constitució n Política), ya que mediante esa ley se asumieron nuevas obligac iones de pago sin que estuviera n previstas en la ley de presupuesto, lo que es requ isito para ampliar á reas protegidas. A ñaden que , para poder hace r esa desafectación, se compensa con más de 500 hectáreas de terrenos privados; sin embargo, surg e el cuestionamiento de por qué se escogieron es as y no otras propiedades colindantes con la RBLB, incluso terrenos de menor valor o terrenos que ya perten ecen al Estado colindante s con la reserva bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal y que tienen u na catego ría de p rotección muy inferior a la de una reserva bioló gica (más de 300 hectá reas).

Por ello, alegan la violación del principio de razonabilidad, proporcionalid ad, eco nomía y eficiencia, ya que no se justifica una erogación de dinero de miles de millones de c olones para compensar 113 hectá reas de la RBLB que s e desafectan mediante esta ley que se impugna, cuando existen opciones sin cos to o mucho menor para el Estado. M enos aún, cuando la ley obliga a expropiar más de 500 hectáreas para compensa r 113 hectáreas que se están desafectando, pudiendo perfectamente i ncorporá rsele a la RBLB más de 300 hectá reas del Estado que tienen una categoría de manejo y protecció n inferior a la de un parque n acional o reserva biol ógica, sin costo a lguno para el erario pú blico. Advierten que tam poco se revisaron todas las propiedad es adyacentes a la RBLB, para encontrar la manera de compensar a un menor costo posible. Finalmente, refieren que el aná lisis de cost o-beneficio no se hizo con todas las propiedades adyacen tes a la RBLB.

A partir de lo anterior, es importante precisar, que la competencia de este Tr ibunal, en relació n con el principio del Equilibrio Pr esupuestar io derivado del numer al 176 de la Constitució n Política, se ciñe a un análisis de nivel macro, y no de una situación en particular co mo la de estudio. Tal y como lo señal a la Procuraduría G eneral de la República, la discusión acerca de si se ha incluido en el presupuesto ordinario la partida específica destinada a cubrir las expropiaciones que se requieren para la compensación de la RBLB , no está referida a la violación de este principio.

Por lo demás, no puede obviarse lo ya indicado en esta sentencia, en el sentido que se está ante una ley condicionada, cuya eficacia queda supeditada a que el estudio de impacto ambiental pendiente del proyecto PAACUME, confirme los resultados previos, y se ajuste a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, a las exigencias de un desarrollo sostenible, de equilibrio ecológico y de un ambiente sano, y al bienestar general de la población, que sirva para justificar la medida, así como para determinar que la compensación del área contemple tanto el elemento cuantitativo como el cualitativo. Por ende, si falta el referido estudio de impacto ambiental, que condiciona -según se indicó- la eficacia de la ley cuestionada y el eventual inicio de la fase de ejecución del proyecto, entonces resulta prematura la exigencia de una efectiva determinación y previsión de los recursos financieros necesarios para ejecutar una futura expropiación, en tanto aún no existe un proceso tendente a expropiar un fundo.

Adicionalmente, en lo que se refiere a la adecuada protección y administración de la RBLB, debe tomarse en consideración que la propia normativa impugnada está garantizando su fortalecimiento, pues, entre otros aspectos, se asignan recursos económicos para la administración y manejo de recursos naturales. Ergo, tampoco se constata que, en cuanto a este punto, se configure una afectación o perjuicio ambiental.

De otra parte , la alegada inconformidad por el supuesto alto costo econó mico para el p aís que significa desafect ar y compensar esa área con esas propiedades y no otras diferentes, tampoco confi gura un argumento susceptible de análisis d e constitucionalidad, sino de discr ecionalidad, cuestión en la que el legislador cuenta con amplio margen -libre configuración-, en este caso, siguiendo, ló gicamente, criterios té cnicos, de conveniencia y oportuni dad para la escogencia de un terreno cuando así lo impongan razón de interés público debidamente comprobado, tal y como se da en el presente caso; amén que la disminución de la cabida de un área silvestre protegida y su compensación, no debe responder únicamente a un criterio económico, sino también a los atributos ecológicos del terreno, a fin de que reúna condiciones ambientales equivalentes al área desafectada. De manera que ello implicaría igualmente un análisis técnico que no es propio de ser verificado en esta jurisdicción.

VII.Conclusión . Corolario de lo expuesto, este Tribunal considera que la acción resulta inadmisible , en relación con la acusada violación al artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, al numeral 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa y al principio de seguridad jurídica, por carecer de legitimación los accionantes. En lo demás, no se advierten las inconstitucionalidades alegadas, en el tanto lo autorizado en la normativa impugnada cuente con el estudio de impacto ambiental previo, que determine los impactos, las medidas de mitigación respectivas, garantice la protección ambiental y la debida comprensión ambiental.

VIII.Documentación aportada al expediente . Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.

Por tanto:

En relación con la acusada violación al artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, al numeral 208 bis del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa y al principio de seguridad jurídica, por unanimidad se declara inadmisible la acción, porque, por un lado, no se observa algún tipo de interés difuso o colectivo, y, por otro, no existe algún asunto previo en el que se haya invocado la inconstitucionalidad como medio para amparar el derecho o interés reclamado. Igualmente, por unanimidad se declara sin lugar la acción respecto de la argüida vulneración a los ordinales 7 y 176 de la Constitución Política y a los principios constitucionales de equilibrio presupuestario, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y economía y eficiencia.

En cuanto a la alegada lesión al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, contemplado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, por mayoría se declara sin lugar la acción. Los Magistrados Cruz Castro, Rueda Leal y Garro Vargas salvan el voto y declaran con lugar la acción por violación a los principios precautorio, no regresión en material ambiental, irreductibilidad y objetivación de la tutela ambiental. La Magistrada Garro Vargas da razones diferentes y pone nota.

La Magistrada Hernández López y el Magistrado Salazar Alvarado ponen notas separadas.

Notifíquese este pronunciamiento a la parte accionante, al Procurador General de la República, al Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa, al Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, al Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, al Gerente General del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, y a los coadyuvantes.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C. Paul Rueda L.

Nancy Hernández L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.

Nota separada de la Magistrada Hernández López En la discusión del presente asunto, me había reservado la redacción de una nota separada. Sin embargo, prescindo de la misma, por cuanto se reflejan de manera integral las observaciones que tenía sobre el tema, en la redacción de la sentencia.

Nancy Hernández López Nota del Magistrado Salazar Alvarado:

Vista la redacción integral de la Sentencia dictada en este asunto, prescindo de la nota que, en su momento, consideré oportuna durante la discusión y votación de esta acción de inconstitucionalidad.- Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Voto salvado de los Magistrados Cruz Castro y Rueda Leal, con redacción del segundo.

Con el respeto acostumbrado nos separamos del criterio de Mayoría y declaramos inconstitucional la ley n.º 9610 de 17 de octubre de 2018 denominada “Modificació n de límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Bar budal para el desarrollo del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Rí o Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras ”, por violación a los principios precautorio, no regresión en material ambiental, irreductibilidad y objetivación de la tutela ambiental.

En el sub e xamine, la ley cuestionada se sustentó en mayor medida, tal y como se observa en la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley correspondiente, en el estudio de la Organización para Estudios Tropicales (en adelante OET) denominado “Establecimiento de la línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente” de junio de 2017. Si bien, en principio, no corresponde a la Sala evaluar técnicamente la calidad de los estudios ni definir si cuál criterio profesional debe prevalecer, no menos cierto es que este Tribunal sí interviene cuando se está ante evidentes y manifiestas inconsistencias o falencias (por ejemplo, las sentencias n 2012013367 de las 11:33 horas del 21 de setiembre de 2012 y 2013010540 de las 15:50 horas del 7 de agosto de 2013). En el sub iudice, luego de analizar el estudio de la OET, constatamos una serie de problemas que saltan a la vista a partir de su simple lectura y que evidencian de manera palmaria el incumplimiento de los requisitos constitucionales que ha establecido este Tribunal para la desafectación de áreas protegidas.

Atinente a la reducció n de á reas protegidas , este Tribunal, en la sentencia n.º 2019000673 de las 12:00 horas de 16 de enero de 2019, dispuso:

“ V.- Jurisprudencia sobre la reducción de áreas protegidas, la suficiencia de los informes técnicos y la debida compensación.- Sobre la reducción de zonas protegidas, de la jurisprudencia de esta Sala se tiene lo siguiente:

1. Requisitos constitucionales para la reducción de área silvestre protegida (reserva legal y estudios técnicos): En apoyo del artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (“la superficie de las áreas silvestres protegidas, patrimonio natural del Estado, cualquiera sea su categoría de manejo, sólo podrá reducirse por Ley de la República, después de realizar los estudios técnicos que justifiquen esta medida”), ha habido una sólida línea jurisprudencial, en el sentido de que para la reducción de un área silvestre protegida, en cualquiera de sus categorías de manejo (en cuenta los refugios nacionales de vida silvestre), deben cumplirse dos requisitos esenciales: “por medio de ley y previa realización de estudios técnicos suficientes que justifiquen la medida.” (Sala Constitucional, votos números 13367-2012 y 010158-2013. En similar sentido, las sentencias números 7294-1998, 11155-2007, 1056-2009, 18702-2010 y 14772-2010, entre otras). Tal como se dijo en la resolución mencionada de 1998:

““(…) una vez declarada una determinada área como zona protectora por un acto del Estado, no puede éste, simplemente, desafectarlo en todo o en parte, para proteger otros intereses -públicos o privados- en menoscabo del disfrute de un ambiente sano, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 constitucional. Ahora bien, el hecho de que una norma, del rango que sea, haya declarado como zona protectora una determianda (sic) área, no implica la constitución de una zona pétrea, en el sentido de que, de manera alguna, su cabida pueda ser reducida por una normativa posterior. Sin embargo, se debe tener presente que la declaratoria y delimitación de una zona protectora, en cumplimiento de lo preceptuado en el artículo 50 constitucional, implica una defensa del derecho fundamental al ambiente y, por ello, la reducción de cabida no debe implicar un detrimento de ese derecho, situación que debe establecerse en cada caso concreto.

No resulta necesariamente inconstitucional el hecho de que por medio de una ley posterior se reduzca la cabida de una zona protectora, una reserva forestal, un Parque Nacional o cualesquiera otros sitio de interés ambiental, siempre y cuando ello esté justificado en el tanto no implique vulneración al derecho al ambiente. Podría ser que, por diversas circunstancias, un determinado sitio haya perdido, al menos en parte, el interés ambiental que, en su momento, provocó, lo que, hechos los estudios del caso, justificaría su modificación o reducción, todo en aplicación del principio de razonabilidad constitucional…” (voto No. 7294-1998).

Concretamente sobre la reserva legal en esta materia, en el voto No.14772-2010 se dijo:

(…) no se puede modificar el destino público de un bien del demanio público sin un acto legislativo, es decir, la reducción de área de una zona protegida se encuentra bajo la garantía que proporciona el principio de reserva de ley. Si bien, de conformidad con el artículo 36 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, el Poder Ejecutivo se encuentra autorizado para constituir las Áreas Silvestre Protegidas mediante el cumplimiento de los requisitos establecidos en esa norma, así, el Parque Nacional Corcovado se constituyó mediante los Decretos Ejecutivos No. 5357-A del 24 de octubre de 1975 y 1148-A del 5 de febrero de 1980, su modificación solo podrá hacerse de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, previo estudios técnicos y científicos, y mediante un acto legislativo . (resaltado no corresponde al original).

Asimismo, en sentencia no.1056-2009 se indicó que la reducción únicamente es posible vía legal:

“cuando de la ampliación de los límites de las zonas protectoras del patrimonio forestal del Estado se trata es posible hacerlo vía reglamento, pero cuando de su reducción se trata, únicamente se puede hacer vía legal , claro está, siempre y cuando exista un criterio previo que justifique la medida.” (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 1056-2009) Lo cual fue aplicado cuando la Sala declaró inconstitucional la norma reglamentaria (Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 32753-MINAE) mediante la cual el Poder Ejecutivo disminuyó el territorio del Refugio Gandoca-Manzanillo, sustrayendo del área y del régimen de protección, la zona urbana del Refugio.

Además, en cuanto a los estudios, estos deben ser previos, suficientes, necesarios e individualizados –como se indica en el apartado siguiente-. Así se dijo en esa misma resolución de 1998:

“De acuerdo con lo citado, mutatis mutandi, si para la creación de un área silvestre protectora la Asamblea Legislativa, por medio de una ley, estableció el cumplimiento de unos requisitos específicos, a fin de determinar si la afectación en cuestión es justificada, lo lógico es que, para su desafectación parcial o total, también se deban cumplir determinados requisitos -como la realización de estudios técnicos ambientales- para determinar que con la desafectación no se transgrede el contenido del artículo 50 constitucional. En este sentido, podemos hablar de niveles de desafectación. Así, no toda desafectación de una zona protegida es inconstitucional, en el tanto implique menoscabo al derecho al ambiente o amenaza a éste. De allí que, para reducir un área silvestre protegida cualquiera, la Asamblea Legislativa debe hacerlo con base en estudios técnicos suficientes y necesarios para determinar que no se causará daño al ambiente o se le pondrá en peligro y, por ende, que no se vulnera el contenido del artículo 50 constitucional.

El principio de razonabilidad, en relación con el derecho fundamental al ambiente, obliga a que las normas que se dicten con respecto a esta materia estén debidamente motivadas en estudios técnicos serios, aún cuando no existiera otra normativa legal que así lo estableciera expresamente. A juicio de este Tribunal Constitucinal (sic), la exigencia que contiene el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente No. 7554, en el sentido de que para reducir un área silvestre protegida por ley formal deben realizarse, de previo, los estudios técnicos que justifiquen la medida , no es sino la objetivación del principio de razonabilidad en materia de protección al ambiente.” (resaltado no corresponde al original).

2. Estudio técnico como un análisis científico e individualizado: La Sala se ha referido a la suficiencia del estudio técnico, cuando mediante varias resoluciones ha establecido que dicho estudio debe ser un análisis científico e individualizado. Así se dijo lo siguiente:

“el requerimiento de estudios técnicos no es una mera formalidad, sino que se trata de un requisito material, es decir materialmente se tiene que demostrar, mediante un análisis científico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en este, y demostrar cómo tal medida implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades.” (Voto No. 13367-2012. Véase además el No. 10158-2013).

De lo cual se desprende que, el estudio técnico que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y que es la objetivación del principio constitucional de razonabilidad en materia de protección al ambiente, requiere de un análisis técnico que implica un análisis individualizado, el cual debe contener como mínimo las siguientes medidas:

El grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente; Las recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente; La demostración de cómo la medida que se toma, implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades.

En síntesis, dicho estudio previo debe demostrar que la desafectación es conforme con la protección constitucional al derecho al ambiente, pues como se dijo en el voto no. 18702-2010 “no se puede permitir que se titulen áreas de esta naturaleza en forma indiscriminada, ya que esto iría contra las mismas políticas conservacionistas del ambiente que ha procurado el Estado en virtud de los cometidos ordenados por la Constitución Política y los Convenios Internacionales que ha suscrito".

3. Medidas de compensación: Un área protegida solo se puede reducir si se hace mediante ley, si hay estudios técnicos y científicos que descarten el daño ambiental y si se da una compensación del área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño. No cabe duda que todas aquellas normas en los cuales hay reducción de las áreas protegidas sin el respaldo de estudios técnicos ni compensación alguna, son inconstitucionales” (voto Nos. 12887-2014, 2773-2014, 2012-13367 y 2009-1056).

VI.Sobre la normativa impugnada.- Tal como se observa, tanto la Ley para regular la creación y el desarrollo del puesto fronterizo Las Tablillas, Ley No. 8803, como su Reglamento, son impugnados en su totalidad, básicamente por dos razones: por no contar con el estudio técnico que sustente la reducción de un área protegida (en este caso un refugio nacional de vida silvestres), y por no establecer medidas de compensación. Cada uno de estos alegatos se examina por separado. SOBRE EL ESTUDIO TECNICO: El accionante indica que la Ley impugnada y su reglamento, están segregando y reduciendo varias hectáreas del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestres de la zona fronteriza, sin que existan estudios ambientales que justificaran esa acción. Indica que los diputados tomaron una simple recomendación que nunca puede ser considerado un estudio serio, profundo y amplio que permitiera hacer lo que se hizo. La Procuraduría General de la República en su informe indica que, ya en la Opinión Jurídica de esta Procuraduría No. O.J.-98-2009, emitida el 14 de octubre del 2009 por consulta de los Diputados, durante la tramitación del proyecto que culminó en la Ley No. 8803, analizó el estudio técnico incorporado al expediente en ese momento, considerándolo insuficiente para justificarla: “…respetuosamente debe señalarse que dicho informe técnico no reúne los requerimientos necesarios para fundamentar el proyecto que se consulta.

Nótese que el mismo hace un estudio sobre las 236 hectáreas que se proponían inicialmente y concluye que el proyecto no es viable desde el punto de vista ambiental y social. Sin embargo, dicho estudio no explica en forma alguna, por qué motivo ese impacto negativo no se produce sobre las 13 hectáreas que se proponen, o en otras palabras, no existe a la fecha, un criterio técnico que se refiera a los motivos por los cuales sí es viable la segregación de las 12.3 hectáreas que se establecen en el proyecto de ley consultado…”. El Ministro de Ambiente y Energía indica que no hay inconstitucionalidad. Agrega que, no se pretendía con la ley impugnada la desafectación del dominio público de la zona en cuestión, sino autorizar la utilización de una porción del área para otro destino de interés público, que es la instalación de un puesto fronterizo y aduanal, en el entendido que se trata de construcciones del Estado y no privadas.

Así el 28 de setiembre del 2007 se emite el informe técnico elaborado por la comisión caso Tablillas, denominado “Solicitud de reducción del área del Refugio Nacional Corredor Fronterizo” que propone un área a desafectar de 13 ha limítrofes con la línea fronteriza, por cuanto los funcionarios del Área de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte consideraron inviable la segregación del área indicada de 236 ha, concluyendo el informe que: “13 hectáreas, sería una propuesta más viable desde el punto de vista de impacto a los ecosistemas presentes en el sitio y alrededores.” Dicho informe consideró aspectos biofísicos, socioeconómicos, seguridad. Concluye que, el balance del costo beneficio de establecer puestos que realicen control y ordenamiento del ingreso migratorio en dicho sector, contribuye a regular el ingreso por la franja demanial coincidente con el Área Silvestre Protegida. Los Ministros de la Presidencia y de Comercio Exterior indican que, en los folios del 76 al 94 del expediente legislativo consta el informe técnico elaborado en setiembre del 2007 por el MINAE.

El sitio identificado reúne las condiciones aptas para el desarrollo del proyecto de un Puesto Fronterizo por cuanto ya había sido impactada por la acción humana, hecho que se comprueba con la no existencia de ecosistemas de importancia o frágiles, la no presencia de cobertura boscosa primera o secundaria, ni de humedales o cursos de agua, sino únicamente de pastos naturales y terreno limpio para cultivo o listo para siembra. Además el área es técnicamente estratégica para la ubicación del Puesto Fronterizo por la cercanía con la línea limítrofe y la existencia de vías de comunicación para el desplazamiento interno (caminos) y una carretera nacional conectada a la vía del lado nicaragüense de la frontera. Al respecto, esta Sala concluye que, en efecto, la Procuraduría General de la República lleva razón en su informe, no existe un estudio técnico que se refiera a la viabilidad de este proyecto, pues el que se realizó se refería a una zona de mayores dimensiones, concluyendo que no resultaba viable desde el punto de vista ambiental y social.

Por ello, debía justificarse por qué la nueva propuesta no generaría problema en los humedales, en las especies de la zona, en los mantos acuíferos y no produce una problemática social, tal como se detectó en la propuesta inicial. El estudio técnico que refieren los Ministros, resulta evidentemente insuficiente, pues no explica en forma alguna, por qué motivo ese impacto negativo no se produce sobre las 13 hectáreas que se proponen, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, las recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente, ni tampoco la demostración de cómo la medida que se toma, implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades. Por otro lado, si bien puede ser cierto, como dicen los Ministros en su informe, la propiedad no está saliendo del dominio público, es lo cierto que sí está siendo desafectada, ambientalmente hablando.

También puede ser cierto, como dicen los Ministros en su informe, que además del interés ambiental en la zona fronteriza, pueda haber otros intereses relevantes como la seguridad migratoria y otros. Sin embargo, ello justamente es lo que debió haber contenido el informe técnico en su fundamentación. Nótese que, como indican los Ministros, puede ser cierto que se hayan estado tomando ciertas medidas ambientales, ello no enerva el hecho de la carencia de informe técnico con el que debió contar la ley, que dejan esas medidas ambientales sin sustento técnico requerido. Así entonces, se evidencia la inconstitucionalidad alegada, de la ley impugnada –y por conexidad de su reglamento-, por la carencia de informe técnico suficiente que sustentara la reducción del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de la zona fronteriza. SOBRE LAS MEDIDAS DE COMPENSACIÓN: El accionante indica que no se estableció en la ley medidas de compensación oportunas, ante la segregación ordenada.

La Procuraduría General de la República en su informe indica que, una inconstitucionalidad por violación a este principio, no se resuelve necesariamente con la anulación de la Ley, si se califica como una inconstitucionalidad por omisión, bastaría que la Sala Constitucional dispusiera en sentencia adicionar al Refugio la porción o porciones que compensen el área suprimida, lo cual podría hacerse incluso por vía reglamentaria. Los Ministros de la Presidencia y de Comercio Exterior indican que, la pretensión de demolición de la infraestructura pública causaría la inmediata desprotección del orden, la paz, la salud, el desarrollo sostenible, la vida y la dignidad humana. Además consideran que no existe una obligación del Estado de compensar un área ya deforestada e impactada con otra, toda vez que nunca se dio una reducción del bosque ni una afectación al ambiente que justificare la medida de la compensación.

Al respecto, esta Sala concluye que, en efecto, también las normas impugnadas son omisas en cuanto a las medidas de compensación. Siendo evidente la segregación de alrededor de 13 hectáreas, conforme lo indica el artículo 1° de la ley impugnada, y aunque éstas no salgan del dominio público, si salieron de una categoría de manejo ambiental, lo cual obligaba a establecer medidas de compensación legales, que no fueron adoptadas, ni garantizadas, según se observa de la lectura de toda la ley. Así entonces, se evidencia la inconstitucionalidad alegada, de la ley impugnada –y por conexidad de su reglamento-, por la carencia de medidas de compensación a la reducción del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de la zona fronteriza.

VII.En conclusión.- De la jurisprudencia reiterada de esta Sala se tiene que, toda reducción de un área silvestre protegida, en cualquiera de sus categorías de manejo (en cuenta los refugios nacionales de vida silvestre), deben cumplirse tres requisitos esenciales: reserva legal (es decir, sólo por ley puede hacerse), previa realización de estudios técnicos suficientes que justifiquen la medida y establecer medidas de compensación. En este caso se evidenció que la Ley para regular la creación y el desarrollo del puesto fronterizo Las Tablillas (Ley No. 8803) y su Reglamento, procedieron a la segregación, y consecuente reducción, del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de la zona fronteriza. Sin embargo, aunque se hizo por medio de una ley, no se realizó un estudio previo suficiente que: justificara la medida, estableciera el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, las recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente, ni tampoco que demostrara cómo la medida que se toma implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades, o estableciera en concreto y detalle medidas de compensación. De todo lo cual se evidencia la inconstitucionalidad por omisión. Procediéndose en este caso a declarar con lugar la acción, con un dimensionamiento de esta sentencia, tal como se indica”.

Con base en el precedente de cita, consideramos que los requisitos que se deben cumplir para que resulte constitucionalmente viable la desafectación de áreas protegidas, son los siguientes:

1)La declaratoria y delimitación de una zona protectora, en cumplimiento de lo preceptuado en el artículo 50 constitucional, implica una defensa del derecho fundamental al ambiente y, por ello, la reducción de cabida no debe conllevar un detrimento de ese derecho (causar daño o ponerlo en peligro), situación que debe establecerse en cada caso concreto.

2)La reducción de un área protegida, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo, solo puede darse por ley, luego de estudios técnicos y científicos (previos, suficientes, necesarios e individualizados) que, en atención al principio de razonabilidad, justifiquen la medida.

3)El estudio debe demostrar materialmente, mediante un análisis científico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en este, y demostrar cómo tal medida implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades.

4)La reducción de un área protegida implica una compensación del área suprimida con al menos otra de tamaño igual y condiciones equivalentes.

Ahora, en relación con los problemas detectados en el estudio de marras, la propia OET señaló que para los estudios de línea base, compensación e impacto, deben ser considerados al menos dos años de ejecución. En ese sentido, indicó de modo explícito: “La recomendación es que para los estudios de línea base, compensación e impacto sean considerados al menos dos años de ejecución y que efectivamente sean considerados un componente imprescindible del proyecto”. Lo anterior resulta trascendental a los efectos de esta vía constitucional, ya que, sin que se haya logrado acreditar alguna justificación científica o técnica, el periodo de muestreo del estudio de la OET fue únicamente de 10 meses, lo cual se calculó con base en el límite de tiempo que había para el proyecto, sin que para llegar a tal cifra se advierte algún criterio técnicamente sustentado que la respalde.

Al respecto, el señor Mahmood Sasa Marín, coordinador del estudio de la OET, mencionó en la audiencia celebrada en esta acción, que, en su opinión, las conclusiones mayores no cambiarían ante un plazo más largo y que: “la recomendación (…) iba en el sentido de tener soporte verdad (…) obviamente entre más datos tengamos mejor, pero yo creo que las conclusiones gruesas, digamos esa proporción de más o menos tres uno, se mantendría n”. Sin embargo, tal situación produce incertidumbre y genera duda, toda vez que el propio consultor antes había afirmado: “que muchos de esos grupos (…) en realidad no proveen suficiente información, muchos de los grupos taxonómicos (…) , muchos de los indicadores si quisiera, (…) se tenía ese plazo, se analizó, se tienen esos datos y con esos datos tejemos esa conclusión”.

De ahí que, estimamos que el plazo de 10 meses de la ejecución del estudio no proporciona certeza científica suficiente como para conocer las condiciones reales de la RBLB y del área propuesta para compensar su desafectación, lo que resulta inaceptable debido al impacto a un área protegida. En otras palabras, si se indica que el plazo para los estudios de línea base debe ser de al menos dos años (es decir, se impone un mínimo) y no existe alguna justificación científica o técnica para reducirlo, la confiabilidad de los resultados es manifiestamente incierta.

Por otra parte, el estudio supra mencionado tuvo como objeto inicial analizar únicamente dos sitios: “la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) y la zona potencial de canje para compensar las potenciales pérdidas, ubicada en el extremo occidental de la finca ASETREK Tres azul S.A”. Asimismo, los capítulos II (Calidad de Hábitat) y III (Composición de Comunidades) se centran en comparar las condiciones de la RBLB con la finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. No fue sino hasta en el capítulo IV (Consideraciones sobre la Compensación), donde se propuso la adquisición de una propiedad denominada Brindis de Amor, con base en estas consideraciones:

“4.2. Otras alternativas de compensación.

Nuestras evaluaciones revelan que el sitio seleccionado en ASE TREK para compensar por las pérdidas en la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal posee ambientes de menor calidad biológica. El método de estimación de compensación que hemos seguido aquí “castiga” esos há bitats de menor calidad asignándoles puntajes más bajos, lo que se traduce en una consignación de un área superficial mayor con la que atenuar el défic it. La propuesta de compensación en ASETREK es que se segregue la porción de la propiedad que posee las coberturas de bosque y que esta sea anexada a la Reserva Bioló gica.

Sin embargo, este procedimiento en sí mismo no resuelve la necesidad de obtener un h ábitat de calidad equiparable al hábitat afectado, que es actualmente vulnerable y protegi do por la Reserva Biológica. Así, siguiendo el mé todo hábitat-hectá rea, nuestros resultados apuntan a que es posible resarcir algunas de las pérdidas en Lomas de Barbudal a partir de un á rea determinada del hábitat disponible en ASETREK; pero no asegura la ganancia de todos los elementos o características que se verán afectados por el embalse. El mejor ejemplo lo proporciona la cobertura de bosque ripario que se perderá en RB LB y que no tiene correspondencia en el ambiente disponible en ASETREK.

Otro inconv eniente es que ASETREK, pese a contener el fragmento boscoso má s extenso adyacente a la Reserva Biológica, no dispone de la cantidad de hectá reas con cobertura boscosa necesaria para cubrir l as 330 hectáreas mínimas solicitadas con nuestro análisis. La Figura 46 muestra los parches de bosque deciduo y secundario disponible s en el área con cobertura boscosa dentro de ASETREK (sitios 3 y 4). Estas coberturas boscosas corresponden a 292 Ha, pese a que para unirlas se requerirá segregar un área de aproximadamen te 444 Ha. Aún más, por ser inflamables y propensos a la explansión de incendios, la existencia de zonas de pastos y de uso no forestal dentro de la propiedad de ASETREK es considerada una am enaza a los fragmentos de bosque que aún quedan en esa propiedad.

Estas consideraciones sugieren que otras opciones de compensación d eban analizarse como complemento al aporte que haría anexar la propiedad de ASETREK a la Reserva Biológica.

En el noreste de la Reserva Bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal, existen propiedades privadas con fragmentos de bosques riparios y secundarios. De hecho, un examen rápido revela que en las cercanías de la Quebrada Amores existen condiciones boscosas que podrían se r de interés de protección. Una de ellas es Brindis de Amor , una propiedad de cerca de 86 Ha que limita con la Reserva Lomas de Barbud al y cuya cobertura boscosa ha sido protegida por su propietario Carlos Jimé nez en los últimos veinte años (Figura 47 ).

(…)

4.2.1. Brindis de Amor como complemento de la co mpensación Brindis De Amor posee 15.87 Ha de bosque ripario, 8.4 Ha de bosque secundario y 45.2 Ha de bosque deciduo. El resto de la propiedad son pastizales que muestran estadios tempranos de sucesió n de bosque deciduo. La propiedad es atravesada por el río Cabuyo, que es permanente y que es la misma que irriga la Reserva Biológica adyac ente (Figura 48 ).

(…)

A partir de estas observaciones, los siguientes son los argumentos que consideramos justifican el empleo de Brindis de Amor como parte de la compensación para resarcir las pérdidas en RBLB por efectos del proyecto.

1. Los resultados de nuestro estudio, tanto en calida d de habitat (sic) como en composición de comunidades, revelan la necesidad de resarc ir la pérdida en Lomas de Barbudal a partir de al menos 332 Ha de hábitat boscoso. Sin embargo, para lograr ese número de hectáreas en AS ETREK, se requiere incluir parte del bosque deciduo en la ladera este de la propiedad, cuya calidad es inferior (por tener mayor pendiente) a la del lado oeste. Además no se cuenta con ningú n fragmento de bosque ripario-maduro, lo que sin duda constituye u n desacierto en la capacidad de compensación de la propiedad ASETREK evaluada en nuestro estudio.

2. La propiedad de Brindis de Amor posee 15.87 ha de bosque ripario-maduro. Aunque el análisis de la composició n de este fragmento fue preliminar, nuestras observaciones de campo indican que está constituido por especies siempreverdes similares a las encontradas en la misma cobertura en RBLB y que es comparable en área basal (Fi gura 49) a la del fragmento encontrado en el sitio potencial de inundación en Lomas de Barbudal. S i bien es cierto que la extensión del bosque ripario en Brindis de Amor es menor a la que se perdería en Lomas de Barbudal, representa una importante fracción de lo que queda en toda la región. De hecho, el á rea de bosque ripario en Brindis de Amor representa un 7.4 % del área cubierta por ese tipo de bosque dentro la Reserva Biológica actualmente.

(…)

6.1. Recomendaciones finales.

6.2. RECOMENDACIONES SOBRE LA COMPENSACIÓN A SEGUIR.

1. Área de compensación en ASETREK. Tanto en término de atri butos de calidad de hábitat como e n aspectos de diversidad y composición de especies, nuestros resultados demues tran que el sitio de compensación en ASETREK representa entre el 30% y el 45 % de las calidades de la referencia, lo que se traduce en una compensación de 252 o 332 hectáreas (es timaciones tomando en cuenta composición de especies o el valor mínimo posible de calidad de hábitat, respectivamente). Para unificar criterios, nuestra sugerencia es q ue se emplee el estimado de 332 hectáreas como la medi da del área necesaria para compensar por la pé rdida debido al impacto en la Reserva Biológica.

2. Compensación debe realizarse incorporando además otras propiedades y sistemas. Una importante consideración es que la cantidad de hectá reas del hábitat evaluado requerido para nuestras estimaciones de compensación no está disponible en ASETREK. Además, como se menciona en este reporte, dicha propiedad no dispone bosque ripario para la compensación. Así las cosas, recomendamos la incorporación de la propiedad Br indis de Amor como parte de la compensación. La propuesta se resume en la Figura 51, y contemplaría al anexión de 530 Ha (444 Ha de ASETREK y 86 Ha de Brindis de Amor) a Lomas de Barbudal en compensación por las pé rdidas debidas a la inundación en el ambiente terrestr e”.

En el sentido anterior, el estudio también se concluyó:

“ El procedimiento para evaluación de compensa ción fue diseñado para comparar sitios con el mismo tipo de hábitat. Sin embargo, en el presente estudio la heterogeneidad encontrada en el sitio potenc ial de afectación en la Reserva Biológica obligó a promediar los valores asignados a cada una de las coberturas forestales encontradas para cada indicador. Una dificultad adicional fue el que el bosque ripario no tiene contraparte en ASETREK, por lo que se optó por asignarle un valor mí nimo a esta cobertura en cada indicador”.

Como se observa, la OET reconoció que la propiedad ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. posee ambientes de menor calidad biológica y que el método de estimación de compensación (hábitat hectárea) no aseguraba la ganancia de todos los elementos o características que se verían afectados. Además, también aceptó de manera expresa que la propuesta de adquirir la propiedad denominada Brindis de Amor (como complemento de compensación) se dio por medio de un análisis preliminar.

En ese sentido, el coordinador del estudio de la OET manifestó en la audiencia supra citada, que si bien, metodológicamente, la propie dad de ASETREK debería ser suficiente -pues se habí a “castigado” esa diferencia en calidad del ambiente-, en su propio criterio no lo era . Además, el mencionado profesional admite que Brindis de Amor fue e valuada a través de una serie de muestreos de vegetació n, pero no de fauna. Añ ade que el estudio fue preliminar, en el sentido de que no tiene todo el componente de fauna y en ese sentido aseveró : “a todas luces es diferente a lo que se hizo en ASETREK sí”.

Lo anterior a priori permite concluir que el estudio que se efectuó para la com pensación de las potenciales pérdidas no demostró la suficiencia ni la equivalencia ecológica del área propuesta y que, sin la misma rigurosidad o minuciosidad, se recomendó la incorporación de otra propiedad. Basta contrastar la cantidad de indicadores (de calidad de hábitat y diversidad, entre ellos: atribu tos geofísicos, calidad del paisaje, estructura de la vegetación y servicios ecosistémicos; y de composición de comunidades, entre ellos: plantas vasculares, avifauna, mamíferos, herpetofauna, ictiofauna y diversidad de insectos del sotobosque) que se estudiaron en la R BLB y en ASETREK, co n el análisis preliminar efectuado en Brind is de Amor. Nótese que el propio estudio afirmó que añadir el inmueble Brindis de Amor contravenía las nociones bá sicas del diseño de reservas al no contribuir a la formación de un bloque compa cto, pese a lo cual se recomendó agregarl o a la compensació n, sin ninguna recomendación o consideración adicional formal.

Ahora, aun con la inclusión anterior, el Comité Técnico del Área Conservación Arena Tempisque, de acuerdo con la minuta n.o 5-2017 de la reunión efectuada el 30 de junio de 2017, concluyó que la propuesta todavía era insuficiente: “El tipo de cobertura bosque ripario es de suma preocupación en tema de escasa representatividad a nivel de la RBLB. Esta cobertura está representada únicamente en un 8.0% (216,17 has) de área total de la RBLB. Los estudios determinaron que el boque ripario dentro del sitio de inundación en la reserva corresponde a un 11,4% (24,64 has) del área total de esa cobertura en la RBLB. El área de bosque ripario en la finca Brindis de Amor representa un 7,40% (15,87 has). Esto sumado a las 2,2 has de ASETREK suman 18.07 has de bosque ripario como propuesta de compensación. Presentándose una diferencia de aproximadamente 6,57 has de bosque ripario para compensar este tipo de ecosistema”.

Incluso, también recomendó al consejo regional: “ 1. Identificar un área de bosque ripario que permita compensar el faltante en hectáreas para este tipo de ecosistema. Ya que los estudios determinaron que el boque ripario dentro del sitio de inundación en la Reserva corresponde a un 11.4% (24,64 has) del área total de esa cobertura en la RBLB, el área de boque ripario en la finca Brindis de Amor representa un 7,40% (15,87 has). Esto sumado a las 2,2 has de ASETREK suman 18.07 has de bosque ripario como propuesta de compensación, por lo que estarían faltando cerca de 6,57 has de bosque ripario para compensar este tipo de ecosistema. Según los mapas y el conocimiento del sitio, existen otras propiedades aledañas a la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal con esas características”.

En ese sentido, el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque (CORACAT), según acuerdo n.° 1 tomado en la sesión extraordinaria celebrada el 5 de julio de 2017 y, con posterioridad, el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (CONAC), en sesión extraordinaria n.° 3 de 11 de julio de 2017, consideraron que la suma de áreas propuestas de bosque ripario era de 18,07 hectáreas, es decir, un área menor que el fragmento que se perdería en el sitio de inundación de la RBLB (24,71 hectáreas), por lo que plantearon la identificación de un área adicional para la propuesta de compensación que contemplara bosque ripario y permitiera, así, resarcir el faltante en hectáreas para este tipo de ecosistema; de ahí que, después de analizar las propuestas de posibles áreas de compensación del bosque ripario faltante y en conjunto con los funcionarios del SINAC, se consideró adicionar una parte de la finca Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A.

Sobre ello, el CORACAT, en el oficio n.º SINAC- CORACAT-SE-041, refirió : “ Existen algunos oficios enviados por SENARA, por ejemplo, SENARA-GG-0374-2017, SENARA-GG-0257-2017 y SENARA-INDER-172-2017 que indican que dentro de la propiedad de ASETREK existen 6,14 has (sic) de bosque ripario. N o obstante, este dato no es mencionado en el estudio realizado por la OET, o respaldo por algún estudio al respecto, con las mismas características del estudio inicial. Respecto a la finca Brindis de Amor, tambié n este Consejo estima que los estudios no se realizaron con la misma profundidad de análisis con respecto al estudio inicial, ni en el tiempo suficiente que sustente técni camente la calidad de los componentes abordados desde el inicio de la inves tigación. Es necesario que se profundice más los estudios en esta propiedad o cualquier otra que se considere como propuesta de compensació n, para que este Consejo pueda emitir un criterio fundamentado”. Además, la propuesta final de compensació n se definió en el oficio n.º SENARA-INDEP-441-2017 de 17 de julio de 2017, en el que se dispuso que para compensar el área desafectada y cubrir el faltante de bosque ripario se incluirían 444,04 hectáreas de la finca ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., la totalidad de la Finca Brindis de Amor en Liberia S.A. con un área de 86,96 hectáreas y un área de 40 hectáreas de la finca Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A.

Así, luego de analizar el oficio n.º SENARA-INDEP-441-2017, se observa que se compararon varias p ropiedades para proponer el ár ea de compensación adicional; sin embargo, no se efectuó un aná lisis detallado de las características biológicas y geofísicas de la pr opiedad Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A. Además, si bien SENARA informó que en la tramitación de la ley n.º 9610 se había considerado el documento denominado " Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal”, en el apartado correspondiente a la propiedad Hacienda Ciruelas también se consignó de forma expresa que sobre ella tan solo se había efectuado un análisis “preliminar”.

En otro orden de ideas, no consta en el expediente que haya existido algún estudio técnico completo que justifique la decisión de desafectar la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal a los efectos de la emisión de la ley cuestionada. Al respecto, a Patricia Quirós, gerenta general de SENARA, en la audiencia se le preguntó: ¿Hubo algún estudio técnico que determinara la necesidad de desafectar la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el Proyecto PAACUME, algún estudio técnico que dijera es necesario precisamente esa reserva biológica afectarla para que se pueda desarrollar el proyecto PAACUME? En razón de lo anterior, ella manifestó: “ nosotros realizados una contratación directamente con el ICE para lo que fue la factibilidad de la presa y el embalse sobre el río Piedras y de acuerdo al análisis que se realizó, se determinó que el único sitio que existe para la construcción del embalse es efectivamente en el río Piedras, porque ahí se cuenta hay una depresión, una caída que permite que esa diferencia de nivel existente en la zona haga posible llevar el agua hasta la margen derecha del río Tempisque. Entonces, en la región es el único sitio posible para poder construir el embalse y para poder llevar el agua a la margen derecha”.

Luego, antes de finalizar la vista, se le consultó lo siguiente: “menciona que hay un estudio técnico que justificó la desafectación de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal y determinó necesaria la construcción del embalse en ese lugar, concretamente ¿a cuál estudio se refiere y si lo puede hacer llegar al expediente? En ese sentido, ella contestó: “el estudio técnico al que me refiero es al estudio realizado específicamente por la OET, cuando se hace la consulta yo me refiero a que el estudio realizado por el ICE se refiere específicamente al estudio ingenieril, al estudio de factibilidad de la presa y el embalse”.

De igual forma, se le repreguntó: “ usted indica que hubo un estudio que dijo que solo afectando la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal se podía realizar el proyecto ¿ese estudio es el del ICE entonces? ”. Ante lo cual, ella respondió: “No, hay un estudio de factibilidad que realizó SENARA de todo el proyecto, donde se establece esa situación”. Asimismo, refirió que haría llegar una copia de tal estudio al expediente.

En relación con lo anterior, luego de la revisión del estudio de la OET se observa que en él no se ha analizado propiamente la necesidad de desafectar la RBLB para la construcción del embalse, sino que tan solo constituye un estudio para establecer la línea Base de Biodiversidad de la zona por desafectar y el sitio de potencial compensación. Asimismo, el Estudio de Factibilidad que aportó SENARA luego de la audiencia, consigna expresamente que es de octubre de 2018, momento para el cual incluso ya que el proyecto de ley había sido aprobado en segundo debate (sesión plenaria extraordinaria n.o11 de 6 de setiembre de 2018), por lo que ni siquiera pudo haber sido objeto de discusión en la Asamblea Legislativa. De ahí que, aun cuando este estudio de factibilidad desarrollara la necesidad de desafectar la RBLB, cronológicamente no pudo haber servido de base para tal propósito, a los efectos de la ley cuestionada.

Ahora, no está de más aclarar que el estudio referido a la desafectación de áreas protegidas no es excluyente del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental al que debe ser sometido el proyecto de PAACUME en su totalidad. Precisamente, ante SETENA se podrán analizar los diversos impactos directos o indirectos del proyecto en las áreas aledañas, así como la posible violación de la Convención para la Protección del Patrimonio Mundial Cultural y Natural de la UNESCO y los posibles efectos del proyecto PAACUME sobre el sitio declarado como Patrimonio Mundial en el Área de Conservación Guanacaste. En este último caso, si el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental establece medidas de mitigación y prevención de los impactos dentro del área silvestre protegida o su entorno, deberán tomarse las previsiones correspondientes para cumplir con esas exigencias.

En conclusión, al haberse hecho un estudio sobre la Reserva Biológica Lomas del Barbudal y sobre la propiedad de ASETREK Tres Azul S.A. por un periodo menor al recomendado por la propia Organización de Estudios Tropicales, no existe certeza científica ni técnica de los resultados obtenidos. Además, el estudio no logró demostrar de forma fehaciente y sustentada, que la propiedad ASETREK Tres Azul S.A., como propuesta de compensación, fuera equivalente a la zona desafectada desde un punto de vista ambiental, pues, puntualmente, en el estudio se mencionó, que el hábitat no era equiparable, no había correspondencia con ambiente de la reserva (el mayor ejemplo de ello es la deficiencia en bosque ripario detectada) y no se aseguraba la ganancia de todos los elementos o características afectadas por el embalse. Lo anterior resulta relevante, por cuanto el propio estudio de la OET, en las conclusiones sobre el sitio de impacto y su compensación, expuso que la RBLB es una de las pocas áreas silvestres estatales que protegen los recursos naturales en la zona de vida Bosque Tropical Seco de nuestro país y que, ante semejante afectación con el impacto directo del proyecto, la compensación ambiental se volvía una medida imprescindible.

En adición, como en el caso del inmueble Brindis de Amor tan solo se efectuó un análisis preliminar, consideramos que la Sala a priori no puede siquiera considerarlo, toda vez que para desafectar una reserva biológica y proponer la respectiva compensación, se deben efectuar, al menos, estudios completos y suficientes. El razonamiento anterior aplica con mucha más razón sobre la propiedad Hacienda Ciruelas, que ni siquiera fue incluida en el estudio de la OET y respecto de la cual el análisis efectuado también fue preliminar. En este sentido, consideramos que nunca podrá ser suficiente un estudio preliminar para sustentar una decisión con implicaciones ambientales de esta envergadura, como sucede en el sub lite. Finalmente, no se observa que la ley cuestionada haya tenido sustento en algún estudio científico y técnico en cuanto a la justificación de la necesidad de desafectar la RBLB, toda vez que el informe de la OET no abarcó tal aspecto y la factibilidad de PAACUME elaborada por SENARA, en todo caso, fue de fecha posterior a la aprobación de ese cuerpo normativo.

Permitir la desafectación de una reserva biológica con sustento en este estudio de la OET (claramente insuficiente según se expuso supra) , en otros análisis de naturaleza preliminar, y en un estudio de factibilidad que ni siquiera pudo ser discutido en el trámite legislativo, significa un grave retroceso a la tutela ambiental, antaño ampliamente reconocida por esta Sala Constitucional. Tal retroceso resulta aún más lamentable a la luz de la reciente evolución de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, que en sentencia de 6 de febrero de 2020 (Comunidades indígenas miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) Vs. Argentina) viene a recoger de modo íntegro la Opinión Consultiva OC-23/17 de 15 de noviembre de 2017, convirtiendo así las consideraciones jurídicas de la última en jurisprudencia vinculante para los países sujetos a la jurisdicción de ese tribunal internacional.

En tal sentido, resalta la Corte-IDH que “en el derecho ambiental, el principio de prevención es aplicable respecto de actividades que se lleven a cabo en el territorio o bajo la jurisdicción de un Estado que causen daños al medio ambiente de otro Estado, o respecto de daños que puedan ocurrir en zonas no sean parte del territorio de ningún Estado en particular, como por ejemplo, alta mar.” Justamente, recuerda la Corte-IDH que la “Corte Internacional de Justicia ha señalado que la obligación de prevención surge cuando hay riesgo de un daño significativo. De acuerdo a (sic) dicho tribunal, el carácter significativo de un riesgo se puede determinar tomando en cuenta la naturaleza y magnitud del proyecto y el contexto donde será llevado a cabo”. Consecuente con esta perspectiva, la Corte-IDH destaca, como elemento esencial del derecho humano a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, el deber de regulación, a partir del cual dada “la relación entre la protección del medio ambiente y los derechos humanos (supra párrs. 47 a 55) los Estados deben regular esta materia y adoptar otras medidas similares para prevenir daños significativos al medio ambiente.” (Destacado no corresponde al original).

En aras de procurar lo antedicho, el requerimiento de estudios técnicos suficientes y previos a los efectos de la aprobación de proyectos de ley que impactan el ambiente, aplicado por la jurisprudencia constitucional de forma usual en obediencia al principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, con absoluta claridad configura una de esas adecuadas “medidas similares”, que se eleva a la jerarquía de exigencia del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, merced a la jurisprudencia de la Corte-IDH.

Por las consideraciones expuestas, se acredita una transgresión al numeral 50 de la Constitución Política, al principio precautorio (por la duda sobre las condiciones reales de la RBLB y de la propuesta de compensación generada por las falencias detectadas en el estudio de la OET, así como la falta de certeza en cuanto a que el ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado no se vea lesionado), al principio de no regresión en material ambiental (al no acreditarse que la compensación propuesta al menos fuera equivalente a la desafectación), al principio de irreductibilidad (al reducirse una reserva biológica sin cumplir los requisitos constitucionales respectivos) y al principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental (al utilizarse estudios meramente preliminares para sustentar propuestas de compensación y al no estar sustentada la ley cuestionada en estudios técnicos y científicos (previos, suficientes, necesarios e individualizados) que justifiquen la reducción del área protegida).

Fernando Cruz C. Paul Rueda L.

Res. Nº 2020-0013836 VOTO SALVADO DE LA MAGISTRADA GARRO VARGAS

I. Consideraciones preliminares

II. Agravios de los accionantes bajo examen en el presente voto

III. Marco jurisprudencial. La justificación técnica de leyes en materia ambiental

IV. Sobre la desafectación de un área protegida

A. Marco normativo y jurisprudencial sobre la desafe ctación de áreas protegidas B. Análisis sobre la justificación técnica de la desafectación cuestionada 1. Importancia ambiental de la Reserva Bioló gica Lomas de Barbudal 2. Examen sobre la existencia de los estudios técnicos sobre la desafectación a. Exposición de motivos de la ley cuestionada b. Informes de SENARA y del Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación 3. El informe de la Procuraduría General de la República C. Conclusiones sobre el particular

V. Sobre los estudios de compensación

A. Los agravios planteados por los accionantes B. La obligación internacional de realizar estudios de compensación C. Informes de las autoridades que constan en el presente expediente 1. Informe de la Procuraduría General de la República.

2. Informe de la presidenta del Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa 3. Informe del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento 4. Organización de Estudios Tropicales D. Conclusiones sobre el particular

VI. Conclusiones

Consideraciones preliminares Como costarricense y como Magistrada de esta Sala comparto la preocupación sobre el gravísimo problema de acceso al recurso hídrico que sufre una importante zona de la provincia de Guanacaste. Comprendo que la ley aquí impugnada pretende ser un medio para solucionarlo. Sin embargo, muy a mi pesar, no puedo dejar de advertir que esta contiene serios vicios de constitucionalidad. Por eso, con fundamento en los argumentos que explicaré, he decidido salvar el voto respecto de la alegada lesión al derecho a un ambiente sano y declarar con lugar la acción por violación a los principios precautorio, no regresión en materia ambiental, irreductibilidad y objetivación de la tutela ambiental.

Agravios de los accionantes bajo examen en el presente voto Por lo dicho, en este voto salvado me referiré sólo a los agravios relacionados con cuestiones ambientales. Por un lado, a la decisión legislativa de desafectar 113 hectáreas de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB) sin estudio de desafectación alguno que lo justifique y, por otro, a la pretendida justificación de la reducción de esa reserva mediante un estudio de compensación que es incompleto y sesgado.

Para analizar ambos extremos es necesario de previo precisar cuál ha sido la línea de la jurisprudencia de esta Sala sobre la justificación de los proyectos de ley relacionados con la materia ambiental. Así, una vez examinados cada uno de los agravios será posible arribar a unas conclusiones debidamente fundamentadas.

Marco jurisprudencial. La justificación técnica de leyes en materia ambiental En el ejercicio de su potestad legislativa, el Parlamento está vinculado a la Constitución y a los tratados debidamente incorporados a nuestro ordenamiento. Además, la función legislativa –no sólo función administrativa del Estado- tiene un límite: el contenido de lo que establece el artículo 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP):

“En ningún caso podrán dictarse actos contrarios a reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, o a principios elementales de justicia, lógica o conveniencia”.

Esa norma recoge el principio de la interdicción de la arbitrariedad, que es un enunciado esencial del Estado de Derecho, y que supone la prohibición de tomar decisiones carentes de fundamento. Al examinar el origen de este principio, esta Sala dijo:

“Fue concebido por el jurista alemán Leibholz en 1928 como un criterio para ponderar el respeto del principio de igualdad por el legislador. Según esta formulación, el principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad supone la prohibición de la arbitrariedad, esto es, de toda diferencia carente de una razón suficiente y justa. El principio es retomado por la doctrina española, concretamente, por García de Enterría a finales de la década de los cincuenta (1959) con un sentido más extenso –no circunscrito al principio de igualdad- al propuesto por Leibholz. Ulteriormente, el principio con ese sentido más amplio, fue acogido por la Constitución Española de 1978 en su artículo 9.3, a propuesta del senador Lorenzo Martín-Retortillo, quien justifico su iniciativa en la necesidad de tener el principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad como una técnica o mecanismo más de control o fiscalización de los poderes públicos inherente al Estado de Derecho”. (Sentencia 11155-2007).

Ya en una sentencia anterior, la Sala había aclarado que, si bien se encuentra ubicado en la LGAP, su origen y fundamento último se encuentra en el artículo 11 de la Constitución Política que señala:

“Los funcionarios públicos son simples depositarios de la autoridad. Están obligados a cumplir los deberes que la ley les impone y no pueden arrogarse facultades no concedidas en ella” (ver sentencia 2004-14421).

Es decir, se trata de un principio que, aunque formalmente está expresado a nivel legal, tiene un contenido materialmente constitucional y rige para el ejercicio de la función pública en toda su amplitud. Por lo tanto, es posible concluir que dicho principio es de aplicación también para la labor parlamentaria. En ese sentido, la Sala en la sentencia 2003-5090 expresamente señaló lo siguiente:

“La libertad de configuración legislativa no es irrestricta, puesto que, tiene como límite el Derecho de la Constitución, esto es, el bloque de constitucionalidad conformado por los preceptos y costumbres constitucionales, los valores y principios -dentro de los que destacan los de proporcionalidad, interdicción de la arbitrariedad , no discriminación, debido proceso y defensa- de esa índole y la jurisprudencia vertida por este Tribunal para casos similares ”. (Lo destacado no es del original).

Justamente, este Tribunal ha sentado como línea jurisprudencial que el principio de la interdicción de la arbitrariedad exige que las decisiones que impactan sobre el medio ambiente estén debidamente apoyadas en criterios técnicos y científicos. De ahí ha surgido el principio de la objetivación de la tutela ambiental o principio de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica.

Este principio se introdujo en la línea jurisprudencial de esta Sala a partir de la sentencia 2005-14293, en la que se afirmó:

“[ El] principio ambiental "de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica" que rige la materia ambiental, en tanto las decisiones administrativas que pueden tener incidencia en el ambiente requieren de un sustento técnico que las respalde, y en tal condición, limitan y condicionan la discrecionalidad de la Administración en su actuación”.

Esto fue ampliado en la sentencia 2006-17126, en la que se señaló que este principio se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia, en relación con los actos como de las disposiciones de carácter general – tanto legales como reglamentarias–. Se entiende que la exigencia de la “ vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica” condiciona la discrecionalidad no sólo de la Administración, sino del propio legislador.

Todo lo anterior fue retomado en la sentencia 2012-12716, en la que se hicieron las siguientes consideraciones:

“La Sala hace propia opinión (sic) que sobre el caso ha brindado la Procuraduría General de la República, en el sentido de que, como principio constitucional que condiciona la actuación del Estado en la protección del ambiente, se reconoce, el principio de la objetivación de la tutela ambiental o principio de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica:

“se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia, tanto en relación con actos como de las disposiciones de carácter general –tanto legales como reglamentarias–, de donde se deriva la exigencia de la "vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica", con lo cual, se condiciona la discrecionalidad de la Administración en esta materia.” (resolución No. 17126-2006).

“principio ambiental "de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica" que rige la materia ambiental, en tanto las decisiones administrativas que pueden tener incidencia en el ambiente requieren de un sustento técnico que las respalde, y en tal condición, limitan y condicionan la discrecionalidad de la Administración en su actuación.” (voto No. 14293-2005 reiterado por el 11562-2006).

“Se parte del principio de que las normas ambientales deben tener un sustento técnico, pues su aplicación tiene que partir de límites que determinen las condiciones en las cuales debe sujetarse el uso y aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales .” (Voto No. 6322-2003).

A su vez, se relaciona con el principio de razonabilidad como parámetro de constitucionalidad:

“El principio de razonabilidad, en relación con el derecho fundamental al ambiente, obliga a que las normas que se dicten con respecto a esta materia estén debidamente motivadas en estudios técnicos serios , aun cuando no existiera otra normativa legal que así lo estableciera expresamente.” (Voto No. 7294-1998, el destacado es nuestro).

“Así, la aplicación de este principio ambiental está directamente vinculada con un parámetro de constitucionalidad de la conducta –administrativa y de los particulares– y de la normativa que rige la materia, como lo es la razonabilidad –según desarrollo de la jurisprudencia de nuestro Tribunal Constitucional– en tanto su finalidad es tender a la sostenibilidad del el [sic] uso de los recursos naturales y de los elementos que conforman el ambiente , a través de su "uso adecuado"; y en virtud de los cuales queda claro que la protección al ambiente debe encaminarse a la utilización adecuada e inteligente de sus elementos y en sus relaciones naturales, socioculturales, tecnológicos y de orden político, para con ello salvaguardar el patrimonio al que tienen derecho las generaciones presentes y futuras; en tanto a través de la producción y uso de la tecnología es que debe de promoverse que se obtengan, no sólo ganancias económicas (libertad de empresa) sino sobre todo un desarrollo y evolución favorable del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales con el ser humano, esto es, sin que se cause a éstos daño o perjuicio, como lo ha considerado nuestro Tribunal Constitucional, en su amplia jurisprudencia, inclusive desde sus orígenes, así en las sentencias supra citadas número 3705-93 y número 2006- 17126.” (Voto No. 2410-2007).

Y guarda estrecha relación también con el principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad:

“La actuación arbitraria es la contraria a la justicia, a la razón o las leyes, que obedece al mero capricho o voluntad del agente público. La prohibición de la arbitrariedad lo que condena es la falta de sustento o fundamento jurídico objetivo de una conducta administrativa y, por consiguiente, la infracción del orden material de los principios y valores propios del Estado de Derecho. (…) En lo que se refiere a la aplicación del principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad en el ámbito de la potestad reglamentaria, debe indicarse que al ser ésta, naturalmente, discrecional, el principio prohibitivo de la arbitrariedad cumple un papel de primer orden.” (Lo destacado corresponde a la sentencia original).

De dicha resolución conviene resaltar el precedente que invoca:

“El principio de razonabilidad, en relación con el derecho fundamental al ambiente, obliga a que las normas que se dicten con respecto a esta materia estén debidamente motivadas en estudios técnicos serios , aun cuando no existiera otra normativa legal que así lo estableciera expresamente”. (Lo destacado corresponde a la sentencia original).

Resulta evidente que los principios de objetivación de la tutela ambiental o vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica, así como el de interdicción de la arbitrariedad, son de observancia obligatoria para la Asamblea Legislativa en la tramitación de los proyectos de ley, pues de lo contrario se violentaría el principio de la razonabilidad como parámetro de constitucionalidad.

Sobre la desafectación de un área protegida La ley impugnada establece una desafectación de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal (RBLB). Esta reserva tiene un nivel de protección absoluta, similar a la de un parque nacional. Al desafectarla se busca cambiar su uso para proceder a inundar esa gran cantidad de terreno, con el fin de realizar eventualmente el proyecto de dotación de agua denominado Paacume. Los accionantes señalan que no existe un estudio relativo a la desafectación y, en manifestaciones posteriores, como las realizadas en la vista oral, insistieron en que las autoridades involucradas, concretamente, el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) lo que tiene es un estudio de factibilidad sobre la realización de la represa en el Río Piedras, ejecutado por el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE). Arguyen que este no es el estudio que la normativa ambiental exige para determinar si se justifica la desafectación de un área silvestre protegida y que, además, no fue presentado en el expediente legislativo.

Para analizar este extremo es del todo necesario precisar la normativa y la jurisprudencia aplicables.

Marco normativo y jurisprudencial sobre la desafectación de áreas protegidas La Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, al respecto, señala lo siguiente:

“Artículo 38.- Reducción de las áreas silvestres protegidas. La superficie de las áreas silvestres protegidas, patrimonio natural del Estado, cualquiera sea su categoría de manejo, sólo podrá reducirse por Ley de la República, después de realizar los estudios técnicos que justifiquen esta medida” . (Lo destacado no es del original).

Es decir, establece que de previo a la desafectación de un área protegida se lleven a cabo estudios técnicos que justifiquen esa decisión.

Por su parte, este Tribunal ha sentado una sólida doctrina en esta materia, es decir, a saber, la necesidad de contar con estudios técnicos que justifiquen una decisión de desafectar una zona que, previamente, fue declarada zona protegida. Así, en la sentencia 7294-1998, la Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar la acción en la que se cuestionó la modificación de los límites de la zona protectora de Tivives. En dicha resolución se consideró lo siguiente:

“De la sentencia transcrita queda claro que una vez declarada una determinada área como zona protectora por un acto del Estado, no puede éste, simplemente, en todo o en parte, para proteger otros intereses -públicos o privados- en menoscabo del disfrute de un ambiente sano, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 constitucional. Ahora bien, el hecho de que una norma, del rango que sea, haya declarado como zona protectora una área, no implica la constitución de una zona pétrea, en el sentido de que, de manera alguna, su cabida pueda ser reducida por una normativa posterior. Sin embargo, se debe tener presente que la declaratoria y delimitación de una zona protectora, en cumplimiento de lo preceptuado en el artículo 50 constitucional, implica una defensa del derecho fundamental al ambiente y, por ello, la reducción de cabida no debe implicar un detrimento de ese derecho, situación que debe establecerse en cada caso concreto” “De conformidad con las disposiciones transcritas, y tomando en consideración el caso concreto que se somete a pronunciamiento, la Asamblea Legislativa no puede aprobar válidamente la reducción de la superficie de una zona protectora, sin contar antes con estudio técnico que justifique su decisión .

Dicha actuación deviene contraria a la Constitución Política por violación del principio de constitucional en relación con artículo 121, inciso 1), y 129 de la Carta Política. Sobre este tema existe un precedente de la Sala que resulta atinente, tanto por la similitud de la infracción que se invoca, como por tratarse de una hipótesis en que la no observancia de determinados requisitos tiene como efecto la de normas o principios sustanciales de rango constitucional”. (Lo destacado no es del original). (Ver, en similar sentido, los votos 1999-02988, 2008-008075).

Posteriormente, en la sentencia 2012-013367 esta Sala afirmó:

“Resulta evidente que estos dos requisitos guardan absoluta conformidad con el derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En primer lugar, en esta materia, el régimen jurídico exige que cualquier restricción o limitación del derecho tiene que venir impuesta por ley; por el contrario, cualquier beneficio o ampliación de la protección del derecho puede ser establecida por norma infralegal. En segundo lugar, la exigencia de estudios técnicos previos responde al principio de sometimiento de las decisiones relacionadas con el ambiente a criterios de la ciencia y la técnica, a fin de proteger el equilibrio ecológico del sistema y la sanidad del ambiente. En este sentido, la exigencia de estudios técnicos que justifiquen la aprobación de los proyectos de ley tendientes a la reducción o desafectación de un área ambientalmente protegida, debe ser satisfecha con anterioridad o durante el desarrollo del procedimiento legislativo.

Además, el requerimiento de estudios técnicos no es una mera formalidad, sino que se trata de un requisito material, es decir materialmente se tiene que demostrar, mediante un análisis científico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en este, y demostrar cómo tal medida implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades”.

En esa sentencia, la Sala desarrolló, además, el principio de progresividad y no regresión en materia de tutela medio ambiental. Según este Tribunal, del principio de progresividad de los derechos humanos y del principio de irretroactividad de las normas en perjuicio de derechos adquiridos y situaciones jurídicas consolidadas, recogido en el numeral 34 de la Constitución Política, se deriva el principio de no regresividad o de irreversibilidad de los beneficios o protección alcanzada. La Sala consideró que dicho principio se erige como garantía sustantiva de los derechos, en este caso, del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en virtud del cual el Estado se ve obligado a no adoptar medidas, políticas, ni aprobar normas jurídicas que empeoren, sin justificación razonable y proporcionada, la situación de los derechos alcanzada hasta entonces. Este principio no supone una irreversibilidad absoluta, pues todos los Estados pueden verse sometidos a circunstancias de naturaleza económica, política, social o climática que podrían obligar a replantear la obligación de mantener los niveles de protección alcanzados. En esos casos, la reducción de los niveles de protección deberá ser justificado a la luz de los parámetros constitucionales de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad. En atención a estos principios, la Sala dijo lo siguiente:

“En consecuencia, en aplicación de estos dos principios, la Sala Constitucional ha establecido que es constitucionalmente válido ampliar por decreto ejecutivo la extensión física de las áreas de protección (principio de progresividad); sin embargo, la reducción solo se puede dar por ley y previa realización de un estudio técnico ajustado a los principios razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, a las exigencias de equilibrio ecológico y de un ambiente sano, y al bienestar general de la población, que sirva para justificar la medida. El derecho vale lo que valen sus garantías, por ello se produce una violación de estos principios cuando el estudio técnico incumple las exigencias constitucionales y técnicas requeridas. Si tal garantía resulta transgredida, también lo será el derecho fundamental que la garantía protege y es en esa medida, que la reducción de las áreas protegidas sería inconstitucional”. (Lo destacado no es del original).

Dichos principios de orden constitucional son vinculantes para el legislador. Así lo concluyó la Sala al afirmar lo siguiente:

“Dentro del marco de la Constitución, el legislador tiene la potestad y competencia para reducir las dimensiones físicas de las áreas ambientalmente protegidas. Sin embargo, con fundamento en el artículo 50 constitucional, las decisiones legislativas en esta materia deben respetar las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica, en aras de garantizar un ambiente “sano” y “ecológicamente equilibrado” y el “mayor bienestar de todos los habitantes”. El estudio técnico que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente tiene que responder a estos propósitos, para cuyo efecto no basta un cumplimiento formal porque se trata de un requerimiento material, es decir que debe materialmente demostrar, mediante un análisis técnico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en este, y demostrar cómo tal medida implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades”. (Lo destacado no es del original).

Posteriormente, este Tribunal agregó que para la desafectación de áreas protegidas, además de los estudios técnicos, concretos y particularizados exigidos por el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, se requieren medidas de compensación, en aras de resguardar el derecho fundamental a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En la sentencia 2019-663 la Sala conjuntó sus líneas jurisprudenciales y señaló lo siguiente:

“1. Requisitos constitucionales para la reducción de área silvestre protegida (reserva legal y estudios técnicos): En apoyo del artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (“la superficie de las áreas silvestres protegidas, patrimonio natural del Estado, cualquiera sea su categoría de manejo, sólo podrá reducirse por Ley de la República, después de realizar los estudios técnicos que justifiquen esta medida”), ha habido una sólida línea jurisprudencial, en el sentido de que para la reducción de un área silvestre protegida, en cualquiera de sus categorías de manejo (en cuenta los refugios nacionales de vida silvestre), deben cumplirse dos requisitos esenciales: “por medio de ley y previa realización de estudios técnicos suficientes que justifiquen la medida .” (Sala Constitucional, votos números 13367-2012 y 010158-2013. En similar sentido, las sentencias números 7294-1998, 11155-2007, 1056-2009, 18702-2010 y 14772-2010, entre otras). Tal como se dijo en la resolución mencionada de 1998:

““(…) una vez declarada una determinada área como zona protectora por un acto del Estado, no puede éste, simplemente, desafectarlo en todo o en parte, para proteger otros intereses -públicos o privados- en menoscabo del disfrute de un ambiente sano, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 constitucional. Ahora bien, el hecho de que una norma, del rango que sea, haya declarado como zona protectora una determianda (sic) área, no implica la constitución de una zona pétrea, en el sentido de que, de manera alguna, su cabida pueda ser reducida por una normativa posterior. Sin embargo, se debe tener presente que la declaratoria y delimitación de una zona protectora, en cumplimiento de lo preceptuado en el artículo 50 constitucional, implica una defensa del derecho fundamental al ambiente y, por ello, la reducción de cabida no debe implicar un detrimento de ese derecho, situación que debe establecerse en cada caso concreto.

No resulta necesariamente inconstitucional el hecho de que por medio de una ley posterior se reduzca la cabida de una zona protectora, una reserva forestal, un Parque Nacional o cualesquiera otros sitios de interés ambiental, siempre y cuando ello esté justificado en el tanto no implique vulneración al derecho al ambiente. Podría ser que, por diversas circunstancias, un determinado sitio haya perdido, al menos en parte, el interés ambiental que, en su momento, provocó, lo que, hechos los estudios del caso, justificaría su modificación o reducción, todo en aplicación del principio de razonabilidad constitucional…” (voto No. 7294-1998).

Concretamente sobre la reserva legal en esta materia, en el voto No.14772-2010 se dijo:

(…) no se puede modificar el destino público de un bien del demanio público sin un acto legislativo, es decir, la reducción de área de una zona protegida se encuentra bajo la garantía que proporciona el principio de reserva de ley. Si bien, de conformidad con el artículo 36 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, el Poder Ejecutivo se encuentra autorizado para constituir las Áreas Silvestre Protegidas mediante el cumplimiento de los requisitos establecidos en esa norma, así, el Parque Nacional Corcovado se constituyó mediante los Decretos Ejecutivos No. 5357-A del 24 de octubre de 1975 y 1148-A del 5 de febrero de 1980, su modificación solo podrá hacerse de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, previo estudios técnicos y científicos, y mediante un acto legislativo.

Asimismo, en sentencia no.1056-2009 se indicó que la reducción únicamente es posible vía legal:

“cuando de la ampliación de los límites de las zonas protectoras del patrimonio forestal del Estado se trata es posible hacerlo vía reglamento, pero cuando de su reducción se trata, únicamente se puede hacer vía legal, claro está, siempre y cuando exista un criterio previo que justifique la medida.” (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 1056-2009) Lo cual fue aplicado cuando la Sala declaró inconstitucional la norma reglamentaria (Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 32753-MINAE) mediante la cual el Poder Ejecutivo disminuyó el territorio del Refugio Gandoca-Manzanillo, sustrayendo del área y del régimen de protección, la zona urbana del Refugio.

Además, en cuanto a los estudios, estos deben ser previos, suficientes, necesarios e individualizados –como se indica en el apartado siguiente-. Así se dijo en esa misma resolución de 1998:

“De acuerdo con lo citado, mutatis mutandis, si para la creación de un área silvestre protectora la Asamblea Legislativa, por medio de una ley, estableció el cumplimiento de unos requisitos específicos, a fin de determinar si la afectación en cuestión es justificada, lo lógico es que, para su desafectación parcial o total, también se deban cumplir determinados requisitos -como la realización de estudios técnicos ambientales- para determinar que con la desafectación no se transgrede el contenido del artículo 50 constitucional. En este sentido, podemos hablar de niveles de desafectación. Así, no toda desafectación de una zona protegida es inconstitucional, en el tanto implique menoscabo al derecho al ambiente o amenaza a éste. De allí que, para reducir un área silvestre protegida cualquiera, la Asamblea Legislativa debe hacerlo con base en estudios técnicos suficientes y necesarios para determinar que no se causará daño al ambiente o se le pondrá en peligro y, por ende, que no se vulnera el contenido del artículo 50 constitucional.

El principio de razonabilidad, en relación con el derecho fundamental al ambiente, obliga a que las normas que se dicten con respecto a esta materia estén debidamente motivadas en estudios técnicos serios, aun cuando no existiera otra normativa legal que así lo estableciera expresamente. A juicio de este Tribunal Constitucional, la exigencia que contiene el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente No. 7554, en el sentido de que para reducir un área silvestre protegida por ley formal deben realizarse, de previo, los estudios técnicos que justifiquen la medida, no es sino la objetivación del principio de razonabilidad en materia de protección al ambiente.” 2. Estudio técnico como un análisis científico e individualizado: La Sala se ha referido a la suficiencia del estudio técnico, cuando mediante varias resoluciones ha establecido que dicho estudio debe ser un análisis científico e individualizado. Así se dijo lo siguiente:

“el requerimiento de estudios técnicos no es una mera formalidad, sino que se trata de un requisito material, es decir materialmente se tiene que demostrar, mediante un análisis científico e individualizado, el grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente, plantear recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en este, y demostrar cómo tal medida implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades.” (Voto No. 13367-2012. Véase además el No. 10158-2013).

De lo cual se desprende que, el estudio técnico que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y que es la objetivación del principio constitucional de razonabilidad en materia de protección al ambiente, requiere de un análisis técnico que implica un análisis individualizado, el cual debe contener como mínimo las siguientes medidas:

• El grado de impacto de la medida correspondiente en el ambiente; • Las recomendaciones orientadas a menguar el impacto negativo en el ambiente; • La demostración de cómo la medida que se toma, implica un desarrollo que satisface las necesidades del presente sin poner en peligro la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para atender sus propias necesidades.

En síntesis, dicho estudio previo debe demostrar que la desafectación es conforme con la protección constitucional al derecho al ambiente, pues como se dijo en el voto no. 18702-2010 “no se puede permitir que se titulen áreas de esta naturaleza en forma indiscriminada, ya que esto iría contra las mismas políticas conservacionistas del ambiente que ha procurado el Estado en virtud de los cometidos ordenados por la Constitución Política y los Convenios Internacionales que ha suscrito".

3. Medidas de compensación: Un área protegida solo se puede reducir si se hace mediante ley, si hay estudios técnicos y científicos que descarten el daño ambiental y si se da una compensación del área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño. No cabe duda que todas aquellas normas en los cuales hay reducción de las áreas protegidas sin el respaldo de estudios técnicos ni compensación alguna, son inconstitucionales” (voto Nos. 12887-2014, 2773-2014, 2012-13367 y 2009-1056).” (Lo destacado no es del original).

Lo anterior fue reiterado en la sentencia 2019-012745 en la que se resumió la postura de la Sala de la siguiente forma:

“Con base en lo anterior, un área protegida solo se puede reducir si se hace mediante Ley, si hay estudios técnicos y científicos que descarten el daño ambiental y si se da una compensación del área suprimida con otra de igual tamaño o en la medida de lo posible”.

A partir de estas líneas jurisprudenciales queda evidenciado el principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, según el cual, no resulta legítimo reducir estos espacios protegidos sino se cumplen, paralelamente, tanto lo dispuesto en el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente como los principios consolidados en la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal, a saber, de no regresión en materia ambiental, de objetivación de la tutela ambiental y precautorio.

Análisis sobre la justificación técnica de la desafectación cuestionada En los siguientes epígrafes se procurará calibrar la importancia de la desafectación aprobada mediante la ley que aquí se impugna y constatar la omisión de los estudios técnicos que justificaran esa medida.

I mportancia ambiental de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal Para contextualizar el análisis de la cuestión conviene explicar que la zona que se desafectó pertenece a la RBLB, la cual fue creada mediante decreto ejecutivo n.°16849-MAG de 23 de enero de 1986. La importancia de dicha reserva específica obedece a que es prácticamente la única en resguardar los ambientes del bosque seco tropical y su diversidad biológica, presentando tipos de fauna únicos en el país y contener sabanas secas que no están incluidas en otra unidad de conservación. Así se desprende de la parte considerativa del decreto en cuestión, que señala lo siguiente:

“1°.-Que es función esencial del Estado velar por la conservación, protección, administración y fomento de los recursos naturales del país.

2°.-Que la zona de Lomas Barbudal, en la provincia de Guanacaste, conserva muestras muy valiosas de la flora y fauna de la sabana seca arbolada de bajura, del bosque ripario de tierras bajas y del bosque caducifolio de tierras bajas, que en el pasado cubrieron extensas áreas de aquella provincia.

3°.-Que esta zona contiene al menos 10 nacientes y parte de la cuenca del río Cabuyo, de importancia para la producción agrícola y ganadera de la región, 4°.-Que el tipo de suelo de Lomas Barbudal no presenta condiciones para un desarrollo agropecuario sostenido pero que, desde el punto de vista de la investigación y del turismo, el área es importante por presentar una fauna entomológica única y por contener sabanas secas que no se encuentran protegidas en otra unidad de conservación”. (Lo destacado no es del original).

En el decreto de análisis se dispuso que la zona en cuestión sería, a partir de ese momento, una reserva biológica, que es una de las categorías de áreas silvestres protegidas, establecida concretamente en el inciso d) del artículo 32 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Asimismo, por aplicación de los numerales 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal vigente, es integrante del patrimonio natural del Estado (PNE). Ese último caracteriza estos inmuebles como bienes de dominio público:

“Artículo 14.- Condición inembargable e inalienable del patrimonio natural.

Los terrenos forestales y bosques que constituyen el patrimonio natural del Estado, detallados en el artículo anterior, serán inembargables e inalienables; su posesión por los particulares no causará derecho alguno a su favor y la acción reivindicatoria del Estado por estos terrenos es imprescriptible. En consecuencia, no pueden inscribirse en el Registro Público mediante información posesoria y tanto la invasión como la ocupación de ellos será sancionada conforme a lo dispuesto en esta ley”.

La Ley de Biodiversidad define a las áreas silvestres protegidas así:

“Artículo 58. Áreas silvestres protegidas Las áreas silvestres protegidas son zonas geográficas delimitadas, constituidas por terrenos, humedales y porciones de mar. Han sido declaradas como tales por representar significado especial por sus ecosistemas, la existencia de especies amenazadas, la repercusión en la reproducción y otras necesidades y por su significado histórico y cultural . Estas áreas estarán dedicadas a conservación y proteger la biodiversidad, el suelo, el recurso hídrico, los recursos culturales y los servicios de los ecosistemas en general. Los objetivos, la clasificación, los requisitos y mecanismos para establecer o reducir estas áreas se determinan en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554, de 4 de octubre de 1995. Las prohibiciones que afectan a las personas físicas y jurídicas dentro de los parques nacionales y las reservas biológicas están determinadas, en la Ley de la Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales, No. 6084, de 24 de agosto de 1977.

Durante el proceso de cumplimiento de requisitos para establecer áreas silvestres protegidas estatales, los informes técnicos respectivos deberán incluir las recomendaciones y justificaciones pertinentes para determinar la categoría de manejo más apropiada a que el área propuesta debe someterse. En todo caso, el establecimiento de áreas y categorías tomará muy en cuenta los derechos previamente adquiridos por las poblaciones indígenas o campesinas y otras personas físicas o jurídicas, subyacentes o adyacentes a ella”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

El reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, n.°34433 define las reservas biológicas y establece la categoría técnica de manejo de la siguiente manera:

“Artículo 70 (…) d). Áreas geográficas que poseen ecosistemas terrestres, marinos, marino-costeros, de agua dulce, o una combinación de estos y especies de interés particular para la conservación. Sus fines principales serán la conservación y la protección de la biodiversidad, así como la investigación”.

En consecuencia, tienen una categoría de manejo muy limitada, por cuanto solamente se permite la conservación, protección e investigación.

Es preciso destacar que la RBLB no es propiamente un humedal, pero, según informaron las autoridades, sí forma parte del sitio Ramsar Palo Verde, es decir, forma parte de un humedal de importancia internacional (sitio Ramsar).

Como es sabido, la Convención Relativa a los humedales de Importancia Internacional, especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas (conocida en forma abreviada como Convenio de Ramsar, debidamente aprobada mediante ley n°.7224) señala que los humedales de importancia internacional deben mantener su designación y su extensión inicial y sólo en circunstancias realmente excepcionales debería considerarse cambiarlas (artículos 2 y 4 de la Convención citados infra). Y, además, cuando se definen los sitios Ramsar, no solo se consideran los ecosistemas por sí solos, sino las interrelaciones existentes que impactan los humedales.

El Parque Nacional Palo Verde fue creado mediante decreto ejecutivo n.°11541 del 30 de mayo de 1980, cuya parte considerativa consignó lo siguiente:

“1°—Que la zona que comprende la fila Catalina, la fila Pedregosa, el cerro Bocana, el cerro El Roble y el cerro Alvarado, en Guanacaste, es una de las últimas en toda la provincia que conservan bosques secos tropicales, formación ecológica muy escasa en el país.

2°—Que las lagunas Nicaragua, El Roble, Los Aromos, y Corralillos, y los sitios El Tieso, Piñuela, Cristina y otros, constituyen lugares de particular importancia para la conservación de aves migradoras y residentes, y son a la vez las áreas más ricas en avifauna en el país.

3°—Que la zona en general es particularmente diversa en fauna silvestre, y es uno de los últimos refugios para animales que existen todavía sin protección en la provincia de Guanacaste.

4°—Que se presentan también varios ecosistemas de gran diversidad y riqueza de especies florísticas, tales como los bosques sobre depósitos calizos, las lagunas herbáceas, los bosques mixtos de llanura y los bosques de palo verde sobre vertísoles”.

Esto fue ratificado por ley n.°6794 de 25 de agosto de 1982, “Ley de Creación de Parques Nacionales y Reservas Biológicas. Ratifica como Leyes Decretos Creadores de Parques Nacionales y Reservas Biológicas”. Posteriormente, mediante decreto ejecutivo 27345-MINAE, “Establece para el Parque Nacional Palo Verde Manejo Activo en sus Humedales y Áreas de Pasto y Crea Comité Asesor”, se destacó, en su parte considerativa, lo siguiente:

“III.—Que entre los objetivos fundamentales del Parque Nacional Palo Verde está el proteger, manejar, conservar y restaurar, tanto ecosistemas de humedales como de bosque tropical seco, para mantener la diversidad y poblaciones de vida silvestre.

IV.Que la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional, conocida como Convención Ramsar, fue ratificada por Costa Rica mediante ley 7224 del 2 de abril de 1991 y que como instrumento jurídico internacional, tiene valor superior a la Ley. Que Costa Rica, como parte contratante, debe fomentar la conservación de las zonas húmedas y de las aves acuáticas, creando reservas naturales de humedales y atendiendo de manera adecuada su manejo y cuidado. Asimismo, se compromete a fomentar la investigación y el intercambio de datos relativos a humedales a fin de favorecer las condiciones para aumentar las poblaciones de aves acuáticas”. (Lo destacado no es del original).

Además, el Plan General de Manejo del Parque Nacional Palo Verde, del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, claramente establece la inclusión de la RBLB dentro del Parque Nacional Palo Verde (ver el Acuerdo n.°20 de la Sesión Ordinaria n.°03-2016 del 28 de marzo del 2016, dictado por el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, disponible en la página del Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica – SCIJ).

Mediante decreto ejecutivo n.°39786-MINAE de 22 de abril de 2016, se declaró de interés público y nacional las actividades de manejo, conservación y rehabilitación de este parque:

“Artículo 3.- Declaratoria de Interés Público. Declárese de interés público y nacional las actividades de manejo activo para la conservación y rehabilitación de los ecosistemas del Parque Nacional Palo Verde, con el fin de contar con el apoyo del Estado y demás dependencias públicas, organizaciones no gubernamentales y organismos internacionales públicos y privados para su implementación”.

Al examinar con detalle el anterior marco normativo es posible advertir la gran importancia que tiene la zona en cuestión para la tutela medio ambiental. De ahí que las decisiones que se tomen, respecto a la disminución de la cabida de estas zonas o el cambio en su destino, deben estar debidamente razonadas en estudios técnicos que justifiquen apropiadamente tal determinación.

Examen sobre la existencia de los estudios técnicos sobre la desafectación A partir de lo expuesto, es claro que tanto la legislación nacional como los principios constitucionales examinados y la jurisprudencia constitucional exigen, como primer elemento, que una ley que disponga la desafectación de un área silvestre protegida, integrada al PNE, debe estar razonablemente cimentada en un estudio técnico que justifique, de forma concreta, el motivo por el cual se debe desafectar una zona en particular y variar su naturaleza. Por eso, es preciso ahora examinar si la ley cuestionada contó con tal estudio.

Como se ha visto, el propósito original de salvaguardar estos terrenos es la protección de un tipo de bosque muy particular y casi único en nuestro país, a saber, el bosque seco tropical y su diversidad biológica, que no está incluido en otra categoría específica de protección. En cambio, si bien la normativa cuestionada le brinda protección ambiental y dispone que se le reconocerá como un ecosistema de humedal administrado por el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) (artículo 6 de la ley n.°9610 que “Modifica límites de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal para el desarrollo del proyecto de abastecimiento de agua para la cuenca media del río Tempisque y comunidades costeras”), lo cierto es que se cambia por completo su naturaleza. Esto porque, precisamente, la finalidad última de la desafectación es hacer posible el proyecto Paacume, que conlleva inundar los espacios de estos bosques primarios. En el propio estudio de la Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET), se evidenció lo relativo al cambio de la naturaleza del inmueble:

“Por su posición geográfica y el relieve de la zona, el embalse Rio Piedras afectaría directamente un sitio dentro de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, un área silvestre protegida creada en 1986 con el fin de resguardar los ambientes del bosque seco tropical y su diversidad biológica. El área en conflicto ha sido estimada en casi 113 hectáreas bajo la cota de 50 m de elevación, que quedarían inundadas una vez construido el embalse ”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

Sobre la finalidad del proyecto Paacume, la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley expuso con detalle lo siguiente:

“El objetivo fundamental es la provisión de agua, accesible en cantidad, calidad y oportunidad -de 20 metros cúbicos por segundo- para diferentes usos potenciales. Se proyecta beneficiar al menos a 204 mil personas y cubrir al menos 17 mil hectáreas bajo riego. De este caudal quedarán disponibles 2 metros cúbicos por segundo para el abastecimiento a largo plazo de comunidades de cantones de Santa Cruz, Nicoya y Carrillo y que será administrada por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Además, el proyecto contempla al menos 1.5 metros cúbicos por segundo de agua para riego como apoyo a la actividad turística en la zona costera y con ello beneficiar las comunidades costeras con la liberación de aguas subterráneas hoy usadas en riego.

Este proyecto no solo permitirá el acceso sostenible al agua por parte de las comunidades y el sector productivo, sino que además pretende armonizar y regular la explotación racional de los principales recursos subterráneos en acuíferos en la margen derecha de la cuenca media del río Tempisque, pues permitirá al Estado la regulación del uso máximo de pozos para estas actividades”.

De este modo, y teniendo presente lo dicho por las autoridades en el trámite de acción de inconstitucionalidad, no hay duda de la urgencia e importancia de hacer posible el acceso al servicio de agua potable y de enfrentar otros problemas de sequía, desabastecimiento, desalinización de los acuíferos, entre otros (ver manifestaciones de la Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa, SENARA, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG)). Se señala que la dotación de agua en la zona se realizará a través de la construcción de una represa en el Río Piedras, que requerirá de un embalse con un espejo de agua de aproximadamente 850 hectáreas, de las cuales, 113 hectáreas se encuentran dentro de la RBLB, conforme al diseño realizado por SENARA.

Sin embargo, revisada la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley, el expediente legislativo y el expediente de esta acción de inconstitucionalidad no se logró vislumbrar el cumplimiento de este requisito de importancia capital, a saber, el de realizar un estudio que, de forma específica justifique la necesidad de atender dicha severa problemática, a través de la desafectación de un área especialmente protegida.

La única referencia en la exposición de motivos es la siguiente:

“Así las cosas, la ubicación de la presa en el río Piedras obedece a una condición topográfica única que no permite ser trasladada a otro sitio; por tanto, esta ubicació n y diferencia de nivel entre la entrada del canal que lo abastece y la salida del canal que permitirá llevar el agua hasta el río Tempisque determinan el nivel má ximo de embalse y la capacidad de este para abastecer con 20 metros cú bicos por segundo al Paacume.

En algún momento se valoró la posibilidad de construir un dique para evitar la inundación de esta área de la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal y un tú nel de más de 2 kilómetros para evacuar las aguas; sin embargo, resultó que el sitio del dique coincide con una falla geológica que haría imposible su construcción por el alto riesgo que genera a la obra”. (Lo destacado no es del original).

Estas valoraciones, si bien pueden ser valiosas para ilustrar la situación, no relevan, de forma alguna, que se haya cumplido con el necesario estudio que justifique de forma concreta la desafectación.

Informes de SENARA y del Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación En el informe de las autoridades del SENARA rendido con posterioridad a la audiencia oral realizada en el trámite de esta acción de inconstitucionalidad se hizo referencia a un Estudio de Factibilidad del Proyecto de Abastecimiento de Agua para la Cuenca Media del Río Tempisque y Comunidades Costeras. Este estudio es de octubre de 2018, es decir, es paralelo a la fecha en que se aprobó la legislación de análisis, a saber, el 17 de octubre de 2018 . Por lo que no pudo ser valorado por el órgano parlamentario. Asimismo, tanto en la vista oral, como en el informe posterior, la Gerente General del SENARA hace referencia a que la zona tiene las condiciones ideales para realizar la obra y fundamenta sus afirmaciones en un estudio técnico realizado por el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) –atendiendo el contrato interadministrativo suscrito entre SENARA-ICE-MINAE 201600011 y sus adendas– según el cual, dadas las condiciones de topografía del área, la zona en cuestión tiene las condiciones ideales para la construcción de un embalse de gran capacidad (ver informe rendido ante la Sala en fecha 15 de junio de 2020). Sin embargo, queda claro que no existe un estudio específico que justifique la desafectación como tal.

En el expediente legislativo constan manifestaciones del propio Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque de julio de 2017 , en las que se concluye lo siguiente:

“Basados en el estudio antes mencionado (Consulta obligatoria a las comunidades locales, propuesta de compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal) y los documentos hasta ahora aportados, esta instancia considera que aún no se ha demostrado que existan otras alternativas del proyecto PACUUME, sin que necesariamente se tenga que desafectar un área de la actual RBLB. Si efectivamente estas alternativas no son viables, será necesario valorar la tercera medida que es la compensación”. (Oficio SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041, visible a folios 126 y 1492 de la copia del expediente legislativo).

Adicionalmente, se hizo llegar al trámite legislativo, el oficio SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, en el que el Secretario Ejecutivo del Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque enfatiza lo siguiente:

“Con base en la Ley General de Administración Pública y la línea jurisprudencial de la Sala Constitucional, es necesario que existan los estudios técnicos ambientales, jurídicos y financieros suficientes que justifiquen la selección adecuada, tanto del área a desafectar, como de las áreas que servirían como compensación. Debe verificarse la existencia de estos estudios dentro del expediente de este proyecto de ley, ya que a la fecha este Consejo no cuenta con tal información”. (Folio 2641 de la copia del expediente legislativo. Lo destacado corresponde al oficio original).

De esas manifestaciones se desprende que para estas autoridades el estudio de compensación deberá ser posterior a los estudios técnicos que justifiquen la necesidad de desafectar las zonas en cuestión y cambiarles, radicalmente, su destino. Es decir, pasarían de ser un bosque tropical seco a convertirse –por la inundación– en un humedal, perdiendo así la riqueza originaria de la zona. Las propias autoridades del Área de Conservación enfatizan que la determinación inicial de desafectar no se encuentra debidamente motivada en un estudio que lo justifique de forma apropiada. En efecto, la propia autoridad rectora del área de conservación en cuestión expuso durante el trámite legislativo que “aún no se ha demostrado que existan otras alternativas del proyecto PACUUME, sin que necesariamente se tenga que desafectar un área de la actual RBLB” (folios 126 y 1494). Además, llamó la atención de los legisladores respecto de la necesidad de que existan los estudios técnicos ambientales, jurídicos y financieros suficientes que justifiquen “la selección adecuada (…) del área a desafectar ”.

En un momento posterior, luego de la determinación técnica sobre la necesidad de desafectar un área silvestre protegida en concreto, se requieren los estudios de compensación, que son aquellos que procuran una especie de resarcimiento ambiental del área suprimida, con otra de igual tamaño y de similares características biológicas. Sobre el particular, los representantes de la OET manifestaron lo siguiente:

“La compensación ambiental ante un impacto ambiental es una medida última, que debe realizarse únicamente en caso de que no pueda evitarse dicho impacto o que este no pueda mitigarse adecuadamente. En consecuencia, cuando los impactos de un proyecto requieren compensación, se está ante una situación en la que es inevitable resarcir un potencial impacto. En esa circunstancia, la discusión no debe centrarse en si se puede o no compensar, sino en cómo lograrla de manera que haya ganancias ambientales”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

De lo anterior se podría concluir que incluso la propia OET reconoce que primero debe determinarse con certeza, sobre la base de estudios técnicos, que la desafectación es la última solución posible, y luego corresponde realizar el estudio de las medidas de compensación.

El informe de la Procuraduría General de la República Resulta de gran relevancia para el caso concreto, transcribir en lo conducente algunos pasajes del informe rendido por la Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) en la acción de inconstitucionalidad. Respecto de la necesidad de realizar un estudio previo que justifique la desafectación de porciones de la RBLB, afirmó lo siguiente:

“Por otra parte, aunque se constate la suficiencia del estudio de la OET y de la propuesta final de compensación, debe advertirse que ese estudio técnico únicamente justificaría la validez de la compensación practicada, y, como tal, no es un estudio técnico que justifique directamente la decisión de desafectar una parte de la RBLB.

Atendiendo a la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el tema, el estudio que exige el artículo 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para justificar la reducción de un área silvestre protegida debería ser un estudio que determine la necesidad y conveniencia de adoptar ese tipo de medida.

En este caso, un estudio en ese sentido, sería aquel que fundamente técnicamente la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB. Es decir, un estudio que determine que la única alternativa para desarrollar el proyecto PAACUME y el embalse Río Piedras, es desafectando parte de la Reserva Biológica.

Al respecto, el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque, al referirse al estudio de la OET, indicó que “esta instancia considera que aún no se ha demostrado que existan otras alternativas del proyecto PAACUME, sin que necesariamente se tenga que desafectarse un área de la actual RBLB. Si efectivamente estas alternativas no son viables, será necesario valorar la tercera medida que es la compensación.” (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-SE-041 de 7 de julio de 2017, folios 1492-1497 del expediente legislativo). Y, ese mismo Consejo, después de aprobado el proyecto de ley en segundo debate, indicó que “es necesario que existan los estudios técnicos ambientales, jurídicos y financieros suficientes que justifiquen la selección adecuada tanto del área a desafectar, como de las áreas que servirían como compensación. Debe verificarse la existencia de estos estudios dentro del expediente de este proyecto de ley, ya que a la fecha este Consejo no cuenta con tal información.” (Oficio No. SINAC-CORACAT-049-2018 de 9 de setiembre de 2018, folios 2641-2644).

En el “Documento Perfil del Proyecto PAACUME” elaborado por el SENARA (Folios 505-621) se parte de que “una de las propiedades dentro del área del embalse pertenece a la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal, con un área aproximada a las 112 ha.” Y se indica que el “área debe de ser compensada con un área aledaña de similares características ecológicas, para lo cual se requiere la elaboración de un estudio de línea base de biodiversidad que demuestre la equivalencia de las áreas de compensación” y se indica que dicho estudio fue elaborado por la OET. (ver folio 557). Algunos de los funcionarios que comparecieron a las sesiones de la Comisión Legislativa que tramitó el proyecto indicaron que técnicamente el proyecto PAACUME no podía desarrollarse sin desafectar e inundar parte de la RBLB, y en el documento denominado “Consulta Obligatoria a las Comunidades Locales. Propuesta de Compensación para la Reserva Biológica Lomas Barbudal” (Folios 622-726), ante una de las preguntas formuladas por uno de los participantes, se indicó que “si no se logran obtener las 113 hectáreas de la RBLB, el proyecto cambia totalmente, ya que sin estas 113 hectáreas de la RBLB las condiciones de la presa, la cantidad de agua a embalsar, el costo del proyecto y el diseño tendría que cambiar totalmente.” (Folio 661).

Entonces, con base en el criterio de las instituciones a las cuales se les dio audiencia sobre esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, debe valorarse si existe sustento técnico suficiente para justificar la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB para ser utilizada en la ejecución del proyecto PAACUME .

Si no se constata ese fundamento, la Ley 9610 debe declararse inconstitucional por violación a los principios de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, objetivación a la tutela ambiental y de no regresión .

En ese supuesto la norma podría resultar contraria a la Convención Ramsar, porque si bien es cierto, ésta no obliga a los Estados a comunicar de previo la decisión de modificar el área de los sitios de importancia internacional, su artículo 4° sujeta esa posibilidad a la existencia de un motivo de urgente necesidad nacional, el cual no estaría debidamente justificado en este caso particular”. (Lo destacado no es del original).

Se observa que la PGR fue enfática en señalar la necesidad de atender los alegatos de los accionantes respecto a este primer agravio, a saber, la obligatoriedad de valorar si se cuenta con un estudio técnico que justifique la desafectación de una particular área protegida como lo es RBLB.

Conclusiones sobre el particular Se constata que las autoridades proponentes del proyecto han aducido de forma insistente que la existencia del estudio de compensación justifica la necesidad de desafectar. Lo anterior refleja, al menos, una seria confusión entre la respectiva finalidad del estudio de desafectación de un área especialmente protegida que se ha integrado al PNE y la del estudio de compensación. Esa confusión –o intento de homologación de dos categorías de estudio que tienen diversa naturaleza– torna injustificada la decisión de desafectar.

Por lo demás, cabe agregar que ambos estudios son distintos del estudio técnico que se requiere para la valoración de la infraestructura que se pretende desarrollar, esto es, un estudio de evaluación de impacto ambiental. Este, en los términos de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, es específico para las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos peligrosos y es un requisito indispensable de previo al inicio de las actividades, obras o proyectos:

“Artículo 17 . Las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, requerirán una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental creada en esta ley. Su aprobación previa, de parte de este organismo, será requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o proyectos. Las leyes y los reglamentos indicarán cuáles actividades, obras o proyectos requerirán la evaluación de impacto ambiental”.

Entonces, sobre la base del marco normativo y de la jurisprudencia se debe concluir que los estudios técnicos que justifiquen la desafectación y los posteriores estudios de compensación deben ser previos a la decisión legislativa, precisamente porque es exigido que esta se fundamente en aquellos.

Por lo tanto, considero que lleva razón la PGR en el sentido de que la ley cuestionada es inconstitucional por carecer de un estudio que sustente técnicamente la necesidad de desafectar parte de la RBLB. Dicha omisión resulta lesiva de los principios precautorio, no regresión en material ambiental, irreductibilidad y objetivación de la tutela ambiental.

Sobre los estudios de compensación Procede ahora examinar los agravios, el marco normativo e informes sobre la obligación de realizar estudios de compensación.

• Los agravios planteados por los accionantes Los accionantes cuestionaron que se pretendió justificar la reducción del área de RBLB, mediante un estudio incompleto y sesgado realizado por la Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET). Acusan que se pretende compensar el área desafectada que se intenta inundar con terrenos privados adyacentes a la reserva biológica, incorporando dos propiedades definidas por SENARA. Una sobre la cual no se hizo ningún estudio (propiedad perteneciente a la sociedad Hacienda Ciruelas SP S.A.) y otra sobre la cual se hizo un estudio muy superficial (propiedad perteneciente a la sociedad conocida como Brindis de Amor).

Así, aducen que la ley n.°9610 violenta el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, por cuanto, según su criterio, no incorpora un estudio serio, integral y objetivo sobre las consecuencias de la desafectación de 113 hectáreas de la RBLB y la sustitución o compensación con unas 500 hectáreas de propiedades privadas que se pretenden incorporar a la reserva biológica. Cuestionan, en este particular, la solidez del estudio realizado por la Organización de Estudios Tropicales (OET), mediante el cual se pretendió justificar la desafectación y compensación. Hacen referencia a otros estudios que ponen en entredicho la consistencia de ese estudio y concluyen que este es “insuficiente para definir el cambio de límites de Lomas de Barbudal, y no demuestra que este cambio será plenamente compensado por áreas adicionales en otros sectores de la Reserva. La finca ASETREK, estudiada con más detalle por los consultores, al final se reconoce como insuficiente para justificar el canje de tierra, y se acude precipitadamente a otras fincas cercanas para balancear la compensación”.

Insisten que el estudio realizado por la OET no es completo, objetivo, científico ni técnico, ya que adolece de muchas omisiones y debilidades. Reiteran que tal estudio se centra prácticamente en una porción de una de las tres propiedades privadas con las que se pretenden compensar las 113 hectáreas desafectadas con la ley; pero omite incorporar estudios sobre las condiciones biológicas de las otras dos propiedades, por lo que no se puede determinar de manera científica que se trate de propiedades que efectivamente cuenten con características medioambientales que reemplacen las funciones ecosistémicas del área por desafectar.

La obligación internacional de realizar estudios de compensación Respecto de la necesidad de adoptar medidas de compensación, cuando se trata de desafectar áreas silvestres protegidas que sean humedales o estén integradas a estos existe una obligación internacional establecida en la Convención Ramsar, ley n.°7224 de 9 de abril de 1991, que dispone lo siguiente:

“Artículo 2.5. Las partes contratantes tendrán derecho a añadir a la "Lista" otras zonas húmedas situadas en su territorio, a ampliar las que ya están inscritas o, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, a retirar de la "Lista" o a reducir los humedales ya inscritos e informarán de estas modificaciones, lo más rápidamente posible, a la organización o al gobierno responsable de las funciones de la Oficina permanente especificados en el artículo 8º”.

“Artículo 4. 1. Cada parte contratante fomentará la conservación de las zonas húmedas y de las aves acuáticas creando reservas naturales en los humedales, estén o no inscritos en la "Lista", y atenderá de manera adecuada su manejo y cuidado.

2. Cuando una parte contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, retire o reduzca una zona húmeda inscrita en la "Lista", deberá compensar, en la medida de lo posible, cualquier pérdida de recursos en los humedales y, en especial, deberá crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y para la protección, en la misma región o en otro sitio, de una parte adecuada de su hábitat anterior. 3. Las partes contratantes fomentarán la investigación y el intercambio de datos y de publicaciones relativas a las zonas húmedas, a su flora y a su fauna”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

De estas normas se desprende la obligación del Estado de realizar una compensación que, en la medida de lo posible, remedie la pérdida de recursos en los humedales y crear nuevas reservas naturales para la protección en la misma región.

Informes de las autoridades que constan en el presente expediente 1- Informe de la Procuraduría General de la República.

La PGR manifestó en su informe que en caso de determinarse que el estudio de la OET y la propuesta final de compensación de la RBLB son insuficientes técnicamente, la ley impugnada resultaría inconstitucional por violación a los principios de objetivación de la tutela ambiental, precautorio, preventivo y de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas. En efecto, no se estaría garantizando que la variación de los límites aprobada no afecta la integridad de la RBLB y no se estaría mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectación de una parte de dicha reserva biológica. También, ello resultaría contrario a la obligación que establece el artículo 3° de la Convención Ramsar de favorecer la conservación de las zonas húmedas inscritas en la lista de humedales de importancia internacional.

Informe de la presidenta del Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa La presidenta de la Asamblea Legislativa en su informe señala que en el expediente legislativo consta el estudio denominado “Establecimiento de línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente” realizado por la OET, en el que se efectuó un análisis comparativo entre la reserva y terrenos aledaños previamente seleccionados para conocer las condiciones de similitud y factibilidad de utilizarse como reemplazo ecológicamente equivalente. Explica que la OET realizó el estudio correspondiente basándose en los lineamientos establecidos por el SENARA y explicó que la OET pudo comprobar que el área de la RBLB que se pretendía desafectar estaba en mejores condiciones ecológicas que las áreas que se proponían para compensar, en una proporción de 3 a 1, o sea que, por cada hectárea que se desafectara se debería compensar 3.

Asevera que, al revisar en detalle se determinó que uno de los objetos de creación de la RBLB, precisamente la conservación y protección del bosque ripario, no estaba representado dentro de la finca ASETREK, la cual era la propuesta para compensar las 113 hectáreas que se desafectarían. Justifica que fue por lo anterior que se dio la necesidad de buscar otros terrenos aledaños que tuvieran bosque ripario para compensar el faltante de ese ecosistema en la propuesta de compensación. Señala que debido a que lo que se requería era únicamente buscar el bosque ripario, los estudios en las fincas Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas no profundizaron con el mismo detalle que los estudios de ASETREK ; sin embargo, dice que aun así la OET sí realizó un estudio de caracterización de la Finca Brindis de Amor, como complemento de compensación, el cual se encuentra visible en los folios del 209 al 215 del estudio.

Informe del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento Estas autoridades explicaron que el estudio fue realizado por la OET y prevé que la compensación del área, consista en que, por la desafectación de 113 hectáreas se incorporen 556 hectáreas. Arguye que la OET recomienda que se adquieran como mínimo 332 hectáreas de la finca ASETREK, sin embargo, para facilitar el manejo y el control de incendios se tomó la decisión de incorporar 444 hectáreas de ASETREK, por lo que se compensan todos los diferentes ecosistemas que se encuentran dentro de las 113 hectáreas de RBLB, a excepción del bosque ripario. En consecuencia, aclara que la incorporación de las fincas Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas a la propuesta de compensación se realizó por recomendación del administrador de Lomas Barbudal, basándose en que cuentan con terrenos de bosque ripario en condiciones adecuadas de conservación, así como con las nacientes principales del río Cabuyo y quebrada Amores.

Organización de Estudios Tropicales Por su importancia, se transcriben en lo conducente pasajes relevantes del informe realizado por la OET, que fue el insumo técnico de la compensación realizada en el caso concreto. Dicho informe indica en su resumen ejecutivo, lo siguiente:

“El sitio de afectación en Lomas de Barbudal posee tres tipos de ambientes, cada uno correspondiendo a una cobertura forestal distinta: bosque deciduo, bosque secundario y bosque maduro asociado a las quebradas en el sitio y por lo tanto, llamado aquí bosque ripario. El bosque deciduo representa el 70% de la cobertura forestal en ese sitio, y corresponde a un estadío de sucesión temprano caracterizado por ser abierto y estar constituido por especies pioneras y por presentar una baja densidad de árboles. El bosque secundario posee mayor estructura y corresponde a un estadio más avanzado donde persisten árboles dominantes. Finalmente, el bosque ripario, integrado principalmente por especies siempre verdes y con árboles dominantes, es uno de las asociaciones vegetales más amenazadas de la región. Cerca de 30 hectáreas existen en el sitio de afectación, lo que representa cerca del 11% de la cobertura de ese tipo de asociación de la Reserva Biológica. El sitio de compensación también es heterogéneo en cobertura forestal y cuenta con bosque deciduo, bosque secundario y zonas de pastizal y no forestales. Este sitio no dispone de bosque ripario.

Así, el sitio en la Reserva Biológica produjo estimados de riqueza de especies mayores que los estimados en el potencial sitio de compensación en ASETREK. Además, las especies encontradas en la Reserva Biológica no son las mismas que las encontradas en ASETREK: las mayores similitudes en composición se encontraron en la comunidad de anfibios, familias de artrópodos y aves, con 79%, 76% y 62% de especies compartidas, mientras que para plantas leñosas y mamíferos los sitios comparten tan solo el 55% y 50% de sus especies. Para reptiles, peces y plantas herbáceas los sitios en Lomas de Barbudal y ASETREK comparten 39%, 34% y 33% de las especies. Esas discrepancias hacen que la composición de especies en ASETREK represente cerca del 45 % de la cuantificada en la referencia. Nuestros análisis revelan que en general, el sitio potencial de inundación en Lomas de Barbudal posee mayor estructura, más árboles dominantes, biomasa y potencial para fijar carbono.

El aporte del bosque ripario a estos indicadores es innegable, pero también se observaron diferencias entre las coberturas de bosque secundario de Lomas de Barbudal y la de ASETREK, este último mostrando los valores más bajos. Estas diferencias indican que el ambiente en el sitio de compensación en ASETREK ha sido más perturbado que el sitio en Lomas de Barbudal. En término de estructura y calidad del ambiente, el hábitat en ASETREK obtuvo un menor puntaje que la referencia, equivalente a un 51.2% de su calidad. La incertidumbre derivada de la heterogeneidad de los ambientes presentes reduce el estimado de puntuación de calidad del ambiente, por lo que el mínimo valor de calidad de ambiente posible estimada a partir de nuestros datos resulta en 34 pts. Al tratarse de un ambiente de menor calidad, se requeriría de unas 332 hectáreas de un hábitat como el observado en ASETREK para compensar la pérdida de las 113 hectáreas de la referencia.

Por lo tanto, el sitio de potencial compensación en ASETREK es inferior en calidad de ambiente, composición y biodiversidad al sitio que sería impactado directamente por el Embalse Rio Piedras dentro de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal. Siguiendo el procedimiento para la estimación del área necesaria para resarcir pérdidas derivadas del impacto, recomendamos anexar al menos 332 Ha del tipo de hábitat observado en el sitio potencial de compensación para resarcir las pérdidas que sufrirá la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal por el Embalse Piedras. Una propuesta es asignar la parte boscosa de ASETREK como área de compensación. Para ello se requiere segregar 444 Ha de dicha propiedad, con el fin de unir los fragmentos de bosque disponibles. Aún asi, ese terreno no incluye la cobertura de bosque ripario , por lo que se sugiere anexar adicionalmente a Bridis de Amor, una propiedad de 86 Ha adyacente al extremo norte de la Reserva Biológica y que posee casi 16 hectáreas de bosque ripario. La incorporación de ambas propiedades (ASETREK segregado y Brindis de Amor) suponen la anexión de 530 hectáreas en compensación por las 113 Ha que se perderían en la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal”.

Sobre el agravio planteado por los accionantes, en el sentido de que el estudio de OET fue realizado con ligereza y que, con posterioridad, añadieron unas fincas sin un estudio similar al que se realizó respecto de la finca ASETREK, afirmaron lo siguiente:

“En el noreste de la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal, existen propiedades privadas con fragmentos de bosques riparios y secundarios. De hecho, un examen rápido revela que en las cercanías de la Quebrada Amores existen condiciones boscosas que podrían ser de interés de protección. Una de ellas es Brindis de Amor, una propiedad de cerca de 86 Ha que limita con la Reserva Lomas de Barbudal y cuya cobertura boscosa ha sido protegida por su propietario Carlos Jiménez en los últimos veinte años (Figura 47). (…)

1. Los resultados de nuestro estudio, tanto en calidad de habitat como en composición de comunidades, revelan la necesidad de resarcir la pérdida en Lomas de Barbudal a partir de al menos 332 Ha de hábitat boscoso. Sin embargo, para lograr ese número de hectáreas en ASETREK, se requiere incluir parte del bosque deciduo en la ladera este de la propiedad, cuya calidad es inferior (por tener mayor pendiente) a la del lado oeste. Además no se cuenta con ningún fragmento de bosque ripario-maduro, lo que sin duda constituye un desacierto en la capacidad de compensación de la propiedad ASETREK evaluada en nuestro estudio. 2. La propiedad de Brindis de Amor posee 15.87 ha de bosque ripario-maduro. Aunque el análisis de la composición de este fragmento fue preliminar, nuestras observaciones de campo indican que está constituido por especies siempreverdes similares a las encontradas en la misma cobertura en RBLB y que es comparable en área basal (Figura 49) a la del fragmento encontrado en el sitio potencial de inundación en Lomas de Barbudal. Si bien es cierto que la extensión del bosque ripario en Brindis de Amor es menor a la que se perdería en Lomas de Barbudal, (…)

De hecho, el área de bosque ripario en Brindis de Amor representa un 7.4 % del área cubierta por ese tipo de bosque dentro la Reserva Biológica actualmente. 3. El área de bosque ripario en Brindis de Amor puede constituirse un área núcleo de especies para repoblar otros ambientes riparios en la propiedad. Aunque esta situación no es cronológicamente correspondiente a la pérdida en Lomas, si es una considerable ventaja por sobre la propiedad de ASETREK, que carece de dicho núcleo. Nuestras observaciones en el sitio muestran gran reclutamiento de especies arbóreas típicas de bosques riparios, como son el espavel Anacardium excelsum y el terciopelo Sloanea terniflora. 4. Tanto el bosque deciduo como el secundario han sido protegidos en Brindis de Amor por al menos veinte años. En contraste con ASETREK, la propiedad de Brindis de Amor tiene una pendiente leve y la cobertura boscosa en mejor condición de estructura y composición que los encontrados en la propiedad de ASETREK.

A diferencia de ASETREK, no hay registros de talas ni fuegos recurrentes, aunque sí hay evidencia de fuego entrando a la propiedad por lado sur. 5. Aunque este estudio no incluyó un análisis de composición de especies en su bosque secundario o deciduo , la protección que se le ha dado a estas coberturas en Brindis de Amor podría significar que estas coberturas se encuentren en mejores condiciones que sus homónimas en ASETREK. (…)

Al sur de Brindis de Amor se localiza el Rancho Wilson, que posee un fragmento boscoso protegido y que podría ser de interés para protección al reducir la mencionada península (Figura 50). Sin embargo, argumentamos que precisamente debido a la protección que actualmente se le brinda a ese fragmento en Rancho Wilson, la anexión de Brindis de Amor podría ser una alternativa más adecuada para consolidar el bloque de bosque ripario en el norte de la Reserva. En nuestra visión, esta anexión permitiría negociar con Rancho Wilson la futura incorporación del fragmento de bosque remanente en dicha propiedad. Además, la protección de un segmento del río Cabuyo se conseguiría a partir de la protección del área actualmente oocupada por Brindis de Amor”. (En el informe rendido ante la Sala aclararon que donde se señala Rancho Wilson, se refiere, en realidad, a la Hacienda Ciruelas).

De manera que el propio estudio técnico pone en evidencia lo informado posteriormente en la acción de inconstitucionalidad, por el encargado de realizar el estudio de la línea base. En el informe rendido a la Sala se reconoció que la integración de estas dos fincas se hizo con el propósito de mejorar la propuesta de compensación original, pero “estas áreas no fueron analizadas con la profundidad que lo hicimos en ASETREK ”. En el informe rendido a esta Sala, en lo conducente, señala lo siguiente:

“El empleo de Brindis de Amor como sitio de forrajeo demuestra la importancia biológica de esta propiedad y lo acertado que sería protegerla. El anexar una fracción de la Hacienda Ciruelas obedece a evitar dejar una península en el contorno de la RBLB de anexarse Brindis de Amor, lo que contravendría las nociones básicas del diseño de reservas, que trata de minimizar el efecto de borde y su afectación a las especies que se desean proteger. Además, esa fracción contiene también un fragmento de cobertura riparia. En nuestro propio informe indicamos que, de tener que decantarse entre una de esas dos propiedades, se sugiere que se adquiera Brindis de Amor puesto que Ciruelas ya está manteniendo alguna protección en esa zona de su propiedad. Nuestros detractores indican que el estudio no evaluó esas propiedades. Eso no es del todo correcto, pues como se menciona anteriormente si hubo una evaluación de vegetación en la propiedad Brindis de Amor.

La razón por la que no se evaluaron otros grupos taxonómicos (fauna) es que: (1) ya hay evidencia de la importancia de ese lugar para la fauna de la RBLB; (2) el incluir esta propiedad complementa la propiedad de ASETREK; (3) Brindis de Amor efectivamente fue identificada después de que se apostara por compensar con ASETREK. El fragmento en la Hacienda Ciruelas (llamado por error Rancho Wilson en nuestro informe) efectivamente no fue evaluado. Sin embargo, vuelvo a reiterar que asumir la protección tanto esta propiedad como Brindis de Amor vendría a dar un mejor servicio al ambiente que pretende conservar la RBLB”. (Informe rendido por Dr. Mahmood Sasa Marín en virtud de la audiencia conferida como prueba para mejor resolver).

Conclusiones sobre el particular A partir de las manifestaciones realizadas por las propias autoridades que constan en el expediente de la acción de inconstitucionalidad, es posible concluir que el estudio de compensación realizado para el caso concreto no fue ejecutado con idéntica rigurosidad en la incorporación de la finca ASETREK, respecto de la integración posterior de otras dos fincas llamadas Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas.

Como se señaló supra, la disconformidad de los accionantes es que el informe final “Establecimiento de la línea Base de Biodiversidad para la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (RBLB) y finca adyacente” omite incorporar estudios sobre las condiciones bioló gicas de las otras dos propiedades, por lo que no se puede determinar de manera científ ica que se trate de propiedades que efectivamente cuenten con caracterí sticas medioambientales que reemplacen las funciones eco sistémicas del á rea por desafectar.

La PGR insistió en la necesidad de la solidez de dicho estudio, pues de lo contrario, existe un peligro de que no se estaría mitigando adecuadamente el impacto ambiental generado por la desafectación de una parte de dicha reserva biológica.

La Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa evidenció que efectivamente los estudios en las fincas Brindis de Amor y Hacienda Ciruelas no se ejecutaron con el mismo detalle y rigor respecto del estudio que se realizó a la finca ASETREK. El resto de autoridades coincidieron en que la evaluación integral de la referida finca dio como resultado la carencia en la compensación de bosque ripario, prioridad en la protección medio ambiental por ser casi única en el país. Esto motivó a que se adoptaran recomendaciones de las propias autoridades del Área de Conservación de integrar otras dos fincas. Sin embargo, respecto de estas dos fincas que se integraron a la compensación con posterioridad, no se realizó el estudio biológico y de equivalencia de biodiversidad con similares parámetros de exigencia y disciplina. Además, según las propias consideraciones de OET, que fue el ente encargado del estudio, el análisis respecto de la Finca Brindis de Amor fue meramente preliminar, no incluyó un análisis de composición de especies en su bosque secundario o deciduo y no se realizó ningún estudio de fauna.

Asimismo, la decisión final de incluir la Hacienda Ciruelas, si bien denota un afán de asegurar una adecuada compensación, no se respaldó en ningún estudio científico que dé cuenta de la equivalencia y de la obligada compensación de recursos naturales. El responsable de estudio reconoció que “el fragmento en la Hacienda Ciruelas (llamado por error Rancho Wilson en nuestro informe) efectivamente no fue evaluado”.

A lo anterior, conviene añadir que sobre la base de un estudio de diez meses en el que se valoró fauna, flora, estructura de hábitat, servicios ecosistémicos y atributos físicos, y que incluyeron muestreos tanto en época seca como en la temporada lluviosa se concluyó que la finca ASETREK no era suficiente para compensar las áreas de bosques desafectados en RBLB. Por eso, con mucha más razón, no se advierte cuál es la base para realizar unas inclusiones, en el último momento, que puedan realmente cumplir los requerimientos de compensación exigidos en cuanto a especies de fauna, bosques y fijación de carbono.

Por lo tanto, estimo que las deficiencias detectadas en los estudios, las cuales fueron reconocidas por las autoridades que intervinieron en este proceso de constitucionalidad, son lesivas de los principios constitucionales ya señalados y que, en términos generales, obligan al Estado a adoptar decisiones relacionadas con la reducción de áreas silvestres protegidas sobre la base de un estudio técnico debidamente fundamentado.

Conclusiones

Las consideraciones realizadas permiten concluir que hay cuatro tipos de estudios en esta materia que no son homologables: 1) el estudio que justifique la desafectación de un área protegida, 2) el estudio de compensación de la desafectación de un área protegida, 3) el estudio de impacto ambiental de un proyecto de infraestructura. Aparte está el estudio de factibilidad de la realización de un proyecto de infraestructura. En el caso de la ley bajo examen, se omitió hacer el primero, se hizo deficientemente el segundo y el tercero está por hacer (según correspondería luego de tener los dos primeros, y de promulgarse la ley). El estudio de factibilidad del proyecto no sustituye en parte ni en su totalidad ninguno de los tres anteriores. Por tal motivo, estimo que llevan razón quienes señalan que la normativa cuestionada resulta inconstitucional por la infracción a los principios precautorio, no regresión en materia ambiental, irreductibilidad y objetivación de la tutela ambiental, que deben regir la toma de decisiones en esta materia.

Anamari Garro Vargas Res. Nº 2020-0013836 NOTA DE LA MAGISTRADA GARRO VARGAS Sobre el cumplimiento de las obligaciones internacionales Los accionantes cuestionaron que, dado que la Reserva Biológica Lomas de Barbudal (LBLB) forma parte del humedal de Palo Verde, el Consejo Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque advirtió, en su momento, a la Asamblea Legislativa que era necesario que se comunicara a la Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas (Convención Ramsar) la intención de realizar este proyecto y activar cualquier otro procedimiento para cumplir con los compromisos del país.

Acusan que, pese a lo anterior, el Estado no ha notificado a Ramsar sobre la desafectación del área de la RBLB, ni el cambio en los límites de esa reserva biológica, lo que supone una omisión que infringe los compromisos internacionales de nuestro país y, por ello, una violación al artículo 7 de la Constitución Política.

Es preciso citar en esta nota, nuevamente, lo dispuesto en lo conducente por la Convención Ramsar, la cual señala en el artículo 2.5 lo siguiente:

“ Las partes contratantes tendrán derecho a añadir a la “Lista” otras zonas húmedas situadas en su territorio, a ampliar las que ya están inscritas o, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, a retirar de la “Lista” o a reducir los humedales ya inscritos e informarán de estas modificaciones, lo más rápidamente posible, a la organización o al gobierno responsable de las funciones de la Oficina permanente especificados en el artículo 8º”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

Adicionalmente, el artículo 4 señala:

“1. Cada parte contratante fomentará la conservación de las zonas húmedas y de las aves acuáticas creando reservas naturales en los humedales, estén o no inscritos en la "Lista", y atenderá de manera adecuada su manejo y cuidado.

2. Cuando una parte contratante, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, retire o reduzca una zona húmeda inscrita en la "Lista", deberá compensar, en la medida de lo posible, cualquier pérdida de recursos en los humedales y, en especial, deberá crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y para la protección, en la misma región o en otro sitio, de una parte adecuada de su hábitat anterior. 3. Las partes contratantes fomentarán la investigación y el intercambio de datos y de publicaciones relativas a las zonas húmedas, a su flora y a su fauna”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

Es decir, esa norma reitera que cuando una parte, por motivos urgentes de interés nacional, retire o reduzca una zona húmeda inscrita en la “Lista”, deberá compensar en la medida de lo posible cualquier pérdida de recursos en los humedales y, en especial, deberá crear nuevas reservas naturales para las aves acuáticas y para la protección en la misma región o en otro sitio.

Con fundamento en el propio texto normativo, es preciso concluir que el Estado costarricense no ha incurrido en una infracción a sus obligaciones internacionales, conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 7 de la Constitución Política. Lo anterior, por cuanto el propio instrumento internacional de análisis no señala en qué momento exacto se debe realizar la compensación y la respectiva comunicación a la Oficina Permanente creada por el artículo 8 del mismo instrumento.

Por otra parte, es preciso señalar que, si bien se han detallado razones de interés público para la realización de un proyecto que procura solucionar a largo plazo el faltante de agua en la provincia de Guanacaste, no se ha constatado que, a la fecha, haya existido propiamente una declaratoria formal de los motivos urgentes de interés nacional para la desafectación cuestionada de RBLB como parte del Parque Nacional Palo Verde. Cabe recordar lo informado por la Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) en este particular, que apuntó en lo conducente lo siguiente:

“En ese supuesto la norma podría resultar contraria a la Convención Ramsar, porque si bien es cierto, ésta no obliga a los Estados a comunicar de previo la decisión de modificar el área de los sitios de importancia internacional, su artículo 4° sujeta esa posibilidad a la existencia de un motivo de urgente necesidad nacional, el cual no estaría debidamente justificado en este caso particular”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

De lo cual es preciso concluir que, si bien no existe un plazo para la notificación a la oficina competente Ramsar, sí existe la obligación del Estado costarricense de justificar la decisión en “un motivo de urgente necesidad nacional”; todo lo cual deberá ser calibrado por el Estado costarricense para no incurrir en responsabilidad internacional por el incumplimiento de las obligaciones soberanamente admitidas.

Sobre el dimensionamiento de los efectos de la legislación cuestionada En relación con los efectos de la legislación impugnada se hace necesario transcribir en lo conducente lo manifestado por PGR en el informe de esta acción de inconstitucionalidad:

“La Ley 9610 presenta ciertas particularidades con respecto a otras normas legales que pretenden disminuir la medida de áreas silvestre protegidas, pues, en este caso, la decisión de desafectar parte de la RBLB no está motivada en la pérdida de valor ambiental o de la necesidad de proteger la zona, sino, exclusivamente, en la necesidad de desarrollar una obra de infraestructura como parte de la ejecución del proyecto PAACUME. Es decir, la desafectación autorizada interesa únicamente para el desarrollo de dicho proyecto.

Con base en lo anterior, la Procuraduría estima que, aparte de las observaciones apuntadas en el segmento anterior, un defecto de la Ley que podría causar su inconstitucionalidad, es que no se contempló ninguna disposición que dimensionara los efectos de la desafectación efectuada hasta el momento en el que el proyecto se ejecute, pues, la decisión de desafectar tiene sentido y justificación únicamente si dicho proyecto se lleva a cabo. Si por alguna razón el proyecto no es desarrollado, la desafectación practicada no tendría ningún sentido, y, por tanto, ésta no tendría justificación alguna .

La justificación de la desafectación depende de la eventual ejecución del proyecto, que podría verse impedida por varias razones. Por ejemplo, porque –como argumentan los accionantes- no se otorgue la viabilidad ambiental al proyecto, porque no exista financiamiento necesario, porque se pierda interés en desarrollarlo o porque, por algún otro motivo sea imposible ejecutarlo.

Además, debe tenerse en cuenta que la garantía de la no afectación a la RBLB yace en la medida de compensación propuesta. Pero, lo cierto es que, con la ley impugnada se desafectó una parte de la Reserva y, pese a que se incluyó dentro de sus límites el área de compensación, esos terrenos son propiedades privadas que no han sido expropiadas. Con base en lo dispuesto en el artículo 37 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, hasta que esas propiedades no sean expropiadas o compradas, no pueden pasar a formar parte del área silvestre protegida, y, por tanto, la compensación propuesta no se ha materializado. En otras palabras, con la emisión de la Ley 9610, el área de la RBLB se disminuyó y la afectación generada por esa disminución no ha sido compensada., en contravención con lo dispuesto por el principio precautorio y preventivo.

Si por alguna razón el proyecto no es desarrollado y tampoco se ejecutan las expropiaciones necesarias para efectuar la compensación propuesta, la Ley 9610 habría desafectado la RBLB en vano, sin existir una justificación válida y sin haber compensado y mitigado los efectos generados por esa disminución. Ello constituiría una violación al principio de irreductibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas, de no regresión, precautorio y preventivo, e, incluso, una violación a la Convención Ramsar al no existir un motivo de urgente necesidad para justificar la disminución del área de uno de los sitios de importancia internacional.

Por lo tanto, sin perjuicio de lo que se constate en cuanto a la suficiencia de los estudios y criterios técnicos antes señalados, la Procuraduría estima que, por lo recién indicado, la Ley 9610 podría resultar inconstitucional, a menos que se interprete que la desafectación que autoriza surtirá efectos hasta el momento en que el proyecto se ejecute y se expropien los terrenos necesarios para que opere la compensación propuesta”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

Dichas manifestaciones son sumamente relevantes y ponen en evidencia que el legislador competente no introdujo ningún dimensionamiento respecto de los efectos de la legislación examinada en esta acción de inconstitucionalidad.

Asimismo, a la luz de las manifestaciones de la PGR, se hace preciso señalar que si bien se coincidió con el voto de mayoría en el sentido de que no había legitimación para conocer de una eventual infracción al derecho a la propiedad privada, consagrado en el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, es lo cierto que se advierte que la eficacia de la compensación propuesta está supeditada a la expropiación de los terrenos que se contemplaron para esos efectos y la correspondiente indemnización hacia los accionantes. Es decir, la materialización de la compensación está condicionada a que, de manera efectiva, se expropien los terrenos objeto del estudio de compensación. En este momento, mientras no se haya perfeccionado la expropiación, los terrenos no están sometidos a un régimen de protección ambiental (una especie de medida cautelar) y tampoco se ha consolidado la compensación ofrecida como parámetro de legitimidad de la norma de desafectación.

La falta de un dimensionamiento por parte del propio legislador hace descansar la legitimidad de esta compensación en una expropiación que no se ha concretado y que compromete la constitucionalidad de la normativa de análisis. Incluso, pone de manifiesto que ya se realizó el cambio de coordenadas desafectando RBLB, pero no se introdujo una condición resolutoria y unas previsiones sobre las consecuencias de que no se lleve a cabo el proyecto. Es decir, surge la interrogante sobre qué sucede con la desafectación de esta importante reserva biológica en el supuesto de que el proyecto de infraestructura no se logre ejecutar.

Con todo respeto, considero que sobre el particular no es suficiente la solución ofrecida por la mayoría de esta Sala en el sentido de que se trata de una ley condicionada, pues lo cierto es que ya se realizó el cambio de coordenadas correspondiente, sin ofrecerse una claridad sobre los efectos de que no se ejecute el proyecto de infraestructura que se pretende llevar a cabo.

Anamari Garro V.