Memorial of Costa Rica on Compensation

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICECERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA IN THE BORDER AREA (COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)MEMORIAL OF COSTA RICAON COMPENSATIONVOLUME I3APRIL 2017
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. 1
CHAPTER 2 COSTA RICA’S ENTITLEMENT TO REPARATION. 7
A.
Costa Rica’s Claim for Material Injury. 7
B.
T
he Scope of Compensation Claimed. 8
1.
Environmental Damage. 9
2.
Expenses and Costs. 12
C.
Causation. 16
D.
T
he Assessment of Compensable Damage sustained by Costa Rica. 18
E.
Costa Rica’s Entitlement to Interest. 20
CHAPTER 3 QUANTIFICATION OF COMPENSATION OWING
TO COSTA RICA. 23
A.
Quantifiable Environmental Damage. 24
B.
E
xpenses incurr ed as a Result of Nicaragua’s Unlawful
A Activities on Costa Rican Terr itory. 36
1.
Expenses incurred between October 2010 and March 2011 in
relation to Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on
Costa Rican territory. 37
2.
Expenses incurred in monitoring the disputed territory. 43
3.
Expenses incurred in implementation of the Court’s 2013 Order,
insofar as concerns works necessary to avoid irreparable
prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory. 57
SUBMISSIONS. 73
CERTIFICATION. 75
LIST OF ANNEXES. 77

1
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1 1 The dispute between the two States over Nicaragua’s activities in Isla Portillos(and its subsequent claim to sovereignty over that territory) was submitted to the Court by Costa Rica in the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) The area of territory claimed by Nicaragua in Isla Portillos was referred to by the Court as the “disputed territory” 11 2 In the dispositifto its judgment on the merits in December 2015, the Court found that Costa Rica has sovereignty over the disputed territory,2and that by excavating three cañosand establishing a military presence on Costa Rican territory, Nicaragua violated the territorial sovereignty of Costa Rica 3It also found that:Nicaragua has the obligation to compensate Costa Rica for material damages caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory 41 3 As to the three cañosto which the Court referred in the dispositif, it is recalled that:(a)In late 2010, Nicaragua caused its military and other personnel to be present on CostaRican territory in Isla Portillos, and to carry out works there to excavate an artificial caño In doing so, Nicaragua caused 1Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p 19, para 55 2Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment,16 December 2015, para 229(1) 3CertainActivities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, para 229(2) 4Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, para 229(5)(a)
2
damage to the relevant territoryboth through the excavation of the cañoand through the destruction of trees and vegetation (b)Incontravention of the Court’s Order on Provisional Measures of 8 March 2011,5Nicaragua excavated two furthercañosin the disputed territory, causing further damage to that territory Nicaragua subsequently acknowledged before the Court that its excavation works were an infringement of its obligations under the 2011 Order 6Under the terms of a further order on provisional measures issued by the Court in 2013, Costa Rica was required to take appropriate measures relating to the two new caños, to prevent irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory 7In fulfilment of that order, and on the recommendation of the Ramsar Secretariat, Costa Rica subsequently carried out remedialworks in respect ofone of the two new caños (c)The relevant territory forms part of the Northeast Caribbean Wetland,which is designated as a wetland of international importanceunder the Ramsar Convention 1 4 In its Judgment of 16 December 2015, the Court further held that, failing agreement between the parties within 12 months, “the question of 5Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (CostaRica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p 27, para 86(1) 6Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, para 125 7Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p 370, para 59(2)(E)
3
compensation due to Costa Rica will, at the request of one of the Parties, be settled by the Court” 81 5 In brief terms, the damage caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory takes three forms(see also Chapter 3 below):(a)quantifiable environmental damage caused by Nicaragua’s excavation of the first caño in 2010-2011, and the second and third cañosin 2013;(b)expenses incurred by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in its territory, notably Nicaragua’s occupation of and claim to Costa Rican sovereign territory; and (c)expenses incurred by Costa Rica for remediation works on the eastern cañoconstructed by Nicaragua in 2013 1 6 Immediately following the Court’s judgment of 16December 2015, Costa Rica proceeded to quantify its claims to compensation within the parameters of the Court’s order This required extensive consultation with various Costa Rican government departments and agencies, each of which had incurred expenses over an extended period of time as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory Costa Rica also obtained adetailed report from Fundacion Neotrópica, a Costa Rican non-governmental organization with expertise in sustainable development and valuation of ecosystems functions and services, quantifyingthe material environmental damage caused by Nicaragua to Costa Rican territory 98Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v.Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, para 229(5)(b) 9Fundacion Neotrópica, “Monetary Valuation of the environmental damages arising from the construction of caños and clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the Government of Nicaragua in the Costa Rican territory on Isla Portillos, as required by the
4
1 7 On 7 June 2016 Costa Rica presented its claim for compensation to Nicaragua, together with supporting documentation, justifying compensation in the amount of approximately US$6 7million dollars,10which represented a conservative estimate of the material damage that Costa Rica suffered as a result of Nicaragua’s unlawful acts At the same time, Costa Rica proposed a meeting of the parties in August 2016,to discuss any issues relating to the claim 11As to the subsequent history of exchanges:(a)Nicaragua did not respond to Costa Rica’s letter of 7 June 2016 Not having received any acknowledgement or any official communication from Nicaragua on the matter, Costa Rica wrote again to Nicaragua on 5 October 2016, requesting a response to Costa Rica’s claim for compensation and request to negotiate 12(b)On 18 November 2016, Nicaragua at last responded to Costa Rica’s claim for compensation It asserted that “the majority of the items” claimed by Costa Rica were not compensable, since they lacked “the necessary causal link with the material damages caused by Nicaragua that were ascertained by the Court ” It also asserted that the valuation of environmental damage in Neotrópica’s report was not supported Nicaragua requested that Costa Rica review its original request for Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015” (Neotrópica, Report), 3June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1 10The figure indicated by Costa Rica in June 2016 was US$6,723,476 48 This figure differs slightly from the amount now claimed by Costa Rica, as set out in the submissions Costa Rica’s claim incorporates over one thousand line items of expenditure, and the figure indicated in June 2016 included in error some expense lines, which have now been corrected Costa Rica has now verified the entire amount by reference to comprehensive supporting evidence, annexed to this Memorial 11Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to Nicaragua (C Argüello), reference ECRPB-043-16, 7 June 2016, Vol II, Annex 35 12Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to Nicaragua (C Argüello), reference ECRPB-092-16, 5 October 2016, Vol II, Annex 36
5
compensation and providefurther supporting documentation 13Nicaragua did not accept Costa Rica’s proposal to discuss the matter in bilateral negotiations, as proposed by Costa Ricain its letter of 7 June 2016 14(c)Costa Rica responded to Nicaragua’s letter on 14 December 2016,15providing additional documentation and a second report from Neotrópica, answering Nicaragua’s criticisms of the valuation of environmental damage in the first report 16At the same time, Costa Rica made a without prejudiceoffer of settlement to Nicaragua, in order to push forward negotiations with a view toreasonable settlement, and in the hope of avoiding the prolongation of proceedings before the Court However, Costa Rica received no response from Nicaragua 1 8 In light of the above, Costa Rica considered that it had no alternative other thanto bring the matter to the attention of the Court, which it did by letter of 16January 2017 1 9 On 2 February 2017the Court issued an Order setting time limits for written submissions on the question of the quantum ofcompensation due to Costa Rica This Memorial on compensation is submitted in accordance with that Order 13Letter from Nicaragua (C Argüello) to Costa Rica (S Ugalde), reference HOL-EMB-280, 18 November 2016, Vol II, Annex 37 14Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to Nicaragua (C Argüello), reference ECRPB-043-16, 7 June 2016, Vol II, Annex 35 15Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to Nicaragua (C Argüello), reference ECRPB-148-16, 14 December 2016, Vol II, Annex 38 16Fundacion Neotrópica, “Explanatory addenda to the Report ‘Monetary Valuation of the environmental damages arising from the construction of caños and clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the Government of Nicaragua in the Costa Rican territory on IslaPortillos, as required by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015’ in view of the request for clarification by Nicaragua in the note addressed to Ambassador Sergio Ugalde (HOL-EMB-280) dated 18 November 2016 (Neotrópica, Explanatory addenda), 8 December 2016, Vol I, Annex 2
6
***1 10 The outline of Costa Rica’s Memorial is as follows:(a)Chapter 2 sets out the legal basis for Costa Rica’s claim for compensation, pursuant to the Court’s Judgment of 16December 2015;(b)Chapter 3 sets out the elements of Costa Rica’s claim for compensation, by reference to supporting evidence;and(c)this Memorial concludes withCosta Rica’s submissions 1 11 This Memorial is accompanied by 39annexes, contained in this Volume I, and Volume II
7
CHAPTER 2COSTA RICA’S ENTITLEMENT TO REPARATION2 1 Costa Rica claims full reparation in respect of Nicaragua’s internationally wrongful conduct as identified by the Court in its Judgment on the merits in December 2015 In its Judgment the Court found that Nicaragua violated Costa Rica’s territorial sovereignty by excavating three caños and that by engaging in various activities on Costa Rica’s territory, Nicaragua had acted in breach of international law 17The Court also found that Nicaragua had violated its obligations under the Court’s Provisional Measures Order of 8 March 2011 by excavating the second and third caños and by establishing a military presence in the disputed territory in contravention of the 8 March 2011 Order 18As a consequence, the Court further found that Nicaragua is obliged to compensate Costa Rica for material damage caused by this internationally wrongful conduct on Costa Rican territory 19A.COSTA RICA’SCLAIM FOR MATERIAL INJURY2 2 The material damage suffered by Costa Rica as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activity in CostaRica’sterritory comprise the following:(a)quantifiable environmental damage caused by Nicaragua’s excavation of the first caño in 2010-2011, and a further cañoin 2013;(b)expenses incurred by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in its territory, notably:17Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December2015, para 229(2) 18Ibid, para 127 19Ibid, para 229(5)(a)
8
(i)expenses incurred between October 2010 and March 2011 in relation to Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities onCosta Rican territory, which became known as the “disputed territory”;(ii)expenses incurred in monitoring the disputed territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities and as required by the Court’s 2011 and 2013 Orders on Provisional Measures; and(iii)expenses incurred in implementing the Court’s 2013 Order on Provisional Measures, insofar as concerns works toavoid irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory 2 3 The present Chapter will set out the key legal principles underpinning Costa Rica’s claim for the compensation it seeks Chapter 3 will address, in detail, the facts and evidence supporting each claim advanced B.THE SCOPE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMED2 4 Costa Rica claims reparation for material injury caused by the internationally wrongful conduct identified by the Court in its Judgment on the merits, save to the extent its claim has already been satisfied by the declaratory relief granted by the Court in its Judgment 20The principle of full reparation was explained by the PCIJ in Factory at Chorzów (Merits):20The Court declared that Nicaragua had breached the territorial sovereignty of Costa Rica by excavating the cañosand establishing a military presence in the disputed territory The Court further declared that Nicaragua had breached the Order of 8 March 2011 on provisional measures through excavation of two of the cañosand through military activity on Costa Rican territory Finally, the Court declared that Nicaragua had breached Costa Rica’s right of navigation in the terms described in Section D of its Judgment: Certain Activities carried out
9
The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act is that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out allthe consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed 212 5 Thus, in line with the principle of full reparation Costa Rica seeks compensation which places it, insofar as possible, into the position it would have been in if unlawful conduct constituting the breaches of international law identified by the Court had not occurred 2 6 All of the forms of damagefor which Costa Rica claims compensation are well established as recoverable forms of injury as a matter of international law The claims fall into two broad categories First, environmental damage caused by Nicaragua to Costa Rican territory Second, a variety of costs and expenses incurred by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities as set out above at paragraph2 2 1.Environmental Damage2 7 Insofar as environmental damage is concerned, it is settled that such damage is recoverable and compensable under international law Awards for suchdamage have been made by a range of international courts, arbitral tribunals and claims commissions in application of international law The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) has granted extensive awards for environmental harm and related losses in various of its awards Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) “reaffirm[ed] that Iraq is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction ofa Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica),Judgment, 16December 2015, para 139 21Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (Merits), 13 September 1928, PCIJ Series A No. 17, p 47
10
depletion of natural resources as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait” 222 8 In challenging environmental damage claims by Kuwait, Iran, Jordan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Syrian ArabRepublic and Turkey, Iraq contended that “pure environmental harm” (e g harm to the environmental resources which hadno commercial value and resources which could not be market-traded) was not recoverable In its Report by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning “F4” Claimsthe UNCC rejected this approach finding:…a loss due to depletion of or damage to natural resources, including resources that may not have a commercial value is, in principle, compensable in accordance with Security Council resolution 687 (1991) and Governing Council decision 7 if such loss was a direct result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait 232 9 The Commission went on directly to address Iraq’s argument that such a conclusion would be contrary to general principles of international law It rejected this argument in equally emphatic terms: The Panel does not consider that this finding is inconsistent with any principle or rule of general international law In the view of the Panel, there is no justification for the contention that general international law precludes compensation for pure environmental damage In particular, the Panel does not consider that the exclusion of compensation for pure environmental damage in some international conventions on civil liability and compensation is a valid basis for asserting that international law, in general, prohibits compensation 22Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), 8 April 1991, S/RES/687 (1991)*, para 16 23UNCC, Governing Council, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fifth Instalment of “F4” Claims, S/AC 26/2005/10, 30 June 2005, para 57
11
for such damage in all cases, even where the damage results from an internationally wrongful act 242 10 The Commission went on to assess the compensation owed to the various States concerned for pure environmental damageeach had suffered For instance, the UNCC awarded compensation to Iran for damage to its rangelands owing to the refugee encampments established following the invasion of Kuwait, which Iran had assessed by reference an ecological service value per hectare of rangeland damaged 25Jordan was also awarded compensation fordamage to its groundwater resources26and for “significant environmental damage to rangeland and wildlife habitats” caused by the influx of a large number of refugees and livestock as well as for damage to its “captive-breeding programme for Arabian oryx and sand gazelles” 27For its part, Kuwait was awarded compensation, inter alia, for damage to its shoreline resources 28These are examples of awards for inter-State compensation by the UNCC for pure environmental damage 2 11 A number of other internationalcourts and arbitral tribunals have also awarded compensation for environmental damage The Inter-American Court of Human Rights addressed the question of 24UNCC, Governing Council, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fifth Instalment of “F4” Claims, S/AC 26/2005/10, 30 June 2005, para 58 The international conventions to which the Court was referred were the following: International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, as modified by the Protocol of 1992, 973 UNTS 14097, p 3; and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971, asmodified by the Protocol of 1992,1110 UNTS17146, p 7 25UNCC, Governing Council, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fifth Instalment of “F4” Claims, S/AC 26/2005/10, 30 June 2005, paras 174-181 26Ibid, paras325-328 27Ibid, para 362 The Panel awarded compensation in respect of these losses totalling US$160,335,200 28Ibid, para 446
12
environmental harm to the lands of an indigenous community in Kaliña and Lokono peoplesvSuriname In this case the Court recognized, and ordered reparation (including compensation) in respect of “the damage caused to the environment and the lands of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples owing to the bauxite mining operations in the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve” 29In the Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v Canada), the tribunal found that “damage due to fumigations has been proved to have occurred” in respect of various tracts of land in the State of Washington, United States and awarded compensation in respect of such harm 30In short, it is clear that environmental harm per seis properly the subject of compensation as a matter of international law 2.Expenses and Costs2 12 It is well-established that costs and expenses resulting from an internationally wrongful act are compensable under international law, subject to causation being established This includes expense related to steps which have been taken, or which will need to be taken, to monitor or remedy environmental damage(with appropriate adjustments to avoid double recovery where an award is made for the environmental damage itself) In addition, claims for a State’s expenditure on employees or contractors reasonably required to monitor or investigate harm (or, more broadly, to address the consequences of internationally wrongful conduct) have been recognized in international practice 29Kaliña and Lokono peoplesv Suriname,Merits, Reparations and Costs,Inter-Am Ct H R (ser C) No 309, 25 November 2015,para 290 30Trail Smelter Case (United States, Canada), 11 March 1941, 3 UN RIAA1905, pp 1920 and 1925-1926
13
2 13 As regards claims in respect of environmental damage, in Decision 731the UNCC Governing Council provided the following guidance as to the kinds of costs and expenses that would be recoverable: payments are available with respect to direct environmental damage and the depletion of naturalresources as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait This will include losses or expenses resulting from: (a) Abatement and prevention of environmental damage, including expenses directly relating to fighting oil fires and stemming the flow of oil in coastal and international waters; (b) Reasonable measures already taken to clean and restore the environment or future measures which can be documented as reasonably necessary to clean and restore the environment; (c) Reasonable monitoring and assessment of the environmental damage for the purposes of evaluating and abating the harm and restoring the environment; (d) Reasonable monitoring of public health and performing medical screenings for the purposes of investigation and combating increased health risks as a result of the environmental damage; and (e) Depletion of or damage to natural resources 322 14 These forms of loss were all considered by the Governing Council as capable of constituting “direct loss, damage or injury” resulting from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait 2 15 Additional staff salaries and personnel costs resulting from international wrongful conduct are recognized as recoverable under international law There are various examples of such claims being 31In paragraph 2 of Decision 7, the Commission indicated that the criteria outlined were not meant to be definitive It stated the “criteria are not intended to resolve every issue that may arise with respect to these claims Rather, they are intended to provide sufficient guidance to enable Governmentsto prepare consolidated claims submissions” See UNCC, Governing Council, Decision 7 (criteria for additional Categories of Claims), 17 March 1992, S/AC 26/1991/7/Rev 1, para 2 32Ibid,para 35
14
recognized in international practice In its claim before the UNCC Iran sought compensation “for expenses incurred as overtime or standby payments to medical personnel and financial, technical, and administrative staff working at the refugee camps” 33Iran also claimed that “in order to provide medical and related services to the refugees, staff from other provinces of the country were seconded to the refugee camps, and that these persons were paid per diem allowances to cover their living expenses while away from home” and that some staff received additional allowances or overtime The UNCC found that all of these expenses were, in principle, compensable 342 16 In addition, a range of interstate claimants including the Saudi Arabia and Jordan brought claims against Iraq for a range of salary and labour-related benefits they incurred in the form of additional staff salaries, benefits and overtime In its Report ofthe Panel of Commissioners Concerning “F2” Claims, the UNCC found:[I]ncremental salary and overtime costs incurred in assisting refugees during the period of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait are, in principle, compensable Incremental salary andovertime payments include payments made over and above normal salary and overtime payments made to regular staff as a direct result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, as well as salary and overtime payments to staff specifically recruited as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of 33UNCC, Governing Council, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fifth Instalment of “F4” Claims, S/AC 26/2005/10, 30 June 2005, para 258 34Ibid, paras 258-259
15
Kuwait In all cases, the salary and overtime payments must also be reasonable in order to be compensable 352 17 Thus claims were, in principle, permitted where staff or officials had been diverted from other functionswhich they would have performed or where a claimant had had to hire new staff, consultants or agents to assist them in addressing the direct consequences of internationally wrongful conduct 2 18 Other international adjudicative bodies have also adopted the position that out-of-pocket staffing and management expenses incurred in consequence of an internationally wrongful act are recoverable under international law In Pope and Talbot v Government of CanadaanUNCITRAL tribunal awarded the Claimant compensation for out of pocket expenses, including professional costs, arising from Canada’s breach of the duty of fair and equitable treatment in particular through the conduct of an unlawful “verification review process” 36In ICSID arbitral proceedings management time has been taken into account in assessing the value of an investment For example, in Lemire v. Ukrainethe tribunal assessed the value of the Claimant’s investment, noting the monetary expenditure he had incurred, and observing, “[t]o this must be added his own management time during 15 years, which undoubtedly represents a significant economic value” 3735UNCC Governing Council, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Second Instalment of “F2” Claims, S/AC 26/2000/26, 7 December 2000,paras 52-53 36The tribunal considered making a specific award in respect of the value of management time devoted to dealing with the unlawful “verification review process” imposed by Canada On the facts, the Tribunal declined to award management time insofar as the Claimant company had not incurred additional management costs through Canada’s unlawful conduct See Pope v Talbot Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Damages Award, 31 May 2002, para 82 In the same passage, the tribunal also declined to make an award in respect of management time taken up through the conduct of the UNCITRAL proceedings themselves 37Lemire v Ukraine,ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Award, 28 March 2011, para 300
16
2 19 Costs reasonably incurred in monitoring, averting and investigating environmental damage (or other consequences of internationally wrongful conduct on a State’s territory) are compensable It will be recalled that UNCC Decision 7 recognized that “[r]easonable monitoring and assessment of environmental damage for the purposes of evaluating and abating the harm and restoring the environment” was a recoverable form of loss associated with environmental harm 382 20 In the practice of the UNCC, a number of government ministries in different States sought: compensation for increased staff costs, including increasedsalary and overtime costs, bonus payments, and the costs of providing benefits such as meals, accommodation and travel allowances, to staff who were required to implement emergency plans and other preventive and protective measures in response to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait 392 21 Insofar as such costs are concerned, the UNCC Panel of Commissioners found that these costs were recoverable in its Report of the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Second Instalment of “F2” Claims 40C.CAUSATION2 22 All of the damage in respect of which Costa Rica seeks reparation was caused by the internationally wrongful conduct of Nicaragua, identified by the Court in its Judgment on the merits In respect of all of the damage sustained by Costa Rica and claimed in these 38SeeUNCC, Governing Council, Decision 7 (criteria for additional Categories of Claims), 17 March 1992, S/AC 26/1991/7/Rev 1, para 35 39UNCC Governing Council, Report and Recommendations Madeby the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Second Instalment of “F2” Claims, S/AC 26/2000/26, 7 December 2000, para 55 40Ibid,paras56and 58
17
proceedings “there is a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexusbetween the wrongful act …and the injury suffered by the Applicant” 412 23 However, for the avoidance of doubt, insofar as any damage was caused by a combination of factors, which includes Nicaragua’s internationally wrongful conduct, in line with established international practice, Costa Rica is entitled to reparation for such harm Thus, in the event the Court were to find that some of the damage for which Costa Rica claims reparation was caused by Nicaragua’s internationally wrongful conduct as well as by one or more other factors, this does not absolve Nicaragua of the obligation to make reparation for all of the damage so caused As the International Law Commission points out in its commentary to Article 31 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with regard to concurrent causation Although, in such cases, the injury in question was effectively caused by a combination of factors, only one of which is to be ascribed to the responsible state, international practice and the decisions of international tribunals do not support the reduction or attenuation of reparation for concurrent causes, except in cases of contributory fault 4241Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 2007(I),pp 233-234, para 462 See also Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, Declaration of Judge Greenwood, p 332 42Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, ILC Yearbook 2001, Vol II(2), 26, p 94, para12 (references omitted) This approach has been adopted by international courts and tribunals, for example, Zafiro (Great Britain v United States)where the tribunal held the United States liable for all damage, notwithstanding a finding that an “unascertainable part” part of the damagewas caused to the vessel by Filipino insurgents: see Zafiro (Great Britain v United States), 1925, 6 UN RIAA160, pp 164-165 A similar approach was adopted by the UNCC in respect of claims for environmental damage caused by Iraq’s internationally wrongful conduct
18
D.THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSABLE DAMAGESUSTAINED BY COSTA RICA2 24 Costa Rica’s claims loss and injury are properly evidenced As the Court noted in Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea vDemocratic Republic of the Congo),in a claim for reparation the “starting point in the Court’s inquiry”43will be the evidence adduced by a claimant in support of each head of damages claimed 44Costa Rica has submitted detailed evidence with this Memorial in support of its claim for compensation, which is referred to in Chapter 3 below 2 25 Article 36(1) of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provides that “compensation shall cover any financially assessable damages” 45Compensation is not, however, limited to financial or economic loss Many other forms of damage(including environmental damage as explained above) have been treated as recoverable in the practice of international courts, but where other factors may also have contributed to such damage: see UNCC, Governing Council, Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fifth Instalment of “F4” Claims, S/AC 26/2005/10, 30 June 2005, para37 (“The Panel has previously stated that Iraq is not liable either for damage that was unrelated to its invasion and occupation of Kuwait or for losses or expenses that are not a direct result of the invasion and occupation However, the Panel has also noted that the fact that other factors might have contributed to the loss or damage does not exonerate Iraq from liability for loss or damage that resulted directly from the invasion and occupation Whether or not any environmental damage or loss for which compensation is claimed was a direct result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait will depend on the evidence presented in relation to each particular loss or damage”) 43Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v.Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p 332, para 16 44Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v.Democratic Republic of the Congo),Compensation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012,Declaration of Judge Greenwood, p 393, para 5, noting that while equitable considerations “may have a role in claims for material damage where the claimant is unable to produce evidence [such principles]should not be used to make good the shortcomings in a claimant’s case by being substituted for evidence which could have been produced if it actually existed: equity is not alchemy” 45See Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, ILC Yearbook 2001, Vol II(2), 26, Article36(1)
19
tribunals and arbitral panels Some forms of damage are more difficult to quantify in financial terms but it is important to note that this does not mean that such harm is not recoverable In Lusitania (United States v Germany)the Commission observed various forms of damage such as personal injury or harm to reputation are difficult to quantify but observed that “the mere fact that they are difficult to measure or estimate by money standards makes them none the less real and affords no reason why the injured person should not be compensated therefore as compensatory damages” 46This applies no less to environmental damage 2 26 As regards the process for assessing and valuing adequately evidenced costs and expenses associated with environmental damage,this is largely arithmetic Insofar as environmental damage is concerned there is no single model for evaluating such damageand a variety have been employed in practice at both the international and national levels The appropriate valuation model will depend, inter alia, on the nature, complexity and homogeneity of environmental damage sustained 2 27 As further explained in Chapter 3, to quantify its environmental damage, Costa Rica has obtained an independent expert valuation which adopted an “environmental services framework” for the assessment and valuation of environmental harm in the present case, drawing, as appropriate, onguidance on the assessment of environmental harm by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment the United Nations Environment Programme 47The methodology used to ascribe a value to the loss caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct is discussed in Chapter 3 below 46United States-Germany Mixed Claims Commission, Opinion in the Lusitania Cases,1November 1923, VII UN RIAA 32, p 40 47Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, p 40
20
E.COSTA RICA’SENTITLEMENT TO INTEREST2 28 Costa Rica is entitled to, and respectfully claims, interest on the damages to which it is entitled Article 38 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts deals with interest, stating: Interest on any principal sum payable under this Chapter shall be payable when necessary in order to ensure full reparation The interest rate and mode of calculation shall be set so as to achieve that result Interest runs from the date when the principal sum should have been paid until the date the obligation to pay is fulfilled 482 29 Costa Rica claims pre-judgment and post-judgment interest Both forms of interest are well-established in international practice 49Payment of interest is required under international law where necessary to ensure full reparation 50Costa Rica’s losses cannot be made good without payment of interest (including pre-judgment interest) Costa Rica has suffered substantial loss owing to the internationally wrongful conduct identified by the Court in its Judgment In view of the extent of damage Costa Rica has suffered, full reparation cannot be achieved without payment of interest 48Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, ILC Yearbook 2001, Vol II(2), 26, Article 38 49P Nevill, “Awards of Interest by International Courts and Tribunals” (2008) 78 British Yearbook of International Law, p 255 and E Lauterpacht and P Nevill “The Different Forms of Reparation: Interest”, in J Crawford et al (eds ), The Law of International Responsibility(Oxford: OUP, 2010), p 613 50Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, ILC Yearbook 2001, Vol II(2), 26, p 107, para 2
21
2 30 As regards pre-judgment interest, payment of this form of interest is well recognized in thepractice of international arbitral tribunals 51In Metalclad Corp v United Mexican Statesthe tribunal explained that pre-judgment interest was necessary “[s]o as to restore the Claimant to a reasonable approximation of the position in which it would have been if the wrongful act had not taken place, interest has been calculated at 6% p a , compounded annually ”522 31 Costa Rica claims pre-judgment interest on its entire claim for compensation, which reflects losses it incurred as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities Although many of the expenses Costa Rica was compelled to make were incurred between October 2010 and December 2015, Costa Rica makes only a conservative claim for pre-judgment interest, from the date of the Court’s Judgment on the merits of 16 December 2015 Further, it claims interest at an annual rate of 6 per cent, which reflects a reasonable rate, as developed further immediately below 2 32 Costa Rica also claims post-judgment interest (in the event payment is delayed) at an annual rate of 6 per cent in accordance with the approach adopted by the Court in Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea vDemocratic Republic of the Congo) 53Interest rates have not shifted materially since that time, and a rate of 6 per cent is therefore reasonable and justified Costa Rica is entitled to post-judgment interest on its entire compensation claim (expenses plus 51See e g Compańia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena v Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/96/1, Final Award, 17 February 2000, paras 96-107 InAsian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3, Final Award, 15 June 1990, para 114 the tribunal held that “interest becomes anintegral part of the compensation itself, and should run consequently fromthe date when the State’s international responsibility became engaged” 52Metalcorp v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000, 40 I.L.M.36 (2001), para 128 53Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v.Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p343, para 56
22
quantified environmental damage), as explained further in paragraph 3 47below *****2 33 Costa Rica seeks full reparation for the damage caused by Nicaragua’s internationally wrongful conduct, based on settled principles of international law The most important of these principles are outlined in this Chapter Thefactual and evidential basis of Costa Rica’s claim is explained in full in Chapter 3 below
23
CHAPTER 3QUANTIFICATIONOF COMPENSATION OWING TO COSTA RICA3 1 As explained in Chapter 2 above, Costa Rica is entitled to compensation for “material damages caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory ”54The “territory” in question is the part of Isla Portillos designated by the Court as the “disputed territory”: that is, “the area of wetland some 3 square kilometres between the right bank of the disputed caño,55the right bank of the San Juan River up to its mouth at the Caribbean Sea and the Harbor Head Lagoon”,56including the beach on the Caribbean Sea 57Nicaragua’s “unlawful activities” in this territory were determined by the Court as: “excavating three cañosand establishing a military presence on Costa Rican territory” 583 2 In its Judgment on the merits in December 2015, the Court found that Costa Rica has sovereignty over the disputed territory,59and that by excavating three cañosand establishing a military presence on Costa Rican territory, Nicaragua violated the territorial sovereignty of Costa Rica 60It also found that:54Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, para 229(5)(a) 55This is the first cañoconstructed by Nicaragua in 2010 and 2011 56Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p 19, para 55 57Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p 365, para 46 58Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, para 229(2); see also para 229(3) 59Ibid, para 229(1) 60Ibid, para 229(2)
24
Nicaragua has the obligation to compensate Costa Rica for material damages caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory 613 3 The material damages suffered by Costa Rica as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in its territory comprise the following:(a)environmental damage caused by Nicaragua’s excavation of the first caño in 2010-2011, and a furthercañoin 2013;(b)expenses incurred by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in its territory, notably Nicaragua’s occupation of and claim to Costa Rican sovereign territory; and(c)expenses incurred by Costa Rica for remediation works on the eastern cañoconstructed by Nicaragua in 2013 3 4 Each of these heads of damage is addressed in turnin the remainder of this Chapter 3 5 For the avoidance of doubt, Costa Rica’s claim for compensation does not include any legal costs associated with the bringing of these proceedings A.QUANTIFIABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE3 6 As the Court will recall, Nicaragua violated Costa Rica’s territorial sovereignty by dredging three caños Nicaragua accepted that it dredged the three caños:62one between October 2010 and March 2011 (the 2010caño), and a second and third (the 2013 eastern caño) in 2013 The Court found that by these activities on Costa Rican territory, Nicaragua breached Costa Rica’s territorial sovereignty and is therefore obliged to 61Ibid, para 229(5)(a) 62Ibid, para 68
25
make reparation for the damage caused by its unlawful activities 63By its conduct in 2013, the Court further found that Nicaragua acted in breach of its obligations under the 2011 Order 643 7 In order to quantify the damage to its environment caused by Nicaragua, Costa Rica commissionedan independent expert report from FundaciónNeotrópica, a Costa Rican non-governmental organization with expertise in sustainable development and valuation of ecosystems functions and services 65Fundación Neotrópica has over thirty years of experience in fieldwork in Costa Rican protected areas and ecosystems The authors of the report are professionals in environmental science, and they consulted with technical personnel of the Tortuguero Conservation Area and the unit in charge of the Northeast Caribbean Wetland (protected under the Ramsar Convention) Their reports are the result of extensive work, including review of the extensive evidence, consultation with experienced personnel, and an aerial inspection of the relevant territory by means of overflight 663 8 In its report, Neótropica provides an overview of the different approaches to valuation of environmental damage As they explain, the “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment”, supported by the United Nations, provides a definition of ecosystem or environmental services that serves as a framework to categorize and assess the different services that may be lost due to environmental damage 67These include:63Ibid, para 93 64Ibid, para 129 65Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1 This report was subsequently supplemented by Neotrópica Explanatory Addenda, 8 December 2016, Vol I, Annex 2 66Neotrópica Explanatory Addenda, 8 December 2016, Vol I, Annex 2, p 2 See also Neotrópica Report, 3June2016, Vol I, Annex 1, pp 6-7 67Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, pp 15-19
26
(a)provisioning services, which are the products that may be obtained from ecosystems, such as food, fibre, wood, fuel, or medicinal products;68(b)regulating services, which are the benefits obtained by humans from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including biological retention; freshwater storage and retention; water regulation; climate, atmosphere, and gas regulation; human disease control; flood and storm protection; erosion control; and waste treatment;(c)cultural services, which are the non-material benefits that can be obtained from ecosystems;and (d)supporting services, which are those that are necessary for the protection of all other ecosystem services 3 9 As Neotrópica explains, the most comprehensive monetary valuation methodological framework that has been developed and used in environmental economics and ecological economics is the “total value equation” which was presented in a report of “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB), an office hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) This equation provides for the assessment of direct use values (such as commercial, or consumptive values) and indirect values (such as natural or cultural capital services) 69The use of the “total value equation” has been endorsedby the RamsarSecretariat, as an appropriate methodology for valuing wetlands 70The different elements of a monetary valuation based on the “total value equation” for a wetland is usefully presented in a Ramsar report and is included as Figure 7 to the Neotrópica report, reproduced for convenience below This is the approach adopted by Neotrópica to 68Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, pp 16-17 69Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, pp 21-22 70Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, pp 25-27
27
value the damage caused by Nicaragua to the environment of Costa Rican territory, adjusted to take account of recent experience in Costa Rica and in Latin America more broadly 71Figure 3.1:TEV elements and examples of ecosystem services corresponding to each element. Source: De Groot, et al. (2007), Figure 7 to Neotrópica Report, Annex 13 10 Neotrópica then appliedthe valuation methodology to assess the value of the environmental damage causedby Nicaragua The Neotrópica Report sets out the evidence of the environmental damage caused by 71Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, pp 39-40
28
Nicaragua’s activities in detail The areas of activity are clearly marked on Figure 2 of the Report, which is reproduced for convenience below Figure3.2:Location of the artificial caños excavated on Costa Rican territory through intrusions ordered by the Government of Nicaragua in 2010 and 2013. Source: Neotrópica Report, Figure 2, Annex 13 11 Based on their review of the evidence, Neótropica was able precisely to identify the areas of Costa Rican territory that were damaged by Nicaragua They found that in constructing the 2010 caño, Nicaragua felled trees in an area of 2 48 hectares and cleared undergrowth in 3 28 hectares In constructing the 2013 eastern caño, Nicaragua damaged an area of 0 43 hectares The total area affected was 6 19 hectares and in both areas a total of 9,502 72m3of soil was removed 72These areas are shown in Figure 10 to Neotrópica’s Report, reproduced for convenience below 72Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, p 55
29
Figure 3.3:Areas affected by environmental damage in C2010 left panel), CO 2013 and CE2013 (right panel). Source: Neotrópica Report, Annex 1,Figure 10.3 12 The damage caused by Nicaragua was also clearly shown in several photographs submitted as evidence in this case, which were included in Figure 11 to Neotrópica’s Report, reproduced for convenience below
30
Figure3.4:Image comprising several photos included in the records which evidence the damages caused by the clearing of trees and vegetation and dredging of C2010 and CE2013. Source: Figure 11 to Neotrópica Report, Annex 13 13 Having identified the damage caused by Nicaragua to the environment of Costa Rica’s territory, Neotrópica assessed the effects of this damage on ecosystem goods and services Neotrópica included only the damage caused by the 2010 cañoand the 2013 eastern caño: the western cañoalso excavated by Nicaragua in 2013 is not included 73For this reason (and others indicated below), the valuation is conservative 73Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, p 14
31
3 14 Neotrópica identified 22 categories of ecosystem goods and services that were affected by the damage caused by Nicaragua 74These included the following:(a)provisioning services, comprising food; freshwater; timber, combustible fibre and other raw materials; biochemical and medicinal resources; genetic materials; and ornamental resources;(b)regulating and supporting services, including air quality and gas regulation; climate regulation; hydrological services; natural hazards mitigation; pollution control; regulation of other wastes; erosion control; soil formation; nutrient cycling; pest and disease control; biological control; and pollination; and (c)cultural and recreational services, including historic, spiritual, recreational, aesthetic, artistic services and science and recreation 753 15 Of these 22 categories of potentially-affected ecosystem goods and services, Neotrópica explain that it is possible to ascribe a monetary valuation to 11of them, namely:(a)timber;(b)fibre, fuels,and other raw materials;(c)biochemical and medicinal resources;(d)ornamental resources;(e)air quality and gas regulation;74Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, p 40; see also Table 8 75Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, Table 8
32
(f)natural hazards mitigation;(g)erosion control;(h)soil formation;(i)nutrient cycling;(j)biological control; and (k)science and education services 763 16 Neotrópica then identified the data which would be required to ascribe a monetary value to the loss to these ecosystem goods and services 77For each category of goods and services,Neotrópica sought to identify recent studies on similar ecosystems (i e tropical coastal wetlands) which provided reference for a value transfer exercise, i e to ascribe a value to the loss suffered in this particular case In reliance on identified andanalogous studies, Neotrópica made appropriate adjustments to apply them to the territory affected here 78By this process, Neotrópica narrowed the categories of ecosystem goods and services to form part of the valuation to only the following six categories:(a)standing timber;(b)other raw materials;76Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, Table 8 (see column headed “monetary valuation”); and Table 9 (in which timber is identified in a separate category from fibres and other raw materials) 77Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, Table 10 (column headed “required data”) 78Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, pp 45-47 See also also Neotrópica Explanatory addenda, 8 December 2016, Vol I, Annex 2, pp 4-6
33
(c)gas regulation;(d)natural hazards mitigation;(e)soil formation and erosion control; and(f)biodiversity, in terms of habitat and nursery 793 17 It followed that from a potential 22 categories of lost ecosystem goods and services, Neotrópica included in the valuation only six categories, making their valuation very conservative 803 18 Neotrópica’s valuation of the loss of these six categories of ecosystem goods and services for each of the 2010 caño(identified as C2010) and the 2013 eastern caño(identified as CE2013) is set out in Table 14 of its Report, reproduced for convenience below Having identified the value of the loss for the first year after the loss was caused, Neotrópicaprovided a net present value calculation for a period of 50 years, adopting a discount rate of 4% Both of these factors are conservative, for the following reasons:(a)Some of the trees that were cut down by Nicaragua were over 200 years old (and the average age was 115 years81) Thus, adopting a time period for the valuation of 50 years is conservative 82This approach is also consistent with recent jurisprudence of the Costa Rican courts, adopting a period of 50 years, in circumstances where the average ageof the relevant trees in the two areas cleared were 112 and 83 years 8379Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, Table 11 80See also Neotrópica Explanatory addenda, 8 December 2016, Vol I, Annex 2, pp 2-4 81Neotrópica Explanatory addenda, 8 December 2016, Vol I, Annex 2, p 9 82Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, p 50 83Neotrópica Explanatory addenda, 8 December 2016, Vol I, Annex 2, pp 7-9
34
(b)A discount rate of 4%is higher than the rates used in recent jurisprudence of the Costa Rican courts;84and notably higher than the rates suggested by leading studies (for example, TEEB suggests the use of a zero discount rate) 85A higher discount rate results in a lower compensation claim because the discount rate reduces the present value of the claim 3 19 On this conservative basis, Neotrópica assessedthe net present value of the loss in respect of the 2010 cañoto be US$2,148,820.82and the loss in respect of the 2013 eastern cañoto be US$674,290.92, resulting in a total figure of US$2,880,745.82 86Table 3.1:Monetary value of the social cost (loss of ecosystem goods and services) of the environmental damages caused in the affected areas of C2010 and CE2013. Source: Table 14 to Neotrópica Report, footnote omitted.Ecosystem good or service Affected area Amount and reference unit of the loss Monetary value by unit Estimated total of the loss in U.S. dollars (2016) Provisioning Standing timber (Includes the opportunity cost of forests, OCF) C2010 211 m3/ha for standing timber with a 50% harvesting rate and OCF of 6 m3/ha per year of growth with a 50% harvesting rate in 2.48 ha $64.65 $19,558.64 84Neotrópica Explanatory addenda, 8 December 2016, Vol I, Annex 2, p 10 85Neotrópica Explanatory addenda, 8 December 2016,Vol I, Annex 2, pp 10-11 86Neotrópica Report, 3 June 2016, Vol I, Annex 1, p 60
35
CE2013 211 m3/ha for standing timber with a 50% harvesting rate and OCF of 6 m3/ha per year of growth with a 50% harvesting rate in 0.43 ha $40.05 $1,970.35 Other raw materials (fibre and energy) C2010 (includes cleared area) Value of the service per ha. in 5.76 ha $175.76 $794.06 CE2013 Value of the service/ha. in 0.43 ha $175.76 $38.14 Regulating and supporting Gas regulation/air quality (Includes stock and annual flow) C2010 Value of the service/ha. in 2.48 ha $14,982.06 $37,139.03 CE2013 Value of the service/ha. in 0.43 ha $14,982.06 $6,502.21 Natural hazards mitigation C2010 Value of the service/ha. in 2.48 ha $2,949.74 $7,312.11 CE2013 Value of the service/ha. in 0.43 ha $2,949.74 $1,280.19 Soil formation/erosion control C2010 Replacement cost of 5,815 m3 of removed soil (collection and transport) $5.87 $33,610.69 CE2013 Replacement cost of 3687.72 m3 of removed soil (collection and transport) $5.87 $21,315.00 Habitat and nursery (Biodiversity) C2010 Value of the service/ha. in 2.48 ha $855.13 $1,613.52
36
CE2013 Value of the service/ha. in 0.43 ha $855.13 $282.49 Total SC First year C2010 $100,028.04 CE2013 $31,388.38 Total SC 50 years C2010 $2,148,820.82 CE2013 $674,290.92 3 20 For the avoidance of doubt, this valuation does not include the expenses that Costa Rica separately incurred in carrying out measures relating to the 2013 eastern cañoto prevent irreparable prejudice being caused to the environment of the disputed territory, in accordance with the 2013 Provisional Measures Order Those expenses are set out in Section B(3)below B.EXPENSES INCURRED AS ARESULT OF NICARAGUA’SUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ON COSTARICAN TERRITORY3 21 Costa Rica incurred a number of expenses as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities, notably its occupation of and claim to sovereignty over Costa Rican territory These expenses fit broadly under three heads (a)expenses incurred between October 2010 and April 2011 in relation to Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities onCosta Rican territory, which became known asthe “disputed territory”;(b)expenses incurred in monitoring the disputed territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities and in implementation of the Court’s 2011 and 2013 Orders on Provisional Measures; and
37
(c)expenses incurred in implementing the Court’s 2013 Order on Provisional Measures, insofar as concerns works to avoid irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory, which expenses were rendered necessary as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in Costa Rican territory Each of these are addressed in turn below 1.Expenses incurred between October 2010 and March 2011 in relation to Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Ricanterritory3 22 First, from the time Costa Rica became aware of Nicaragua’s military presence on its territory in late 2010 until Nicaragua’s withdrawal of its military camp following the Court’s 2011 Provisional Measures Order, Costa Rica incurred various expenses in conducting site visits and overflights of the relevant area,87obtaining satellite images to confirm Nicaragua’s military presence and the artificial works that its personnel and nationals had carried out on and around the first caño,88and obtaining reports from UNITAR/UNOSAT analysing relevant satellite images to detect and assess changes to the environment of the territory that had been caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities 89These expenses were made necessary by Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct 3 23 As the Court will recall, when Costa Rica became aware of Nicaragua’s military presence and activities on its territory, Costa Rica sought to 87These took place on 20, 22, 27, 31 October and on 1, 8, and 26 November 2010 88For example, see images of 19 November 2010 (Certain Activities, CRM Appendix 1, Figure 1 17); 14 December 2010, (Certain Activities, CRM Annex 234); 24 January 2011 (Certain Activities, CRM Appendix 1, Figure 1 19) and 22 February 2011 (Certain Activities, CRM Appendix 1, Figure 1 43) 89See UNITAR/UNOSAT, “Morphological and Environmental Change Assessment: San Juan River Area (including Isla Portillos and Calero), Costa Rica”), 4 January 2011, Certain Activities,CRM Annex 148; UNITAR/UNOSAT, “Morphological and Environmental Change Assessment: San Juan River Area (including Isla Portillos and Calero), Costa Rica”), 3 March 2011, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 149
38
resolve the dispute through diplomatic means, initially bilaterally,90and then through the OAS 91Nicaragua refused to cooperate to resolve the dispute, forcing Costa Rica to commence the proceedings in the Certain ActivitiesCase and to seek immediate provisional measures This was made necessary by Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct and its obstructive posture, and in order to prevent Nicaragua completing its unlawful works and presenting the Court with a fait accompli In commencing proceedings and seeking provisional measures, Costa Rica incurred 90On 21 October 2010, Costa Rica protested Nicaragua’s presence on its territory and requested assurances that they would be removed and would not cause any ecological damage: Note from the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Reference DM-412-10, 21 October 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 47 Nicaragua’s response rejected Costa Rica’s protest but did not otherwise provide any explanation for its unlawful presence and activities on Costa Rican territory: Note from the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, Reference MRE/DVM/AJST/660/10/10, 26 October 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 48 Costa Rica affirmed its protest and requested that this issue be included on the agenda for a bilateral meeting: Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Reference DM-429-10, 1 November 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 49; and Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Reference DM-430-10, 1 November 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 50 Nicaragua did not respond to Costa Rica’s letters of 1 November 2010 91Costa Rica sought the assistance of the OAS: see Note from the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica before the OAS to the President of the OAS Permanent Council, Reference DE-065-2010, 2 November 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 51 An emergency Special Session of the Permanent Council was convened on 3 November 2010 and the OAS Secretary-General carried out an inspection of Isla Portillos on 5-6 November 2010 The Secretary-General then recommended that the two States avoid any military or security presence in the disputed territory and the recommendations were adopted as a formal resolution by an overwhelming majority of OAS States: see Resolution 978 (17777/10), Permanent Council of the OAS, Reference OEA/Ser G CP/INF 6134/10, 12 November 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 53, see Costa Rica’s Memorial in the Certain ActivitiesCase Nicaragua immediately stated that it would not comply with the OAS resolution: see, Statement of Denis Ronaldo Moncado, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the OAS, as reported in ‘Call for troop withdrawal in Nicaragua, Costa Rica dispute’, CNN International, 13 November 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 112; and English translation of a speech given by President Ortega on national Nicaraguan television on 13 November 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 113 Nicaragua subsequently failed to attend an OAS sponsored bilateral meeting scheduled for 26 November 2010, and refused to comply with a second resolution issued by the OAS Consultation Meeting of Foreign Ministers on 7 December 2010, calling for compliance with the OAS Permanent Council Resolution of 12 November 2010: Resolution on the Situation between Costa Rican and Nicaragua, Twenty-Sixth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the OAS, RC 26/RES 1/10, 7 December 2010, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 67
39
legal costs that would have been avoided but for Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct and posture in bilateral exchanges Such costs form no part of the current claim But Costa Rica also incurred costs in substantiating Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory,which costs are directly attributable to Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory Indeed, it was only in late November 2010, more than a month after Costa Rica first protested Nicaragua’s conduct, and a week after Costa Rica commenced proceedings before the Court, that Nicaragua made a claim to sovereignty over the occupied territory 92It was a case of occupy first, justify later 3 24 The expenses that Costa Rica claims under this head include:(a)the cost of fuel and maintenance services for the police aircraft used to reach and to overfly the disputed territory on 20, 22, 27 and 31 October, and 1 and 26 November 2010 These flights were necessary to verify reports of Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct The total cost incurred for the fuel and maintenance of the aircraft for these overflights was US$37,585 60;(b)salaries of air surveillance service personnel who were required to attend on the police aircrafts used to reach and to overfly the disputed territory on 20, 22, 27 and 31 October, and 1 and 26 November 2010 These flights were necessary to verify reports of Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct The total cost incurred for the salaries of necessary personnel was US$1,040 66;92See Government of Nicaragua, “The San Juan de Nicaragua River: The Truths that Costa Rica Hides”, 2010 (released on 26 November 2010), Certain Activities, CRM Annex30
40
(c)charges for the purchase of satellite images from an authorized commercial provider from December 2010 until the Court’s 2011 Provisional Measures Order These purchases were necessary to verify reports of Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory,as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct They also served to determine the extent of the damage caused by Nicaragua, notably the excavation of the 2010 cañoand the felling of a considerable area of wetland forest The total cost incurredin purchasing these images was US$17,600 00;(d)charges for a report produced by UNITAR/UNOSAT (dated 4 January 2011) analysing relevant satellite images for the changes to the environment of the territory that had been caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory These reports were necessary to verify and assess Nicaragua’s actions in the area, particularly to determine with greater precision the extent of the environmental damage it caused to Costa Rican territory,as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct The total cost incurred in obtaining these reports was US$15,804 00;(e)salary expenses incurred in respect of National Coast Guard Service personnel operating the vessels used for Costa Rican police personnel to visit the disputed territory between 21 October 2010 and 5 March 2011 These missions were necessary to verify reports of Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct The total costincurred for the salaries of the National Coast Guard Service was US$6,780 60;(f)salary expenses incurred in respect of Tortuguero Conservation Area (ACTo) personnel who were required to participate in environmental monitoring missions between October 2010 and January 2011 These missions were necessary to assess the environmental impact of Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory,
41
under ACTo administration, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct Having assessed the number of staff and number of days they spent attending to environmental protection actions in Isla Portillos,93the cost incurred by Costa Rica in respect of their salaries, from 21 October 2010 to 20 January 2011, was US$1,309 90;(g)the cost of food and water supplies for the ACTo personnel carrying out site visits necessary to assess the environmental impact of Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory, under ACTo administration, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct Costs were therefore incurred by Costa Rica in respect of their food and water supplies during their missions These costs, for the period from 21 October 2010 to 20January 2011, have been quantified at US$446 12;(h)the relevant ACTo personnel had to travel by water on the Colorado River and its channels, from Barra del Colorado to the area of Laguna de Agua Dulce This was the only means of transportation to Laguna de Agua Dulce and at that time, by foot to the territory occupied by Nicaragua These missions were necessary to assess the environmental impact of Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct The total cost incurred for the fuel for aquatic transport during the period from 21 to 26 October 2010 was US$92 00;and (i)the relevant ACTo personnel had to travel by land to attend coordination meetings and missions in and near the disputed territory These meetings and missions were necessary to assess the environmental impact of 93Between 21 October 2010 and 16 November 2015, there were 157 individual days on which Tortuguero Conservation Area personnel had to monitor the environment, maintain equipment, attend coordination meetings and carry out joint missions with the Ramsar Secretariat These are detailed in the table entitled “Costs estimates of SINAC personnel participation in activities related to the situation in Isla Calero” which is included in Vol II, Annex 6
42
Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct The total cost incurred for the fuel for land transportation during the period from 10 January 2011 to 15 February 2011 was US$ 263 57 3 25 In sum, these expenses total US$80,926 45 They are set out in summary form in Table 3 2immediatelybelow, with references to supporting documentation Table 3.2:Expenses incurred between October 2010 and April 2011 in relation to Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on the disputed territoryDate incurredDescription of expense incurredAmountEvidence of expense20 October –26November 2010Cost of fuel and maintenance services for police aircraft used toreach and tooverfly disputed territory US$37,585 60Annex 920 October –26November 2010Salaries of air surveillance service personnel required to attend access flights and overflights of the disputed territory US$1044 66Annex 10December 2010 –March 2011Purchase of satellite images to verify Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on disputed territory US$17,600 00Annex 16January2011Cost of obtaining report from UNITAR/UNOSAT to verify Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on disputed territory US$15,804 00Annex 1721 October 2010–5 March 2011Salaries of National Coast Guard service personnel required to provide water transportation to the area near the disputed territoryUS$6,780 60Annex 7
43
Date incurredDescription of expense incurredAmountEvidence of expense21 October 2010–20January 2011Salaries of ACTo personnel required to attend missions in or near the disputed territoryUS$1,309 90Annex 621 October 2010–20January 2011Food and water supplies for ACTo personnel required to attend environmental monitoring missions in or near the disputed territory US$446 12Annex 621–26 October 2010Fuel for fluvial transportation for ACTopersonnel required to attend missions in or near the disputed territory US$92 00Annex 610 January –15February 2011Fuel for land transportation for ACTo personnel required to attend missions in or near the disputed territoryUS$263 57Annex 6TOTALUS$80,926.452.Expenses incurred in monitoring the disputed territory3 26 Second, Costa Rica incurred various expenses inmonitoring the disputed territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful conduct and in implementation of the Court’s 2011 Order on Provisional Measures The Court’s 2011 Order recorded that:… in order to prevent the development of criminal activity in the disputed territory in the absence of any police or security forces of either Party, each Party has the responsibility to monitor [the disputed] territory from the territory over which it unquestionably holds
44
sovereignty, i e , in Costa Rica’s case, the part of Isla Portillos lying east of the right bank of the [first] caño,excluding [that] caño…943 27 The Court noted further that the disputed territory is located in the Northeast Caribbean Wetland, in respect of which Costa Rica bears obligations under the Ramsar Convention, and consequently, Costa Rica “must be in a position to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the part of the wetland where that territory is situated” 953 28 In its 2013 Order, the Court reaffirmed its 2011 Order (thus reiterating Costa Rica’s obligations of monitoring under the 2011 Order),96and specifically recalled that Costa Rica bears obligations under the Ramsar Convention in respect of the protected wetland in which the disputed territory is located 973 29 In fulfilment of its obligations under the 2011 and 2013 Order to monitor the disputed territory from Costa Rican territory, and to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the protected wetland, and as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities, Costa Rica incurred various expenses for which it claims compensation under this head These comprise the following:(a)In the period immediately following the Court’s 2011 Order, Costa Rica coordinated with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention for an advisory mission to visit the disputed territory in early April 2011, together with Costa Rica personnel tasked with protection of the 94Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p 25, para 78 95Ibid, pp 25-26, para 80 96Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Roadin Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p 369, para 59(1) 97Ibid, p 367, para 54
45
environment 98This visit was required as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s activities, in order to assess the environmental condition of the disputed territory, so that appropriate future action could be assessed to prevent any irreparabledamage to the protected wetland 99The visit took place on 5 and 6 April 2011, despite obstruction from Nicaraguan personnel navigating close by on the San Juan River, and Nicaraguan civilians and journalists harassing the mission on the disputed territory 100However, due to Nicaragua’s obstruction of the site visit and the security concerns this gave rise to, on 6 April the mission was unable to land at the site, and could only view the disputed territory by overflight 101The flights that were carried beforeand after this mission were required to transport other support personnel from other Costa Rican institutions who took part in the mission or supported it from Barra del Colorado For this two-day inspection, Costa Rica incurred 98See Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (PCouvreur), Reference ECRPB-029-11, 8 April 2011, Vol II, Annex 18 Costa Rica gave prior notice to Nicaragua of this intended site visit 99See Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (PCouvreur), Reference ECRPB-029-11, 8 April 2011, Vol II, Annex 18, esp pp 2-3; and Minutes of the Coordination Meeting, Technical Advisory Mission of the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention and Officials of the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, 4 April 2011, Certain Activities,CRM Annex151 100Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-029-11, 8 April 2011, Vol II, Annex 18, pp 3-4 See also Photograph of Nicaraguan nationals landing at Isla Portillos during the Joint Environmental mission, 5 April 2011, Certain Activities,CRM Annex 235; Photo of Nicaraguan nationalsharassing members of the technical environmental mission, CRM Annex 238; Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Reference DM-235-11, 6 April 2011, Certain Activities,CRM Annex 81; Note from the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica before the United Nations to Permanent Missions to the United Nations and PermanentObserver Missions to the United Nations, Reference ECR-258-2011, Certain Activities,CRM Annex 76 These actions were endorsed by Nicaragua: see El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua), ‘The Army would capture Costa Rican pilots if they land’ 7 April 2011, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 127 101See Minutes of the Coordination Meeting, Technical Advisory Mission of the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention and Officials of the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, 7 April 2011, Certain Activities,CRM Annex152, para 2 A report of the visit is produced as: Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications of Costa Rica, Technical Report of Ramsar: “Assessment and evaluation of the Environmental situation in the Humedal Caribe Noreste within the framework of the Order of the International Court of Justice”, 28 October 2011, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 155
46
costs for fuel and maintenance services on the police aircrafts used, in the amount ofUS$20,110 84 and for the salaries of air surveillance service personnel who were required to attend on the police aircrafts, in the amount of US$1,017 71 (b)Also in order to fulfil its obligationsto monitor the disputed territory,102Costa Rica was compelled to make arrangements for new police posts in nearby locations103 Initially, it set up a post in the area of Laguna de Agua Dulce, the site nearest to the disputed territory at Isla Portillos thatcould be accessed by boat without using the San Juan River By December 2010, an old house at Laguna de Agua Dulce was adapted by the police to serve as a post, complemented by camping tents to lodge some of the policemen From this post at Agua Dulce,Costa Rica police personnel travelled by the beach to reach Isla Portillos In early 2012, Costa Rica then incurred costs in constructing and equipping police posts in Laguna de Agua Dulce and Isla Portillos 104Their locations areshown on Sketch Maps3 1and 3 2below These police posts were constructed by the police, and Costa Rica is now claiming compensation for construction costs, but it does claim for some of the equipment used and the cost of making repairs to such equipment After more than three years of functioning, these police posts required some repairs to doors and ceilings; new equipment to replace previously purchased equipment (such as fire extinguishers, washing machines, refrigerators and office equipment) Purchases that took place between March and April 2015 were also related to the support that the police post in Agua Dulce provided to the remediation efforts to close the 2013 easterncaño The 102See Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p 25, para 78 103The extensive works that were carried out are described in Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New Works in The Northeast Caribbean Wetland, Report for the Executive Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, July 2013,Vol I, Annex 3 104This area is also referred to in different documents as “Punta Castilla”, “Santa Teresa” and “Laguna Los Portillos”, and the police post herein referred to as Laguna Los Portillos is also referred to as Punta Castilla
47
total amount claimed for equipping and repairing these two posts is US$24,065 87 Sketch Map 3.1: Newly-constructed Costa Rican police posts and Biological Station in proximity to the disputed territory
48
Sketch Map 3.2: Newly-constructed Costa Rican police post and Biological in Laguna Los Portillosin close proximity to the disputed territory(c)Costa Rica also had to staff these posts, with sufficient personnel to monitor the actions of Nicaragua in the vicinity of (and in) the disputed territory and to provide security to the area, as ordered by the Court For this staffing, Costa Rica incurred additional costs, in hiring and training police officers As is explained by the former Minister of Public Security, Mr Mario Zamora Cordero, in a witness statement, “the police was faced with a drastic operational change, as we wereforced to relocate staff from many of its urban units in order to provide the
49
necessary personnel to establish a presence in the area of Isla Portillos ”105The former Minister explains:After the Court indicated Provisional Measures [in 2011],I gave instructions for the planning of a long term police presence, in order to provide security to what was then termed “the disputed territory” This presence was particularly challenging because, as a consequence of Nicaragua’s actions, Costa Rica did not have a choice of the adequate location where it could best place a police permanent presence It had to establish a basic encampment on the right bank of the Los Portillos Lagoon, a location with enormous complexity, as the entire place is a wetland, and therefore there is no hard soil to build proper shelter Aside from the location of the encampment, the biggest challenge was presented by the relocation of police personnel in that area Not having readily available police forces for that kind of challenge, the Ministry under my command was forced to reassign police personnel from units in towns and cities serving communities and individuals, and relocate them to Isla Portillos Moving these police into the area was not a simple task either They would first be transported to a post called Agua Dulce, where they would be acclimatized and prepared for the task that represented being stationed in the Post of Isla Portillos From there, they would be transported to this latter post The Post of Isla Portillos was of extreme operational difficulty, given its inhospitable conditions Having no running water, no sewage, no electricity, and no proper installations, the personnel suffered from the severe climate conditions, rampant illnesses, and the permanent hostility of the Nicaraguan armed forces A police unit would be stationed for about ten days at a time there, but once they finish their stay, it did not mean that they would go back immediately to their urban units They would need rest, and many instances they would go on sick leave, or leave the force altogether This represented a serious problem for the police overall, as we struggled to secure new 105Witness Statement of Mr Mario Zamora Cordero, 22 March 2017, Vol I, Annex 5,para 2
50
recruitments, affecting overall police operations nationally Being forced to attend to this situation imposed to Costa Rica not only decimated the police’s financial resources, but the police units were constantly understaffed, which meant that the Costa Rican communities were not receiving the proper services and protection that they would have otherwise received, should the police had not faced this situation As a matter of fact, and not having a specialized unit to address these challenges, I undertook the necessary actions so that a special border police unit be formed For sake of clarity, this border police unit was formed by taking human and financial resources from other operational structures of the police It must also be stated that human and financial resources that I was forced to employ to deal with the situation that resulted from the Nicaraguan activities in Isla Portillos mainly included those from the general police force, the Coast Guard, and the Aerial Vigilance Section 106Costa Rica therefore includes in its claim for compensation reimbursement of the salaries of the 48 police officers who were posted in Laguna Los Portillos and Laguna de Agua Dulce between March 2011 and December 2015 107Given the remote location of these posts, the officers were rotated for 10 day postings (followed by 10 rest days away from the area), and performed their duties in two shifts of 12 hours each The police personnel who were stationed in the area initially were members of Costa Rica’s Public Force, but in early 2011, as a direct result of Nicaragua unlawful acts, the Costa Rican Government created the Border Police, a measure that required hiring additional personnel to 106Witness Statement of Mr Mario Zamora Cordero, 22 March 2017, Vol I, Annex 5,para 3 107As the former Minister of Public Security explains, this claim for compensation is conservative because it does not reflect internal operational costs, administrative time, and the overall loss suffered by Costa Rican communities that were directly impacted by the decline of police presence in towns and cities, in order to provide security to the disputed territory: see Witness Statement of Mr Mario Zamora Cordero, Vol I, Annex 5, para4
51
undergo appropriate training 108Between March 2011 and September 2013 salaries of the relevant personnel correspond to the general payroll of the Public Force, while between October 2013 and December 2015 the salaries of the relevant personnel correspond to the payroll of the Border Police This is further explained in a letter signed by the Costa Rican Vice Minister of Security, together with a detailed explanation of how the relevant salary expenses have been calculated and evidenced 109The total amount incurred in respect of their salaries over this period of over four and a half years was US$3,092,834 17 (d)Further, in order to staff and supply the post in Laguna de Agua Dulce, and in order to provide surveillance support to the disputed territory from its post at Laguna Los Portillos, Costa Rica incurred additional expenses in aquatic transportation The National Coast Guard Service provided transportation for the Public Force and the Border Police, and for their supplies, between Delta, Barra del Colorado, and Laguna de Agua Dulce These locations are indicated on Sketch Map3 1above As a consequence, additional expenses for the salaries of personnelfrom the National Coast Guard Service were incurred Over the period from March 2011 to December 2015 an amount of US$22,678 80 was incurred in respect of these salaries (e)Given the remote location of the newly constructed police posts in Laguna Los Portillos and Laguna de Agua Dulce, it was necessary to provide all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) to the post in Laguna Los Portillos to transport personnel and supplies between that post and the post in Laguna de Agua Dulce Due to the weather and air salinity conditions, these vehicles suffered rapid deterioration, and as a consequence, Costa 108In 2011 and 2012 there was a significant increase in the number of personnel hired, to meet this pressing need: seeLetter from Costa RicanVice Minister of Security to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Reference DVA-284-2017, 21 March 2017, Vol II, Annex 39 109See Letter from Costa Rican Vice Minister of Security to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Reference DVA-284-2017, 21 March 2017, Vol II, Annex 39
52
Rica claims compensation for their acquisition price In total, four ATVs were acquired The first one was purchased for the police,by the National Emergency Commission on 31 March 2014 at a cost of US$23,212 10 The other three were purchased directly by the Ministry of Public Security on 22 October 2015 at a cost of $19,332 10 each, amount to a total cost of US$57,996 30110, as part of a group of expenses for maintenance and ongoing functioning of the police posts in Agua Dulce and Laguna Los Portillos (f)To fulfil its obligations in respect of the RamsarConvention, recorded in the Court’s 2011 Order, and in order to comply with these in the light of the Court’s limitations on Costa Rican access to the disputed territory, in mid-2012 Costa Rica constructed a Biological Station in Isla Portillos, next to Laguna Los Portillos (and to the newly-constructed police post there) This station is shown on Sketch Map 3 1 and 3 2above The Biological Station was necessary in order for Costa Rica to be in a position to continuously monitor the environment of the disputed territory (in coordination with the Ramsar Secretariat), in order to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused as a result of Nicaragua’sunlawful occupation and activities thereon Although Costa Rica is not claiming compensation for the costs of theconstruction of the Biological Station, it claims compensation for a tractor purchased in March 2014 by the National Emergency Commission, because it was necessary to carry out works in the area of the Biological Station for its maintenance and ensure access to it Due to the weather and air salinity conditions, this tractor suffered rapid deterioration, and as a consequence, Costa Rica claims compensation for its acquisition price The total cost of this tractor was US$35,500 00 110The invoice included as part of Annex 14includesthe purchase of seven ATVs because the Ministry of Public Security purchased all of them at the same time, but only the three that were purchased for the posts at Agua Dulce and Laguna Los Portillos form part of Costa Rica’s claim for compensation
53
(g)The Tortuguero Conservation Area (ACTo)personnel were responsible for all actions required to monitor, assess and mitigate environmental damage caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful occupation and activities on the disputed territory They had to dedicate a significant amount of time tointernal and inter-institutional coordination meetings, patrolling, consultation and collaboration with the Ramsar Secretariat missions, measuring and analysing data and potential mitigation actions directly connected to Nicaragua’s unlawful occupation and activities on the disputed territory Having limited resources, both material and human, the Tortuguero Conservation Area(ACTo)personnel was not able to carry out general routine conservation tasks ACTo is responsible for some 1,270square kilometres oflandprotected areaand some 500 square kilometres of marine protected area, yet it had to dedicate vast amounts of resources specifically to the 3 square kilometres invaded by Nicaragua Having assessed the number of staff and numberof days they spent attending to environmental protection actions in Isla Portillos,111over a period of 4 years and seven and a half months (from 1 April 2011 to 15 November 2015) the cost incurred by Costa Rica in respect oftheir salaries was US$25,161 41 (h)The relevant ACTo personnel carrying out site visits to the disputed territory for monitoring and other tasks had to travel to and stay in the vicinity of the disputed territory, at the Biological Station, while performing their tasks there Costs were therefore incurred by Costa Rica in respect of their food and water supplies These costs, incurred over a period of 4 years and seven and a half months (from 1 April 2011 to 15 November 2015)have been quantified at US$8,412 55 111Between 21 October 2010 and 16 November 2015, there were 157 individual days on which Tortuguero Conservation Area personnel had to monitor the environment, maintain equipment, attend coordination meetings and carry out joint missions with the Ramsar Secretariat These are detailed in the table entitled “Costs estimates of SINAC personnel participation in activities related to the situation in Isla Calero” which is included in Vol II, Annex 6
54
(i)The relevant ACTo personnel attending site visits were transported by water on the Colorado River, from Barra del Colorado to the post in Laguna de Agua Dulce This was the only means of transportation to Laguna de Agua Dulce without navigation on the San Juan River From the post,they continued by land vehicles (ATVs) to the Biological Station Thus, these expenses also included the fuel costs for the ATVs used to transport personnel and supplies from the post in Laguna de Agua Dulce to the Biological Station In respect of their transportation by boat over the period from 2 April 2011 to 16 November 2015, Costa Rica incurred expenses of US$3,213 04 for fuel (j)The remote location of the Biological Station necessitated the purchase of two ATVs, with three cargo trailers, dedicated initially to its construction, and later on to access and supply it, transporting materials, personnel and supplies from the post in Laguna de Agua Dulce to the Station Due to the weather and air salinity conditions, these vehicles suffered rapid deterioration, and as a consequence, Costa Rica claims compensation for their acquisition price The two ATVs and three cargo trailers were acquired by the National Emergency Commission for ACTo, on 11January 2012 at a cost of US$42,752 76 (k)Costa Rica also incurred expenses in respect of fuel for the transportation of ACTo personnel to the different site visits, as well as planning and attending meetings with other institutions, including those held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs The total cost of fuel for landtransport over the period from 10 March 2011 to 11 December 2015 was US$6,435 12 (l)Additionally, Costa Rica incurred expenses for the purchase of satellite images of the disputed territory from an authorized commercial provider These images initially served Costa Rica to verify the state of the damage caused by Nicaragua as result of the excavation of the cañoand the felling of trees in 2010, and from 2011 until September 2015, to
55
implement Costa Rica’s obligation to monitor the disputed territory underthe 2011 and 2013 Orders on provisional measures and to monitor the occurrence and impact of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in the disputed territory The costs of acquisition of these images over a period of more than four years, was US$160,704 00 (m)Further, Costa Rica incurred costs in obtaining a report from UNITAR/UNOSAT in November 2011, to assess the damage that had been caused by Nicaragua in the period between October 2010 and November 2011 112The total cost incurred in obtaining this report was US$27,339 00Table3.3:Expenses incurred in monitoring the disputed territoryDate incurredDescription of expense incurredAmountEvidence of expense5-6 April 2011Cost of fuel and maintenance services of police aircraft and salaries of Air Surveillance Service personnel attending on the Ramsar Secretariat advisory mission on 5-6 April 2011 US$21,128 55Annexes 9and 1011September 2014–26November 2015Equipment costs for the two new police posts in Laguna Los Portillos and Laguna de Agua DulceUS$24,065 87Annex 14March 2011 –December 2015Staffing of police posts in Laguna Los Portillosand Laguna de Agua Dulce US$3,092,834 17Annex 13112UNITAR/UNOSAT, “Morphological and Environmental Change Assessment: San Juan River Area (including Isla Portillos and Calero), Costa Rica”), 8 November 2011, Certain Activities, CRM Annex 150
56
Date incurredDescription of expense incurredAmountEvidence of expenseMarch 2011 –December 2015Costs incurred in respect of National Coast Guard personnel providing fluvial transport for personnel and supplies, including to the police post in Laguna de Agua DulceUS$22,678 80Annexes7and 831 March 2014 and 22 October 2015Four ATVs for the police posts in Laguna Agua Dulce and Laguna Los PortillosUS$81,208 40Annexes 14and 157 March 2014Cost of tractor for the equipment and maintenance ofthe Biological Station at Laguna Los Portillos, to allow monitoring of the environment of the disputed territoryUS$35,500 00Annex 151 April 2011–15November 2015Salaries of personnel taking place in different site visits, to monitorof the environment of the disputed territoryUS$25,161 41Annex 61 April 2011–15November 2015Cost of food and water supplies for ACTopersonnel taking part in different site visitsUS$8,412 55Annex 62 April 2011–16November 2015Costs of fuel to transport ACTo personnel taking part in different site visits and suppliesUS$3,213 04Annex 611 January 2012Acquisition price of two ATVs and threecargo trailers, dedicated to the Biological Station US$42,752 76Annex 15
57
Date incurredDescription of expense incurredAmountEvidence of expense10 March 2011–11December 2015Costs of fuel for the transportation of personnel and supplies from Laguna de Agua Dulce to the Biological Station US$6,435 12Annex 6September 2011–September 2015Purchase of satellite images of the disputed territory, to effectively monitor it and to verify Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on the disputed territory in 2013, in breach of Costa Rica’s sovereignty and the 2011 Order US$160,704 00Annex 16November 2011Cost of obtaining report from UNITAR/UNOSAT to verify Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on disputed territory and damage caused thereonUS$27,339 00Annex 17TOTALUS$3,551,433.673.Expenses incurred in implementation of the Court’s 2013 Order, insofar as concerns works necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory3 30 In September and October 2013, in breach of the Court’s 2011 Order on provisional measures, Nicaragua constructed two new artificial cañosonthe disputed territory As the Court noted in its Order on provisional measures of 22 November 2013:
58
(a)satellite images in September and October 2013 confirmed the presence of two new cañosin the disputed territory, and the extension of a trench at the seaward end of the eastern caño;113(b)“Nicaragua admits that the dredging operations for the construction of the cañoswere carried out by a group of its nationals led by Mr Pastora, in the context of the implementation of a project for the improvement of navigation on the San Juan River”, a project that was approved by the Nicaraguan Ministry of Environmental and Natural Resources;114(c)in 2013, as a consequence of Nicaragua’s operations in the disputed territory, there was a real risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by Costa Rica;115(d)the construction of the two new caños in the disputed territory was “inconsistent with the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011”,116a finding that was confirmed in the Court’s judgment of 16December 2015117and was acknowledged by Nicaragua during the oral hearings 118113Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p 364, para 44 114Ibid, pp 364-365, para 45 See also Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, paras 67 (“Nicaragua does not contest that it dredged the three caños…”), and 93 (“It is not contested that Nicaragua carried out various activities in the disputed territory since 2010, including excavating three caños and establishing a military presence in parts of that territory”) 115Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p 366, para 49 116Ibid, p 367, para 50 117Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment,16 December 2015, para 129 (“Nicaragua acted in breach of its obligations under the 2011 Order by excavating the second and third caños and by establishing
59
3 31 In its 2013 Order, the Court further held that:Following consultation with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention and after giving Nicaragua prior notice, Costa Rica may take appropriate measures related to the two new caños, to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory …1193 32 Following the Court’s 2013 Order, on 10 December 2013, Costa Rica, in consultation with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention (and after giving Nicaragua prior notice), carried out an onsite technical visit to the disputed territory to assess the damage caused by Nicaragua’s construction of the two new caños 120Further sites visits were carried out in March(with personnel from the Ramsar Secretariat)121and in July 2014 1223 33 Following those site visits, in August 2014 the Ramsar Secretariat produced a report to address the measures necessary to avoid irreparable a military presence in the disputed territory ” See also para 229(3) (“by excavating two caños in 2013 and establishing a military presence in the disputed territory, Nicaragua has breached the obligations incumbent upon it under the Order indicating provisional measures issued by the Court on 8 March 2011”) 118Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, para 125 (“In the oral hearings Nicaragua also acknowledged that the excavation of the second and third caños represented an infringement of its obligations under the 2011 Order”) 119Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaraguav. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p 370, para 59(2)(E) 120Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-094, 9 December 2013, Vol II, Annex 19 121Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-056, 10 March 2014, Vol II, Annex 20 122Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-078, 17 July 2014, Vol II, Annex 21
60
prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory,123in accordance with the Court’s 2013 Provisional Measures Order 124The Ramsar Report focussed on the eastern caño: the Court will recall that Nicaragua’s constructionof the eastern cañohad progressed much further than the artificial works carried out on the western caño 125The Ramsar Report confirmed:(a)the presence of the eastern caño, which was artificial, having been excavated with machinery;126(b)that part of the San Juan River discharged into the eastern caño,127and that the lagoon at the end of the cañowas receiving water with a higher content of suspended sediment, generating changes in the quality of the water;128(c)sediment from the excavation was deposited on both banks of the caño,but was also likely to have been deposited in other areas;129(d)trees had been felled during the construction of the eastern caño;130123Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 77,10-13 March 2014,August 2014, Attachment CR-5to Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-090-14, 22 August 2014, Vol II, Annex 22 124Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p 370, para 59(2)(E) 125Ibid, p 362, para 36 126Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 77,10-13 March 2014,August 2014, Attachment 5 to Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the ICJ (PCouvreur), Reference ECRPB-090-2014, 22 August 2014, Vol II, Annex 22, p 10 127Ibid, Annex 22, p 10 (of Attachment 5) 128Ibid, Annex 22p 11 (of Attachment 5) 129Ibid, Annex 22, p 10 (of Attachment 5) 130Ibid, Annex 22, p 11 (of Attachment 5)
61
(e)there was a probablechange in the abundance and distribution of terrestrial flora and fauna in the area of the eastern caño, and the loss of terrestrial habitat;131(f)the sandbar separating the lagoon at the end of the eastern cañowas not broken (confirming that the trench dug across it by Nicaragua had been filled, as had been required by the Court in its 2013 Order on Provisional Measures);132(g)there was a risk that a permanent hydraulic connection could develop between the San Juan River, the eastern caño, and the Caribbean Sea, and this could allow the River to flow to the Sea through the caño 1333 34 In these circumstances, the Ramsar Secretariat recommended the implementation of the following:Implementing mitigation measures to prevent the disruption generated by the Caño Estein the [HCN] from continuing to spread This implies avoiding the risk that the volume control that the San Juan river currently has over the behaviour of the Caño Esteand the terminal lagoon of the Laguna Este(amendment of water levers), is transformed into a hydraulic control by flow This means that a hydraulic connection between the San Juan River and the Caribbean Sea will not occur through the Laguna Este Through ecological engineering mitigation measures, using the materials that exist in the [HCN], the zone of the CañoEstewhere a watershed naturally occurs (stub zone) can, for example, be stabilized or reinforced These works could temporarily “contain” any increases in water volumes transported by the Caño Esteduring the flooding of the San Juan River As the hydrodynamics of 131Ibid, Annex 22, p 11 (of Attachment 5) 132Ibid, Annex 22, p 10 (of Attachment 5) 133Ibid, Annex 22, p 17 (of Attachment 5)
62
the RSJ/CE/LE/BA system are better understood, the designs of the works can be modified 1343 35 In order to implement the necessary mitigation measures, the Ramsar Secretariat requested Costa Rica to submit an implementation plan, and also recommended that Costa Rica commence a rigorous monitoring program in the area of the eastern caño 1353 36 In accordance with the Ramsar Secretariat’s request, Costa Rica’s Ministry of the Environment and Energy formulated an implementation plan, dated 12 August 2014 136That plan set out in detail the proposed measures, consisting of adyke to ensure that the waters of the San Juan River were not diverted through the eastern caño These works were expressly stated to be intended “to prevent the imminent risk, caused by the recent heavy rain season, that the river current enters the caño and breach[es] the existing sandbar, creating a permanent connection between the river and the Caribbean Sea through the caño, thus irreparablyaffecting the wetland ”137The planned location of the dyke is super-imposed on a photograph from September 2013 in Figure 3 5below 134Report of the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy, Measures for the Provisional Restoration of the Eastern Caño,12August 2014, Attachment 4 to Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the ICJ (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-090-2014, 22 August 2014, Vol II, Annex 22, p 18135Ibid, Annex 22, pp 18-20 (of Attachment 4) 136Ibid, Annex 22, p 18 (of Attachment 4)137Ibid, Annex22, p 11(of Attachment 4)
63
Figure 3.5:Photograph showing approximate location of the proposed dyke to close the 2013 eastern caño, to prevent irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory 3 37 In accordance with the report of the Ramsar Secretariat, and in implementation of the agreed plan, on 22 August 2014 Costa Rica notified the Court of its intention to carry out the appropriate works to prevent irreparable damage being caused to the environment of the disputed territory 1383 38 In order to carry out the necessary measures, Costa Rica proposed to begin works in September 2014, and requested that Nicaragua give assurances that it would not impede Costa Rica exercising its right of free navigation on the San Juan for the purposes of accessing the disputed territory, and avoiding significant expense if it were compelled 138Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-090-2014, 22 August 2014,Vol II, Annex 22, p 1 Location of the proposeddyke
64
to access it only by air 139Nicaragua initially refused to provide those assurances,140and then agreed not to impedeCosta Rica navigating on the San Juan for the purposes of carrying out this work 141The schedule for the works was then delayed as a result of heavy rainfall in the San Juan River area, resulting of flooding in parts of the NortheastCaribbean Wetland 142In accordance with the agreement with Nicaragua, and after giving notice, Costa Rica attempted to navigate on the San Juan for the purposes of carrying out these works, but Nicaragua prevented Costa Rica from doing so,143and subsequently confirmed its refusal to agree to Costa Rican navigation on the River for this purpose 144139Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-090-2014, 22 August 2014,Vol II, Annex 22, p 1 140Letter from Nicaragua (C Argüello) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference HOL-EMB-107, 29 August 2014, Vol II, Annex 23 See also Letter from Nicaragua (S Santos Lopez) to Costa Rica (M Gonzalez Saez), reference MRE/DM/AJ/414/09/14, 19September 2014, Vol II, Annex 24and Letter from Costa Rica (A Solano Ortiz) to Nicaragua (S Santos Lopez), reference DM-AM-0574-14, 22 September 2014, Vol II, Annex25 141Letter from Nicaragua (C Argüello) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference HOL-EMB-124, 23 September 2014, Vol II, Annex 26 That letter contained incorrect assertions as to facts, which Costa Rica corrected in its Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-103-14, 25 September 2014, Vol II, Annex 27 142See Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with Provisional Measures, 21 November 2014, para 8, annexed to Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-116-2014, 21 November 2014, Vol II, Annex 28 143Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with Provisional Measures, 21 November 2014, paras 8 and 9, annexed to Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-116-2014, 21 November 2014, Vol II, Annex 28 See also Costa Rica,MINAE, ‘Log of notification of entry by water through San Juan River to the territory declared in dispute by the International Court of Justice, 12November 2014, Attachment CR-2 to Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (PCouvreur), reference ECRPB-116-2014, 21 November 2014, Vol II, Annex 28 144Diplomatic note from Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs to Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs, Reference MRE-DM-DGAJST-456-11-14, 11 November 2014, Attachment CR-3 to Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), reference ECRPB-116-2014, 21 November 2014, Vol II, Annex 28
65
3 39 In early December 2014, Costa Rica again tried to make arrangements with Nicaragua to navigate on the San Juan to transport a first batch of materials for construction of the necessarydyke on the eastern caño 145Nicaragua sought to condition any consent to Costa Rica’s navigation on the holding of a “technical meeting” to discuss the works to be carried out,146which was a misrepresentation of the Parties’ agreement 147When Costa Rica attempted to navigate on the San Juan on 5 December, Nicaragua prevented it from doing so 148In an effort to reach an agreement, Costa Rica offered to hold a meeting with Nicaragua in advance of its navigation on the San Juan to the disputed territory 149Nicaragua then sought to condition the holding of a meeting on Costa Rica giving an undertaking to comply with Decree 079-2009, and to agree that Nicaragua should verify the measures to be carried out by Costa Rica in the disputed territory 150Costa Rica indicatedthat it was unable to agree to either of these unreasonable and unjustified requests, 145Diplomatic Note from the Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Reference DM-AM-0774-11-14, 2 December 2014, Attachment CR-1to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29 146Diplomatic Note from the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs to Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs, Reference MRE/DM/677/12/14, 2 December 2014, Attachment CR-2 to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29 147Diplomatic Note from the Acting Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Reference DM-AM-0789-14, 4 December 2014, Attachment CR-3 to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29 148Costa Rica, MINAE, Log of the mission of 5 December 2014 entitled ‘Log of notification of entry by water through San Juan River to the territory declared in dispute by the International Court of Justice, 5 December 2014, Attachment CR-4 to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29 149Diplomatic Note from the Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Reference DM-AM-0818-14, 12 December 2014, Attachment CR-6 to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29 150Diplomatic Note from the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs, Reference MRE/DM-AJ/482/12/14, 15 December 2014, Attachment CR-7 to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29
66
but agreed to participate in the meeting in good faith 151Costa Rica attendedthe meeting on 17December 2014, but Nicaragua’s delegation sought to impose further conditions on Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan, and ultimately refused to authorize the navigation 152In the circumstances, Costa Rica could only conclude that Nicaragua appeared not to intend to facilitate navigation to allow Costa Rica to carry out works to close the eastern caño,153and soughttomake other arrangements for access by air (inevitably involving increased expenses,as explained further below) 1543 40 Nicaragua’s obstruction of Costa Rica’s navigation on the San Juan River necessitated delay, since Costa Rica had to make arrangements to approve funds for the cost of air transportation, and then to contract a private civilian helicopter through a public tender process 155A private civilian helicopter had to be hired to carry out the works, because Costa Rica’s Air Surveillance Service does not possess any type of aircraft with the capacity to carry out such work, for example, transporting sacks of sand weighing nearly a ton each Police and ACTopersonnel provided ground support in tasks such as filling in the sacks of sand, so 151Diplomatic Note from the Acting CostaRican Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Reference DM-AM-0826-14, 16 December 2014, Attachment CR-8 to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, VolII, Annex 29 152Costa Rica, MINAE, Log of the meeting held with Nicaraguan authorities on 17December 2014 entitled ‘Log of the meeting held on the premises of the Nicaraguan Army post in the Delta to notify the entry by the San Juan River in order to navigate to the disputed area declared by the International Court of Justice in Isla Portillos, Costa Rica v Nicaragua, 17December 2014, Attachment CR-9 to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29 153Diplomatic Note from the Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Reference DM-AM-0832-14, 18 December 2014, Attachment CR-10 to Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29 154Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29,paras 18-20 155Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 February 2015, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, Vol II, Annex 29,para 20
67
the private company hired to construct the dyke could carry out the works in a timely fashion The helicopter was also used to deposit the sacks to construct the dyke: it is shown fulfilling that function in Figure 3 6below, on 3 and4 April 2015 Figure 3.6: Photographs of The civilian helicopter being used to transport sacks of sand and deposit them in the2013 eastern caño, 3 and 4 April 2015
68
3 41 Having pursued and completed that lengthy and time-consuming process, on 30 March 2015 Costa Rica notified the Court, Nicaragua and the Ramsar Secretariat that it would commence the works that were necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory and in accordance with the implementation plan agreed with the Ramsar Secretariat 156The works were carried out over a period of seven days, from 31 March to 6 April 2015 157To complete these works, a variety of materials had tobe purchased, including 650 square metres of geotextile; rope; plastic; and shovels A complete report of the works related to the construction of the dyke is included as Annex 4 1583 42 Costa Rica also indicated to the Court that Costa Rican personnel charged with protection of the environment wouldperiodically enter the disputed territory to verify the condition of the works and to assess whether any modifications or further works wouldbe necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory, and any such visits would be carried out in accordance with the Court’s Orders on Provisional Measures 159Following advance notice to the Court, Nicaragua, and the Ramsar Secretariat, Costa Rica carried out overflights of the disputed territory in June, July and October 2015, in order to assess the effectiveness of the works that had been completed to 156Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), 30 March 2015, Reference ECRPB-046-2015, Vol II, Annex 30 See also Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 22 May 2015, Reference ECRPB-080-2015, Vol II, Annex 31, paras 3-4 157Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-098-2014, 16 July 2015, Vol II, Annex 32, correcting the number and weight of sacks of sand 158MINAE, Report of works carried out from 26 March to 10 April 2015, 16 April 2015, Vol I, Annex 4 159Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 22 May 2015, Reference ECRPB-080-2015, Vol II, Annex 31,para 5
69
construct the dyke on the eastern caño These flights verified that the works were effective 1603 43 The expenses incurred by Costa Rica in relation to the necessary works to avoid irreparable prejudice to its territory during the pending proceedings comprise the following, set out in Table 3 4below:Table 3.4: Expenses incurred by Costa Rica in carrying out necessary works on the 2013 caño, to avoid irreparable prejudice to its territoryDate incurredDescription of expense incurredAmountEvidence of expense25 July 2014Cost of flight hours incurred in respect of the hired private civilian helicopter used to conduct a site visit to the disputed territory, in order to assess the situation of the two caños for the purposes of determining the measures required to prevent irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory161(see paragraph 3 32above)US$6,183 00 Annex 1526 March to 10 April 2015Cost of construction materials and hiring of a private civilian helicopter to transport personnel and materials required to construct the dike in the eastern caño(see paragraphs 3 34-0above)US$156,446 27 Annex 15160Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 21 August 2015, Reference ECRPB-111-2015, Vol II, Annex 33, paras 3-4; Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, 20 November 2015, Reference ECRPB-137-2015, Vol II, Annex 34, paras 3-4 161In the claim submitted to Nicaragua for the purposes of negotiation, the amount corresponding to this overflight was inadvertently switched with the overflight of 25July 2014, but the correction does not affect the overall amount of compensation claimed Further, under this head, Costa Rica is claiming only flight hours for the 25 July 2014 overflight, and not for salaries of Air Service Personnel or their subsistence costs
70
Date incurredDescription of expense incurredAmountEvidence of expense9 June 2015Cost of flight hours incurred in respect of the hired private civilian helicopter used to access the disputed territory, in order to monitor the effectiveness of the works that were carried out in March and April 2015 (see paragraph3 32above)US$11,070 75Annex 158 July 2015Cost of flight hours incurred in respect of the hired private civilian helicopter used to access the disputed territory, in order to monitor the effectiveness of the works that were carried out in March and April 2015 (see paragraph 3 42above)US$10,689 00Annex 153 October 2015Cost of flight hours incurred in respect of the hired private civilian helicopter used to conduct an overflight of the disputed territory, in order to monitor the effectiveness of the works that were carried out in March and April 2015 (see paragraph 3 42above)US$11,282 00162Annex 15TOTALUS$195,671.02*****3 44 The material damages suffered by Costa Rica as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in its territory comprise the following categories, quantified as indicated:162This figure was under-reported in the claim submitted to Nicaragua It has been checked against the underlying evidence and is now correct
71
(a)environmental damage caused by Nicaragua’s excavation of the first caño in 2010-2011, and a further cañoin 2013: conservatively assessed at US$2,880,745.82;(b)expenses incurred by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in its territory, notably:(i)expenses incurred between October 2010 and March 2011 in relation to Nicaragua’s presence and unlawful activities on the disputed territory: in a total amount of US$80,926.45;(ii)expenses incurred in monitoring the disputed territory, as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities and in implementation of the Court’s 2011 and 2013 Orders on Provisional Measures: in a total amount of US$3,551,433.67; and(iii)expenses incurred in implementing the Court’s 2013 Order on Provisional Measures, insofar as concerns works to avoid irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory, which expenses were rendered necessary as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in Costa Rican territory: in a total amount of US$195,671.02 3 45 In total, Costa Rica’s claim for compensation is in the amount of US$6,708,776.96 This amount is supported by the evidence referred to and explained in this Chapter 3 Costa Rica requests immediate payment of this amount in full, and if it is not paid immediately, it requests post-judgment interest, as explained further below Costa Rica presented its claim for compensation to Nicaragua in June 2016; Nicaragua did notaccept Costa Rica’s proposal to discuss the matter in bilateral
72
negotiations and it did not respond to Costa Rica’s letter of June for more than five months In these circumstances, Costa Rica is of the view that it is entitled to immediate payment, or topost-judgment interest in lieu thereof 3 46 Further, as explained in Chapter 2 above, Costa Rica claimspre-judgment intereston all compensation to which it is entitled as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities Many of the claimed expenses were incurred by Costa Rica between October 2010 and December 2015 However, Costa Rica makes only a conservative claim for pre-judgment interest, running from the date of the Court’s Judgment on the merits, 16 December 2015 It claims pre-judgment interest at an annual rate of 6 per cent The total amount ofinterest from 16 December 2015until the date of filing this Memorial (3 April 2017)is US$522,733.19 That figure should be updated to reflect the date of Judgment on this compensation phase given by the Court Costa Rica is at the Court’s disposal to provide an updated calculation of pre-judgment interest 3 47 Costa Rica also claims post-judgment interest, on all expenses and on its quantified environmental damage,atanannual rate of 6 per cent As explained in paragraph 2 32above, this is consistent with the approach adopted by the Court in Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea vDemocratic Republic of the Congo),163and is reasonable and justified, given that interest rates have not shifted materially since that time 163Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v.Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p343, para 56
73
SUBMISSIONS1 Costa Rica respectfully requests the Court to order Nicaragua to pay immediately to Costa Rica:(a)US$6,708,776.96;and (b)pre-judgment interest in a total amount of US$522,733.19until3April2017, which amount should be updated to reflect the date of the Court’s Judgment on this claim for compensation 2 In the event that Nicaragua does not make immediate payment, Costa Rica respectfully requeststhe Court to order Nicaragua to pay post-judgment interest at an annual rate of 6 per cent Ambassador Sergio UgaldeCo-Agent of Costa RicaThe Hague, 3 April 2017
74
75
CERTIFICATIONIhave the honour to certify that the documents annexed to this Memorial are true copies and conform to the original documents and that the translations into English made by Costa Rica are accurate translations Ambassador Sergio UgaldeCo-Agent of CostaRicaThe Hague, 3 April 2017
76
77
LIST OF ANNEXES
Technical Reports
No.
Document
Page
1.
Fundación Neotrópica, “Monetary Valuation of the environmental damages arising from the construction of caños and clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the Government of Nicaragua in the Costa Rican territory on Isla Portillos, as required by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015”, 3 June 2016
English translation
85
2.
Fundación Neotrópica, “Explanatory addenda to the Report ‘Monetary Valuation of the environmental damages arising from the construction of caños and clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the Government of Nicaragua in the Costa Rican territory on Isla Portillos, as required by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015’ in view of the request for clarification by Nicaragua in the note addressed to Ambassador Sergio Ugalde (HOL-EMB-280) dated 18 November 2016, 8 December 2016
English translation
159
3.
Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New Works in The Northeast Caribbean Wetland, Report for the Executive Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, July 2013
English translation
175
4.
Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), Report of works carried out from 26 March to 10 April 2015, 16 April 2015
English translation
201
Witness Statement
5.
Witness Statement of Mr Mario Zamora Cordero, Former Minister of Public Security of Costa Rica, 22 March 2017
English translation and spanish original
235
78
No.
Document
Page
Reports of expenses incurred by Costa Rica as a consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities
6.
Tortuguero Conservation Area, National System of Conservation Areas, Report of expenses incurred in attending the situation arised by Nicaragua’s occupation of Isla Calero, 8 January 2016
English translation
3
7.
National Coast Guard Service of Costa Rica, Department of Salaries and Wages, Report on working hours by personnel of the Coast Guard in missions that took place on occasion of Nicaragua’s occupation of Costa Rican territory, 21 October 2010 to 19 January 2015
English translation
19
8.
National Coast Guard Service of Costa Rica, Department of Salaries and Wages, Table of average Coast Guard Salaries, 2010 to 2015
English translation
37
9.
National Air Surveillance Service of Costa Rica, Department of Aeronautic Operations, Operative Expenses Report, 2 March 2016
English translation
43
10.
National Air Surveillance Service of Costa Rica, Department of Salaries and Wages, Salaries Report, October 2010 to April 2011
English translation
51
11.
National Air Surveillance Service of Costa Rica, Department of Salaries and Wages, Table of average National Air Surveillance Pilot Salaries, 2010-2011
English translation
57
12.
National Air Surveillance Service of Costa Rica, Department of Aeronautic Operations, Flight Logs, 14 April 2016
English translation
61
VOLUME II
79
No.
Document
Page
13.
Costa Rica’s Ministry of Security, Department of Salaries and Wages, Report of Salaries paid to Police personnel from March 2011 to December 2015
English translation
119
14.
Costa Rica’s Ministry of Security, Border Police Directorate, Report of Expenses of maintenance and equipment of the Police Post in Agua Dulce including invoices, March 2016
English translation
127
15.
Costa Rica’s National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergencies Attention (CNE), Department of Reconstruction Processes, Report of expenses incurred by the CNE on the attention of situation provoked by Nicaragua’s breach of Costa Rica’s sovereignty including invoices, 4 April 2016
English translation
149
16.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Report and Invoices for expenses incurred by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the purchase of Satellite Images and geospatial data processing corresponding to the area of Isla Portillos and the Mouth of the San Juan River,
1 December 2010 to 2 October 2015
English translation
181
17.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Report and invoices for expenses incurred by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the purchase of UNITAR/UNOSAT reports of Satellite Imagery and Analysis for environmental change detection in Costa Rica, December 2010 and September 2011
English translation
261
Correspondence
18.
Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-029-11, 8 April 2011 (attachments omitted)
275
19.
Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-094, 9 December 2013
283
80
No.
Document
Page
20.
Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-056, 10 March 2014
287
21.
Letter from Costa Rica (J Urbina) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-078, 17 July 2014
291
22.
Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-090-14, 22 August 2014, with attachments
295
23.
Letter from Nicaragua (C Argüello) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference HOL-EMB-107, 29 August 2014
385
24.
Letter from Nicaragua (S Santos Lopez) to Costa Rica (M Gonzalez Sanz), Reference MRE/DM/AJ/414/09/14, 19 September 2014
English translation and Spanish original
391
25.
Letter from Costa Rica (A Solano Ortiz) to Nicaragua (S Santos Lopez), Reference DM-AM-0574-14, 22 September 2014
English translation and Spanish original
401
26.
Letter from Nicaragua (C Argüello) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference HOL-EMB-124, 23 September 2014 (attachment omitted)
411
27.
Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-103-14, 25 September 2014
417
28.
Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-116-2014, 21 November 2014, with attachments
421
29.
Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, Reference ECRPB-020-2015, 20 February 2015, with attachments
499
30.
Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-046-2015, 30 March 2015
569
31.
Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, Reference ECRPB-080-2015, 22 May 2015
573
32.
Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to the International Court of Justice (P Couvreur), Reference ECRPB-098-2015, 16 July 2015
579
33.
Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, Reference ECRPB-111-2015, 21 August 2015
583
34.
Costa Rica’s Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures, Reference ECRPB-137-2015, 20 November 2015
589
81
No.
Document
Page
35.
Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to Nicaragua (C Argüello), Reference ECRPB-043-16, 7 June 2016
English translation and Spanish original
595
36.
Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to Nicaragua (C Argüello), Reference ECRPB-092-16, 5 October 2016
English translation and Spanish original
601
37.
Letter from Nicaragua (C Argüello) to Costa Rica (S Ugalde), Reference HOL-EMB-280, 18 November 2016
English translation and Spanish original
605
38.
Letter from Costa Rica (S Ugalde) to Nicaragua (C Argüello), Reference ECRPB-148-16, 14 December 2016 (attachments omitted)
English translation
611
39.
Letter from Ministry of Security (B Marin) to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship (A Solano), Reference DVA-284-2017, 21 March 2017
English translation and Spanish original
615
83
TECHNICAL REPORTS
85
Annex 1Fundación Neotrópica, “Monetary Valuation of the environmental damages arising from the construction of cañosand clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the Government of Nicaragua in the Costa Rican territory on Isla Portillos, as required by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015”3 June 2016English translation
87
www.neotropica.org 1 3333 Equipo Técnico:ordinador: Bernardo Aguilar González (Director Ejecutivo, Economista Ecológico y Abogado Especialista en Derecho Agrario y Ambiental, Fundación Neotrópica). Técnicos: Marcia Carranza Vargas (Coordinadora de la Unidad de Análisis; Marco Hidalgo Chaverri (Técnico en Biología Tropical, Unidad de Análisis, Fundación Neotrópica.); Adriana Fernández Sánchez (Técnica en Gestión Ambiental, Unidad de Análisis, Fundación Neotrópica). Citar como: Aguilar González, B.; Carranza Vargas, M.; Hidalgo Chaverri, M. y Fernández, Sánchez, A. Monetary Valuation of the environmental damage arising from the construction of artificial caños and clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the Government of Nicaragua in Costa Rican territory on Isla Portillos, as required by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015
Annex 1
88
www.neotropica.org 2 Technical team: Coordinator: Bernardo Aguilar González (Executive Director, Ecological Economist and Attorney specialized in agricultural and environmental law, Fundación Neotrópica) Technicians: Marcia Carranza Vargas (Analysis Unit Coordinator) Marco Hidalgo Chaverri (Technician in tropical biology, Analysis Unit, Fundación Neotrópica) Adriana Fernández Sánchez (Technician in environmental Management, Analysis Unit, Fundación Neotrópica) Cite as: Aguilar González, B.; Carranza Vargas, M.; Hidalgo Chaverri, M. and Fernández Sánchez, A. (2016) Monetary valuation of the environmental damage arising from the construction of artificial caños and clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the Government of Nicaragua in Isla Portillos, Humedal Caribe Noreste, Costa Rica, in conformity with the Judgment of the International Court of Justice, The Hague. Fundación Neotrópica, San José, Costa Rica.
Annex 1
89
www.neotropica.org 3 Table of contents I- Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 II- Factual and legal background of the monetary valuation of damage: Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015 .......................................................................... 7 III- Technical-Environmental background for the monetary valuation of damage ............................. 9 IV- Background on the international state of the art in the monetary valuation of environmental damage .............................................................................................................................................. 14 A- Ecosystem or environmental goods and services ..................................................................... 15 1. Provisioning services ............................................................................................................. 16 2. Regulating services ................................................................................................................ 17 3. Cultural services ................................................................................................................... 18 4. Supporting services .............................................................................................................. 19 B. Theoretical approach of natural resource economics and ecological economy on the valuation of ecosystem services and environmental damage ...................................................... 19 1. Existence of various types of capital ..................................................................................... 19 2. Monetary valuation of ecosystem services ........................................................................... 21 3. Application of the aforementioned framework to wetlands: Recommendations of the Ramsar Convention ................................................................................................................... 25 4. Framework for the valuation of environmental damage ...................................................... 29 C. Applications of the described frameworks in Costa Rica and Latin America ............................ 32 1. Valuation of ecosystem services ........................................................................................... 32 2. Valuation of environmental damage..................................................................................... 36 V- Estimation of the monetary value of the environmental damage caused in Isla Portillos, according to the facts ascertained in the Judgment of 16 December 2015 ..................................... 41 A- Preliminary determination of the ecosystem goods and services included ............................. 41 B- Evaluation of the availability of data and refinement of the estimation methodology ........... 46 C- Compilation and methodological processing of the required data .......................................... 50 E- Results ....................................................................................................................................... 55 1- Environmental damage on ecosystem goods and services documented but not valued .... 56 2- Estimated monetary value of the environmental damage ................................................... 58 VI- Summary and conclusion ............................................................................................................. 62
Annex 1
90
www.neotropica.org 4 VII- Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix 1: List of the studies used for the estimations based on the value transfer methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 70 Appendix 2: Standing timber prices used ......................................................................................... 71 Appendix 3: Weighted monetary values for the value transfer........................................................ 72 Index of tables Table 1- Factual Background – Facts ascertained in the Judgment of 16 December 2015. Source: Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 2015. ...... 8 Table 2- Body of evidence presented by the Government of Costa Rica relevant to the establishment of the technically relevant facts for the monetary valuation of the damage caused. Source: Prepared by the authors based on the cited sources. ......................................................... 11 Table 3- Ecosystem services of the Analysis Framework based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Source: Adapted from Kocian, Batker & Harrison-Cox, 2011, based on (De Groot, et al., 2002) ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 4- Suitability of the valuation methodologies for environmental services and transferability according to the types of ecosystem services included. Source: Liu, et al. (2010). .......................... 24 Table 5- Services provided by selected coastal wetlands and relative magnitude of each service. Source: Adapted from De Groot, et. al. (2007). ................................................................................ 27 Table 6-Summary or the review of the valuation literature by Moreno (2005). Source: Summarized from Moreno (2005) ......................................................................................................................... 34 Table 7 - Methodological backgrounds applied for the valuation of damage in Ecuador and Costa Rica. Source: Prepared by the authors based on the cited studies. ................................................. 38 Table 8- Preliminary selection of ecosystem goods and services for monetary valuation by the valuation team and the technical team of SINAC and the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Source: Prepared by the authors. ..................................................................................................... 43 Table 9- Methods most used in the literature and data required for the monetary valuation of the preselected ecosystem goods and services Source: Prepared by us. ............................................... 46 Table 10- Reference studies for the value transfer that comply with the adopted specifications Source: Prepared by the authors. ..................................................................................................... 47 Table 11- Final selection of ecosystem goods and services for valuation and qualitative description, according to the data and resources available and the existence of reference studies Source: Prepared by the authors. .................................................................................................................. 48 Table 12- Location of the required data in the sources from the technical body of evidence on record to justify the monetary valuation or qualitative description Source: Prepared by the authors. ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Annex 1
91
www.neotropica.org 5 Table 13- Qualitative description of the ecosystem goods or services for which damage can be confirmed in the technical evidence on record but that cannot be valued. Source: Prepared by us. ........................................................................................................................................................... 57 Table 14- Monetary value of the social cost (loss of ecosystem goods and services) of the environmental damage caused in the affected areas of C2010 and CE2013. Source: Prepared by the authors. ....................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 15- Species present in Caño Pastora and compiled prices. Source: Prepared by the authors with data from the National Forestry Office as of 2009 ................................................................... 71 Table 16- Species present in Caño Pastora and compiled prices. Source: Prepared by the authors with data from the National Forestry Office as of 2013 ................................................................... 71 Index of Figures Figure 1- Map indicating the disputed territory, which the Judgment confirmed as Costa Rican territory in Isla Portillos, Humedal Nacional Caribe Noreste. Source: Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 2015................................................................... 9 Figure 2- Location of the artificial caños excavated on Costa Rican territory through intrusions ordered by the Government of Nicaragua in 2010 and 2013. Source: MINAE (2014) ..................... 10 Figure 3- Ecosystem Services. Source: Working Group MEA-UNEP, 2003. ....................................... 16 Figure 5 – Synthesis TEEB Report, Approaches for the estimation of nature’s values. Source: TEEB (2010). ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7- TEV elements and examples of ecosystem services corresponding to each element. Source: De Groot, et al. (2007).......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 8- Graph representation of the environmental damage. Source: Barrantes and Di Mare (2001) ................................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 11- Image comprising several photos included in the records which evidence the damage caused by the clearing of trees and vegetation and dredging of C2010 and CE2013. Source: Technical reports included in Table 2. .............................................................................................. 59 Figure 12- Monetary value of the social cost of the environmental damage calculated for C2010 and CE2013 with a discount rate of 4% over 50 years. Source: Prepared by the authors. .............. 61
Annex 1
92
www.neotropica.org 6 I- Introduction Fundación Neotrópica was established in 1985 with a pioneering mission for environmental history in Costa Rica. Its first steps were characterized by the application of innovative models within the sustainable development framework in a country that, in a tumultuous regional context, established ambitious goals for itself regarding the protection of its forest resources and the bioregional management of socio-environmental systems. Its mission is to seek a fair balance between the costs and benefits of conservation and development. With over 31 years of experience, its technical work areas have included: sustainable development models, community conservation focusing on coastal wetlands, participative management of protected wildlife areas, community rural tourism, socio-environmental conflicts and the valuation of ecosystem services and environmental damage in Costa Rica and abroad (Evans, 1999; Aguilar, et al., 2012; Aguilar, et al., 2013; Aguilar González, 2014; Aguilar, et al., 2015). In the 1980s it positioned itself among the first non-governmental organizations to implement fund management for debt-for-nature swaps. At that time it led pioneering projects in local sustainable development such as BOSCOSA, as well as the Pocotsi project in the North Caribbean area, which sought to reduce socio-environmental conflict in the buffer zones between national parks and other protected areas. Its experience regarding coastal wetlands has been reiterative, consisting of the application of monetary and multiple-criteria valuations of ecosystem functions and services to strengthen protected wildlife areas (Aguilar-González & Moulaert, 2013). Furthermore, it has concentrated its efforts in promoting and developing community conservation models in these ecosystems since 2009 (Sepúlveda-Machado & Aguilar-González, 2015). In compliance with its mission, Fundación Neotrópica seeks to contribute to the resolution of the cross-border conflict that has resulted in the legally recognised damage to the Humedal Caribe Noreste (HCN, Northeast Caribbean Wetland), applying its technical experience to grounds that could lead to a positive conclusion of the case between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Furthermore, it seeks to guarantee full restoration of the valuable cross-border wetland. Finally, it hopes that the resolution of the case and the attention that both countries have paid to this region will lead to a commitment to improve the living conditions of the communities that depend directly on the affected ecosystem. We appreciate the trust which the government has placed in our organization to perform this task during the periods from 2010-2014 and 2014-2018. The goal of this report is to perform a monetary valuation of the environmental damage arising from the construction of caños and clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the government of Nicaragua in Costa Rican territory on Isla Portillos, within the aforementioned wetland, as required by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015. To provide the technical basis for this valuation, this report has been structured into four sections, followed by a summary and conclusion.
Annex 1
93
www.neotropica.org 7 The second section presents the factual and legal background of the valuation, in conformity with the final and definitive judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case between both countries. This is complemented by the technical-ecological background derived from the reports that documented the environmental damage on record, and which were recently verified (section 3). The fourth section presents the relevant state of the art in the valuation of ecosystem services and environmental damage, and provides the basis for the methodological approach used for monetary valuation. The regional and national application of both frameworks is presented. Furthermore, the application of the recommendations made by the RAMSAR Convention to wetland ecosystems is analysed. The fifth section consists of the monetary valuation per se, focusing on the environmental assets and services included, the recently performed data collection processes, and the selection of the methodology used. This section concludes with the monetary estimation of the value of the environmental damage, performed over a 50-year horizon, during which the full recovery of the damage caused is expected, using an environmental discount rate of 4% for purposes of determining the net present value. Finally, the conclusion is presented, followed by the bibliographical sources used in this report. Thus, the factual and legal background established in the context of the case heard by the International Court of Justice is now explored. II- Factual and legal background of the monetary valuation of damage: Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015 This report was prepared in response to the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 2015, whereby the Court determined that sovereignty over the disputed territory belongs to Costa Rica, and that Nicaragua, by establishing a military presence and excavating three artificial caños in such territory, violated the territorial sovereignty of Costa Rica. Furthermore, the Court adjudged that by excavating two new caños and establishing a military presence in the disputed territory, Nicaragua breached the provisional measures indicated by the Court on 8 March 2011. The Court also decided that Nicaragua has the obligation to compensate Costa Rica for material damage caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory (Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 2015). The case was initially filed by Costa Rica on 18 November 2010, claiming, among others, that Nicaragua had occupied Costa Rican territory and caused environmental damage in that area. Costa Rica requested provisional measures on that same date, which the Court adjudged in the Order of 8 March 2011.
Annex 1
94
www.neotropica.org 8 Table 1 below provides a summary of the facts ascertained by the Court in its Judgment that are relevant to this valuation. Table 1- Factual Background – Facts ascertained in the Judgment of 16 December 2015. Source: Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 2015. Paragraphs Subtitle in the Judgment Summary of the facts 65-99 III.A. Sovereignty over the disputed territory and alleged breaches thereof The right bank of the caño excavated by Nicaragua in 2010 is not part of the border between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The territory under Costa Rican sovereignty goes from the right bank of Bajo Río San Juan to its mouth in the Caribbean Sea. Sovereignty of the disputed territory thus corresponds to Costa Rica. In addition, it was determined that Nicaragua performed certain activities in the disputed territory since 2010, including the excavation of three caños and establishing military presence in parts of that territory. Such activities were performed in violation of the territorial sovereignty of Costa Rica. Nicaragua is responsible for such acts; consequently, it has the obligation to compensate Costa Rica for the damage caused by its unlawful acts. 121-129 III.C. Compliance with the provisional or precautionary measures In its Order of Provisional Measures of 8 March 2011, the Court indicated that the parties had to refrain from sending to, or maintaining in the disputed territory, including the caño, any personnel, whether civilian, police or security. It also required the parties to refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve. Based on the uncontested facts, the Court concludes that Nicaragua breached the obligations established in the aforementioned order by excavating two additional caños and establishing a military presence in the disputed territory. Independent of the conclusion in section III.A., the Court determines that such conduct also constitutes a violation of the territorial sovereignty of Costa Rica. 137-144 III.E. Reparation The Court finds that Costa Rica is entitled to receive compensation for the material damage caused by those breaches of obligations by Nicaragua that have been ascertained by the Court. It declares that the relevant material damage and the compensation amount can be assessed by the Court only in separate proceedings. The Court is of the opinion that the parties should negotiate to reach an agreement on these issues. However, if they fail to reach such an agreement within 12 months to the date of the Judgment, at the request of either party the Court will determine the compensation amount based on further written pleadings limited to this issue.
Annex 1
95
www.neotropica.org 9 The Judgment includes the image presented in Figure 1 below to illustrate the location of the facts. The territory of Isla Portillos and an enlargement of the northern part of the island, where the excavation of an artificial caño in Costa Rican territory at the end of 2010 had been confirmed, can be seen. Figure 1- Map indicating the disputed territory, which the Judgment confirmed as Costa Rican territory in Isla Portillos, Humedal Nacional Caribe Noreste. Source: Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 2015. The ascertained facts are a result of the technical body of evidence provided by Costa Rica in several volumes of the Memorial and in additional documentation. For purposes of the valuation of damage, the following chapter provides a summary of the relevant evidence. III- Technical-Environmental background for the monetary valuation of damage Table 2 summarizes the evidence provided in the records of the proceedings that are relevant to the valuation of the environmental damage. A total of 13 technical reports used by Costa Rica to support its claims are listed. These were selected from the entire body of evidence as they were considered relevant to this valuation exercise. It is assumed that they substantiated the relevant facts ascertained in the records and which are included in Table No 1. This list does not include additional audio-visual evidence included in the records, including numerous maps, photographs, and videos, which are listed separately and were used to support this report. Figure 2 presents the location of Isla Portillos, Humedal Nacional Caribe Noreste, of the artificial caño excavated in 2010 and of the two caños (west and east) excavated in 2013. This image was included in the report of the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment, (Ministerio del Ambiente de Costa Rica, MINAE), “Assessment of the environmental damage caused by the Government of
Annex 1
96
www.neotropica.org 10 Nicaragua by constructing new artificial caños at the north end of Isla Portillos in September 2013” prepared for the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention (MINAE, 2014). Figure 2- Location of the artificial caños excavated on Costa Rican territory through intrusions ordered by the Government of Nicaragua in 2010 and 2013. Source: MINAE (2014) The technically-confirmed facts included in Table 2 can be divided into two parts. The first part focuses on the technical facts of the damage caused by the construction of the first caño in 2010 (C2010). This damage is confirmed in eight technical reports from international experts, the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, a Costa Rican NGO, MINAE and the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (National System of Conservation Areas, SINAC). Location of new caños excavated by Nicaragua in 2013
Annex 1
97
www.neotropica.org 11 Table 2- Body of evidence presented by the Government of Costa Rica relevant to the establishment of the technically relevant facts for the monetary valuation of the damage caused. Source: Prepared by the authors based on the cited sources. NUMBER AND LOCATION TITLE PREPARED BY AND DATE TECHNICALLY RELEVANT FACTS 1. COSTA RICA MEMORIAL (CRM), VOLUME 1 (V1), APPENDIX 1 Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican territory Prof. Colin Thorne, University of Nottingham, UK, October 2011 1. Detailed description of the artificial caño excavated in 2010 (C2010), its chronology and alteration of the original landscape; 2. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of C2010, physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees; 3. Description of the clearing of undergrowth vegetation, due to the construction of C2010; 4. Physical description of the size and volume of C2010; 5. Current and potential impact of the construction of C2010 on the wetland ecosystems, including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc.; 6. Economic-ecological value of the damage caused by the actions of the government of Nicaragua as of 2010, including C2010. 2. CRM, VOLUME IV (V4), APPENDIX 143 Report ACTO-RNVSBC-CyP-057-2010 Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones (MINAE)- 22 October 2010 1. Detailed description of C2010 and of the alteration of the original landscape; 2. Summarized description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of C2010; 3. Description of the clearing of undergrowth due to the construction of C2010. 3. CRM, V4, APPENDIX 145 Appraisal of the maximum average age of trees felled in primary forest areas in the Punta Castilla, Colorado, Pococí and Limón sectors of Costa Rica, as a result of the Nicaraguan Army’s occupation for the apparent restoration of an existing caño Miguel Araya Montero (SINAC-MINAE)- December 2010 1. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of C2010, physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees. 4. CRM, V4, APPENDIX 147 Ramsar Advisory Mission Report N. 69: North-eastern Caribbean Wetland of International Importance (Humedal Caribe Noreste), Costa Rica. Ramsar Secretariat 1. Current and potential impact of the construction of C2010 on the wetland ecosystems, including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc.; 2. Recommended preventive and monitoring/restoration measures. 5. CRM, V4, APPENDIX 154 Age approximation of trees cut in the Area under Costa Rica’s Environmental Management located on the causeway of the artificial channel built on a portion of territory of Calero Island to connect the San Juan River with Portillos Lagoon. Miguel Araya Montero (SINAC-MINAE) - August 2011 1. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of C2010, physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees; 2. Description of the clearing of undergrowth, due to the construction of C2010; 3. Physical description of the size and volume of C2010; 6. CRM, V4, APPENDIX 155 Assessment and Evaluation of the Environmental situation in the Humedal Caribe Noreste within the framework of the Order of the International Court of Justice MINAE- 28 October 2011 1. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of C2010, physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees; 2. Description of the clearing of undergrowth, due to the construction of C2010; 3. Physical description of the size and volume of C2010; 4. Current and potential impact of the construction of C2010 on the wetland ecosystems, including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc.; 5. Time for recovery of the ecosystem.
Annex 1
98
www.neotropica.org 12 NUMBER AND LOCATION TITLE PREPARED BY AND DATE TECHNICALLY RELEVANT FACTS 7. CRM,V4, APPENDIX 157 A summary of Actual and Potential Environmental Service Losses Due to the Current Ecological Conflict in the Portillos/Calero Island Region in the Caribe Noreste Wetland in North-eastern Costa Rica Bernardo Aguilar González et. al. (Fundación Neotrópica)- 10 October 2011 1. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of C2010, physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees; 2. Description of the clearing of undergrowth, due to the construction of C2010; 3. Current and potential impact of the construction of C2010 on the wetland ecosystems, including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc.; 4. Time for recovery of the ecosystem. 8. APPENDICES TO THE REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF NEW PROVISIONAL MEASURES (ARINPM) PM-6 Log of the visit to the disputed territory Miguel Araya and Olman Mena (MINAE-SINAC). 18 September 2013 1. Physical description and description of the alteration of the landscape due to the new artificial caño excavated in 2013 to the north of C2010: Caño Este (CE2013); 2. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of CE2013. 9. ARINPM PM-33 Report on the Impact of the Construction of two New Caños on Isla Portillos Prof. Colin Thorne, The University of Nottingham, UK – 10 October 2013 1. Physical description and description of the alteration of the landscape of due to the new artificial caños excavated in 2013 to the northwest of C2010: Caño Este (CE2013) and Caño Oeste (CO2013). 2. Summarized description of the current and potential impact on the wetland ecosystems of the construction of CE2013 and CO2013 including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc. 10. ARINPM PM-19 Technical assessment of the artificial caños on Isla Portillos Eng. Rafael Oreamuno Vega, M. Eng. Roberto Villalobos Herrera (CIEDES, Universidad de Costa Rica) - October 2013. 1. Physical description and description of the alteration of the landscape, from an engineering perspective, due to the construction of CE2013 and CO2013; 2. Engineering restoration measures. 11. Preliminary estimation of the impact of the opening of two new artificial channels on the north end of Isla Portillos between June and September 2013 Miguel Araya Montero (SINAC-MINAE) - October 2013 1. Physical description and description of the alteration of the landscape due to the construction of CE2013 and CO2013; 2. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of CE2013, physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees; 3. Description of the vegetation eliminated due to the construction of CO2013; 4. Description of the clearing of undergrowth due to the construction of CE2013; 5. Summarized description of the current and potential impact on the wetland ecosystems of the construction of CE2013 and CO2013, including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc. 12. APPENDIX TO THE SECOND REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONAL MEASURES DATED 21 MAY 2014 SRCPM CR-1 Final Report for the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention. Assessment of the environmental damage caused by the Government of Nicaragua by constructing new artificial caños at the north end of Isla Portillos in September 2013 MINAE - March 2014 1. Physical description and description of the alteration of the landscape due to the construction of CE2013 and CO2013; 2. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of CE2013, physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees; 3. Summarized description of the current and potential impact on the wetland ecosystems of the construction of CE2013 and CO2013, including the impact on hydrology and biological diversity, etc.; 4. Immediate restoration measures.
Annex 1
99
www.neotropica.org 13 NUMBER AND LOCATION TITLE PREPARED BY AND DATE TECHNICALLY RELEVANT FACTS 13. APPENDIX TO THE THIRD REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONAL MEASRES DATED 21 AUGUST 2014 TRCPM CR-1 Final Report of the Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 77, Wetland of international importance Caribe Noreste, Costa Rica Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention - August 2014 1. Physical description and description of the alteration of the landscape due to the construction of CE2013; 2. Description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of CE2013; 3. Description of the current and potential impact on the wetland ecosystems of the construction of CE2013, including the impact on hydrology and biological diversity, etc.; 4. Restoration measures and monitoring of CE2013. 14. HTTP://WWW.ICJ-CIJ.ORG/DOCKET/FILES/150/18484.PDF Written Statement. Dispute Concerning Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Prof. Colin Thorne, The University of Nottingham, UK - March 2015 1. Reiterates the description from 2010 and the alteration of the original landscape; 2. Reiterates the description of the clearing of trees and undergrowth due to the construction of C2010; 3. Current and potential impact of the construction of C2010 on the wetland ecosystems, including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc.; 4. Physical description and description of the alteration of the landscape due to the construction of CE2013 and CO2013; 5. Summarized description of the clearing of trees and removal of vegetation due to the construction of CE2013 and CO2013; 6. Summarized current and potential impact of the construction of C2010 and CE2013 on the wetland ecosystems, including impact on hydrology, biological diversity, etc.
Annex 1
100
www.neotropica.org 14 These are included in the Costa Rica Memorial (CRM), as appendices to the Request for the indication of new provisional measures filed by Costa Rica before the International Court of Justice on 24 September 2013, as appendices to the second and third report on compliance with provisional measures filed by Costa Rica before the ICJ on 21 May 2014, and the final written statement by Professor Colin Thorne from The University of Nottingham, UK. These documents include eight (8) confirmed tables of technically relevant facts: 1- a detailed description of C2010, its chronology and alteration of the original landscape; 2- a description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of C2010, with the physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees; 3- a description of the clearing of undergrowth vegetation, due to the construction of C2010, and 4- a physical description of the size and volume of C2010. Furthermore, these documents confirm: 5- the description of the current and potential impact of the construction of C2010 on the wetland ecosystems, including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc.; 6- the preliminary estimate of the economic-ecological value of the damage caused by the actions of the government of Nicaragua as of 2010, including C2010; 7- recommended preventive and monitoring/restoration measures, and 8- the estimated time of recovery of the ecosystem. The second part is composed of the appendices presented and produced between 2013 and 2014, as support for the request for provisional measures due to the opening of two new caños to the northwest of C2010: Caño Este (CE2013) and Caño Oeste (CO2013). These documents come from similar sources, and confirm: 1- the physical description and description of the alteration of the landscape due to the construction of CE2013 and CO2013; 2- the description of the clearing of trees due to the construction of CE2013, physical characteristics and approximate age of the trees; 3- the description of the vegetation eliminated due to the construction of CO2013, and 4- the description of the clearing of undergrowth due to the construction of CE2013. The following are also confirmed: 5- the description of the current and potential impact on the wetland ecosystems of the construction of CE2013 and CO2013, including ecosystem services, impact on hydrology, erosion, biological diversity, etc.; 6- the engineering restoration measures, and 7- the immediate restoration measures and monitoring. Each of these tables of facts will be detailed in the results section of this report and in the monetary valuation of the damage per se. In addition, the relevant audio-visual material is included as considered necessary. Next, the basis for the methodology used for the valuation exercise from an ecosystem services perspective and its monetary valuation, as well as that of the environmental damage will be established. The necessary methodological background will thus be completed. IV- Background on the international state of the art in the monetary valuation of environmental damage As previously indicated, this section details the state of the art, in the fields of natural resource/environmental and ecological economics that provide the basis for the international state of the art. We begin with the framework regarding ecosystem or environmental goods and services.
Annex 1
101
www.neotropica.org 15 A- Ecosystem or environmental goods and services Ecosystem or environmental services were defined in the document “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” as “the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems, whether economic or cultural” (Working Group MEA-UNEP, 2003). It can be argued that human beings and different species depend on the environmental or ecosystem services of the environment or biodiversity in which they are immersed; therefore, all species benefit from the natural cycle of processes of growth and biodiversity development and of the ecosystem as a whole. The difference lies in the value that human beings, unlike other species, can assign to such ecosystem services, whether economic or cultural. Another definition of ecosystem services presented by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is that “ecosystem services are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational and cultural benefits; and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth” (Working Group MEA-UNEP, 2003). Environmental services are affected, altered or destroyed due to the negative impacts of unsustainable production systems. Until quite recently, human production processes did not consider important the negative impacts on ecosystems of the expansion of the agricultural frontier, such as deforestation, to name one example. In economics these effects are called negative externalities, which are produced and affect the community of living things throughout the production process. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), approximately 60% (15 of 24) of the ecosystem services assessed are being degraded or used unsustainably, including fresh water, fisheries, air and water purification, regional and local climate regulation, and the control of natural risks and pests. All of the above are a cause for concern and to search for a way to act immediately so as to stop and reverse these trends. To change this situation, different types of economic incentives or disincentives, including penalties proportional to the environmental damage caused to the altered area, can be used. As mentioned above, ecosystems generate different types of environmental services. Figure 3 “Ecosystem Services” divides them into four groups: 1) provisioning services; 2) regulation services; 3) supporting services, and 4) cultural services. All of these services are linked to components of human well-being and are fundamental to the comprehensive analysis of living ecosystems.
Annex 1
102
www.neotropica.org 16 Figure 3- Ecosystem Services. Source: Working Group MEA-UNEP, 2003. Table 3 summarizes the classification of ecological services in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The characteristics of each of the four types of ecological services are presented below. 1. Provisioning services Provisioning services are the products people obtain from ecosystems, sometimes referred to as production services (Beaumont & al., 2007). These include: 1.Food: ecosystems provide a vast range of provisioning services, including fruit, vegetables, edible forest species, as well as marine and freshwater products.
Annex 1
103
www.neotropica.org 17 Table 3- Ecosystem services of the Analysis Framework based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Source: Adapted from Kocian, Batker & Harrison-Cox, 2011, based on (De Groot, et al., 2002) 2.Fibre, wood and fuel: forest and coastal ecosystems contain this type of goods. In coastal areas, mangroves are an important source of wood, charcoal, tannins, alcohols, etc. 3.Medicine and other resources: a wide range of microbial, vegetable and animal species (and their genes) contribute to commercial products in industries such as pharmaceutical, botanical medicine, crop protection, cosmetics, horticulture, agricultural seeds, environmental monitoring, and a number of manufacturing and construction sectors. Products with ornamental value are included in this category, such as plants used to decorate homes. 2. Regulating services Regulating services are the benefits obtained by humans from the regulation of ecosystem processes. Ecosystem goods and services Examples of benefits Provisioning Water supply Provisioning of water for consumption, including quality and quantity Food Hunting, fruit gathering, agriculture and small-scale subsistence fishing Raw materials Construction and production, fuel and energy, forage and fertilizers Genetic resources Improving crop resistance to pathogens and pests Medicinal resources Traditional medicines, pharmaceuticals, chemical models, tools and assay organisms Ornamental resources Providing resources for clothing, handicraft, jewellery, pets, worship, decoration and souvenirs Regulating Gas regulation Providing clean, breathable air, disease prevention, a habitable planet Climate regulation Maintaining a favourable climate promotes human health, crop productivity, recreation and other services Natural hazard regulation Preventing and mitigating risk and natural hazards, such as storms and other adverse weather conditions Soil retention Retaining arable land, preventing erosion and promoting agricultural productivity Water regulation Providing natural irrigation, drainage, groundwater recharge, river flow and navigation Biological control Providing pest and disease control, reducing crop damage Waste treatment Controlling pollution/detoxification, dust particle filtering through canopy services Soil formation Promoting agricultural productivity and ecosystems integrity Pollination Pollination of wild and domestic plan species Nutrient cycling Promotes health and productive soils, gas, climate and water regulation Habitat Habitat and biodiversity Maintaining genetic and biological diversity (and thus most other functions) Nursery cycling Maintaining commercially exploited species Cultural/Information Natural beauty Enjoying scenery Recreation Experiencing the natural world and enjoying outdoor activities Science and education Using natural systems for education and scientific research Historic and spiritual Using nature for religious or historic purposes Cultural and artistic information Using nature as motifs in books, film, painting, national symbols, architecture, advertising, etc.
Annex 1
104
www.neotropica.org 18 1.Biological regulation: interactions between different trophic levels that preserve functional diversity and interactions. Some literature classifies this service as a supporting service. The biological control of pests and pollination are recognized as supporting functions. Table 3 presents this service along with disease prevention. Due to its importance, the pollination service and function is separated. 2.Freshwater storage and retention: water storage and retention, provision of water for irrigation and human consumption. This ecosystem service is the most relevant in freshwater estuaries and wetlands. 3.Water regulation: this concerns groundwater recharge/discharge in land and forest ecosystems. It affects irrigation, navigation and river flow. 4.Climate, atmosphere and gas regulation: forest cover and marine ecosystems affect and are affected by climate and atmospheric conditions. For example, they contribute toward air purification. They also contribute to the balancing of greenhouse gases. Table 3 separates this service into two components. 5.Human disease control: the MEA focuses on the role of ecosystems in controlling infectious human diseases that affect public health. Table 3 joins this service with biological control. 6.Flood and storm protection: this function is related to the ability of ecosystems to reduce natural hazards and disasters. 7.Erosion control: the soil retention function primarily depends on structural aspects of the ecosystems, especially vegetative cover and root system. 8.Waste treatment: the ability of ecosystems for waste assimilation, detoxification, processing and sequestering varies depending on the type of waste, concentration, load ratios and type of ecosystem (Naber, Lange, & Hatziolos, 2008). 3. Cultural services These are the non-material benefits that people obtain from ecosystems (Beaumont, et al., 2007). 1.Cultural and enjoyment: communities have an impact on their surrounding ecosystems and are in turn affected by the nature that surrounds them. Nature moulds the traditions and beliefs of communities, and the cultural value of those ecosystems persists in spite of lifestyle changes. Table 3 separates this service into spiritual and historic on the one hand and cultural and enjoyment on the other. 2.Recreation: the recreational value of ecosystems is a large part of valuation studies, which is not surprising due to the growth in the tourism industry. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), trips to enjoy nature increased 10-30% annually at the beginning of the 90s. 3.Natural beauty: a large number of people enjoy landscapes and natural areas, which is clearly reflected in their preference to live and visit aesthetically pleasing environments.
Annex 1
105
www.neotropica.org 19 4.Education and research: forest and marine ecosystems provide numerous research and education opportunities, through excursions, field studies and reference areas to monitor environmental changes (De Groot, Wilson, & Boumans, Ecosystem functions, goods and services: Classification, description and valuation guidelines, 2002). 4. Supporting services Supporting services are those that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services. They produce benefits for humans through regulation, provisioning and cultural services (Beaumont, et al., 2007). The valuation literature makes a weak distinction from regulation services. 1.Habitat and nursery: defined as a habitat provided by living organisms (Beaumont, et al., 2007). Table 3 groups habitat with biological diversity and separates nursery services. 2.Nutrient cycling and fertility: ecosystems regulate nutrient flows and concentrations through a number of complex processes that allow these elements to be extracted from mineral sources (atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere) or recycled from dead organisms. This service is supported by the diversity of species (Naber, Lange, & Hatziolos, 2008). Table 3, as done in other literature, groups this as a regulation service. Soil formation is also considered a function and a service. There are other ecosystem characteristics that some literature classify as services but that need to be distinguished as functions, since they are key to the existence of ecosystems. This is the case of resilience, which is considered by some literature as a service (Beaumont, et al., 2007). Having developed the framework of ecosystem services, we now move on to the valuation of ecosystem services and of the environmental damage. B. Theoretical approaches to natural resource economics and ecological economy on the valuation of ecosystem services and environmental damage 1. Existence of various types of capital In their technical report on the analysis of the environmental damage caused by the Crucitas mining project in Costa Rica, Aguilar et. al. (2012) indicate that there are at least two theoretical branches that have studied the valuation of environmental services. These are the school of environmental and natural resource economics and the school of ecological economy. Environmental/natural resource economics was established with the goal of addressing the issues of optimizing the use and extraction of natural resources (according to sustainable extraction rates, extinction rates, monetary costs and benefits) and the relationship between the social cost of environmental damage and the private benefits of productive activity. It is an economic exercise that has gained more attention from traditional or neoclassic economics due to the need to address the environmental crisis initially identified in the seventies, now consolidated in problems such as climate
Annex 1
106
www.neotropica.org 20 Figure 4- Joint schematic view of the various components of capital in the biosphere. Source: Aguilar (2007) change. This approach has achieved academic success thanks to the development of the techniques for monetary valuation of the environment (Aguilar, et. al, 2012). Ecological economy suggests that in development and conservation processes we use various types of capital, proposing a capital system that goes beyond the traditional concepts. Traditionally, capital is understood as the production factors that have gone through a production or manufacturing process. Ecological economy adopts a more functional definition of capital, as stock that produces flows of valuable goods or services. These flows can be considered income. Eroding the stock is capital consumption (Aguilar, 2007). This functional definition of capital provides us with a comprehensive view that can help us achieve sustainability. Natural capital is comprised of all stocks of resources in the biosphere that enable the flows of environmental goods and services. Natural capital is different from manufactured capital, as it does not entail transformation by humans (Aguilar, 2007). The entire capital system is presented in Figure 4, which illustrates the interactions between the different categories of capital and the limits on scale imposed by such interactions. Capital is composed of stocks of natural capital, cultural (or social) capital, and manufactured capital. The material and energy flows through these subsystems make possible all natural, social, and economic processes. In this model, the conceptualization of economy goes from a closed system to an open system, sustained by the flow of energy and materials. Growth limits are determined by the underlying layer (cultural capital and natural capital). The adaptation between natural capital and manufactured capital is possible thanks to cultural/social capital (Aguilar, 2007). The principles of sustainability affect all levels of capital. Since they are complementary, investment must be made in their maintenance and qualitative growth as a whole. Thus, the comprehensive view of capital justifies the adoption of a comprehensive valuation framework, or a multidimensional theory of value (Aguilar, 2007).
Annex 1
107
www.neotropica.org 21 2. Monetary valuation of ecosystem services The UNEP’s TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) report confirms the coexistence of valuation approaches as an expression of a comprehensive approach. It includes (monetary and qualitative) preference-based and biophysical approaches (Figure 5). The most comprehensive monetary valuation methodological framework that has been developed and used both in environmental economics and ecological economics, presented in the TEEB report under the neoclassical economics approaches, is the total value equation (Dixon & Sherman, 1990; Pearce & Turner, Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, 1990; De Groot, Environmental Functions and the Economic Value of Natural Ecosystems, 1994; Pearce & Moran, The Economic Value of Biodiversity, 1994; Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002; TEEB, 2010). This method has the advantage that it allows systematically classifying the different services described in the proposed analysis framework. According to this perspective, the value of environmental services can be classified into two main groups, direct use values and indirect use values. Direct use values (DV) are related to the consumption of the service and the existence of capital. Indirect use values (IV) are usually related to changes in human well-being, which do not originate in physical consumption and that recognize the intrinsic value of nature (Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002). Figure 5 – Synthesis TEEB Report, Approaches for the estimation of nature’s values. Source: TEEB (2010).
Annex 1
108
www.neotropica.org 22 Direct use values can be divided into Productive Use Values (PUV) and Consumptive Use Values (CUV). The PUV is the value of environmental goods and services that are commercially exchanged. This value can be identified with the market price. The CUV is the value of environmental goods and services that are consumed without having been taken to the market for valuation, though they could be. This consumption implies an increase in welfare that arises from the utility derived and the savings from the potential value that would have been paid in the market. Self-consumption products are a typical example of this value. Consumption is understood in this scenario in its strict sense of ingesting, expending, or using up (Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002). Indirect values are usually related to natural or cultural capital services that generate human welfare that does not originate in consumption, and acknowledge the intrinsic value of nature. They can be divided into non-consumptive use values (NCUV), option values (OV) and existence values (EV) (Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002). NCUVs derive from natural or cultural capital services that provide increases in welfare without being consumed or traded in the marketplace. They also derive from uses that do not imply consumption of the good or service involved, such as recreation, tourism or education. Option values are a type of insurance premium on future access to ecosystem services. The uncertainty of the future offer of given environmental services justifies the need for that value, as well as human risk aversion. OVs include the value of potential discovery of goods or services that can increase human welfare in the future. EV is the intrinsic, intangible and ethical value of goods and services that is not related to human welfare. It arises from a consideration for non-human entities. It is not necessary to estimate it, and its inclusion in the equation derives from the logical imperative of assuming a position that is not exclusively utilitarian (Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002). Thus, the Total Value Equation can be expressed as: (1)𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑡𝑡+ 𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑡𝑡; where (2) 𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑡𝑡 + 𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑡𝑡; and (3) 𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑁 𝑡𝑡 +𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑡𝑡 +𝐸 𝐸 𝑡𝑡;
Annex 1
109
www.neotropica.org 23 Figure 6 shows a synthesis of the reference framework for the valuation of ecosystem services set forth thus far. Note that it considers that direct use values will include provisioning services and that regulation services, habitat and information are located among non-consumptive use values as they generally do not imply physical consumption. Option values will be a projection of all categories. The total economic value (TEV) estimation techniques depend on available information. They vary from valuation with market prices to the use of shadow prices and survey-based techniques (Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002). Simple valuation techniques are applied in cases where complete and reliable information is available on the prices of capital stock or flows therefrom. Basically, an attempt is made to account for the costs and benefits according to market price information (Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002). Shadow prices (or substitutes) valuation techniques are also frequently used. These are also known as revealed preference approaches. These techniques estimate the value of goods and services through the price of other related goods and services. Thus, among the methods used we find techniques such as changes in productivity, changes in income, hedonic pricing, replacement cost, and travel cost, among others. (Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002). Stated preference approaches are also used (surveys or contingent valuation). These are essentially based on the opinion of interested parties; they are asked how they would react in certain Figure 6-Synthesis of the monetary valuation framework adopted. Source: Aguilar, et al. (2012).
Annex 1
110
www.neotropica.org 24 circumstances. Basically you try to simulate a market through interview techniques (Aguilar B. , Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación, 2002). The time investment and cost of applying these methodologies can be significant, as they depend on a systematic collection of primary or secondary information that, using the environmental services framework described above, must be careful. Thus, they can be called slow methodologies. A valuation technique that gained popularity in the 90s is benefits transfer. It is a quick technique that became popular thanks to the work of Costanza et al. (1997) which has been disseminated in our hemisphere by the Gund Institute of Economics of the University of Vermont, USA, and the U.S. NGO Earth Economics, among others. To address situations where obtaining information for slow methodologies is very expensive or impossible to acquire (such as in a highly conflictive situation), or in which the time factor is very limited or a preliminary estimate is sought, what this method proposes is basically the extrapolation of values from other studies to the case under analysis, based on the different soil covers found at the site. This technique depends on the existence of studies of ecosystems with similar conditions to those of the ecosystem under analysis, and on the existence of reliable information regarding land use percentages of the area under study. This methodology is extensively used nowadays, and it is recognized in the influential TEEB study (Pascual, Muradian, Brander, Gómez-Baggethun, & Martín-López, 2010) as one of the valid alternatives in conflict situations, or limited time and access to information. In the United States it is also applied in environmental forensics (Aguilar, et al., 2012). Due to its popularity, important studies have defined several parameters to be observed to prevent biases and errors in the transfer. Two significant parameters relate to verifying that the methods used in the study or base study are adequate, and that the transferability of values is adequate. In this regard, Table 4 shows us what the state of art in literature recommends in this regard (Liu, Costanza, Farber, & Troy, 2010). Table 4- Suitability of the valuation methodologies for environmental services and transferability according to the types of ecosystem services included. Source: Liu, et al. (2010). Environmental service Suitability for economic valuation Most appropriate method used in the valuation Transferability between sites Gas regulation Medium CV, AC,RC High Climate regulation Low CV High Regulation of floods, disasters and similar events High AC Medium Biological regulation Medium AC, P High Water regulation High M, AC, RC, H, P, CV Medium Soil retention (erosion) Medium AC, RC, H Medium Waste regulation High RC, AC, CV Medium a High
Annex 1
111
www.neotropica.org 25 Environmental service Suitability for economic valuation Most appropriate method used in the valuation Transferability between sites Nutrient cycling Medium AC, CV Medium Water supply High AC, RC, M, TC Medium Food High M, P High Raw materials High M, P High Genetic resources Low M, AC Low Medicinal resources High AC, RC, P High Ornamental resources High AC, RC, H Medium Recreation High TC, CV, ranking Low Aesthetic High H, CV, TC, ranking Low Science and education Low Ranking High Spiritual and historic Low CV, ranking Low AC, avoided cost (defensive); CV, contingent valuation; H, hedonic prices; M, market prices; P, productivity effects; RC, replacement cost; TC, travel cost. The Ramsar Convention has adopted the developed framework, practically as a whole, for the valuation of wetlands. The following section briefly describes that adoption. 3. Application of the aforementioned framework to wetlands: Recommendations of the Ramsar Convention The Ramsar Convention has published two documents on the application of monetary valuation methods to wetlands. The first document was published in 1997 as a guide for policy makers and planners. It justifies the effort with the fact that monetary valuation serves to measure and compare the different benefits of wetlands. Thus, it can be an efficient instrument to aid and improve the use and rational management of global wetland resources. The authors indicate that until then wetlands had been undervalued because many of the ecological services, biological resources and amenity values they provide are not bought or sold, which makes them difficult to price (Barbier, Acreman, & Knowler, 1997). It indicates that a key concept underlying the principles of the Ramsar Convention is that wetlands have great value. Conservation can only be achieved if wetlands can be shown to be of value and, in some cases, of greater value than proposed alternative uses of the wetland site itself or of the water feeding the wetland. In line with this, Contracting Parties are asked to provide physical and social values of wetlands as part of the information for designation on the List of Wetlands of International Importance, as is the case of HCN. Contracting Parties are also committed to making environmental impact assessments, before initiating schemes that might affect wetlands, which should pay particular attention to maintaining the values of wetlands (Barbier, Acreman, & Knowler, 1997). Regarding the recommended monetary valuation framework, the guide establishes that for researchers to value the uses of wetlands and for decision-makers to take them into account when making policies
Annex 1
112
www.neotropica.org 26 that affect wetlands, a framework is necessary to distinguish and group these values. It indicates that the concept of total economic value (TEV) provides such a framework and there is an increasing consensus that it is the most appropriate one to use (Barbier, Acreman, & Knowler, 1997). Regarding its application, Barbier et al. (1997) indicate that ideally any assessment ought to lead to an economic valuation of all benefits and costs associated with each wetland use option that is to be evaluated. It recommends the application of the cost-benefit analysis technique. However, given that data limitations often constrain the analyst’s ability to value many environmental functions and resources, it will be necessary to adapt the assessment methodology in such circumstances to provide the best information possible to aid decision-making. This is due to the importance of preventing stagnation of the potential decisions that affect the protection of such valuable ecosystems, which are at risk. Thus, the necessary application of the precautionary principle must be kept in perspective (Barbier, Acreman, & Knowler, 1997). They demonstrate the application of the framework for the identification of the economic benefits with examples from Petexbatún wetlands, Department of Petén, Guatemala and the mangrove wetlands in the North Pacific Coast of Nicaragua. To estimate the monetary value they agree with that indicated herein regarding the need to mix direct valuation methods with market information and indirect valuation methods. The report is complemented with a detailed examination of case studies of wetlands in Nigeria, United States, United Kingdom, Sweden and Indonesia. For reference regarding coastal wetlands, two case studies are presented, one in Southwest United States and another in the mangrove wetlands of Indonesia (Barbier, Acreman, & Knowler, 1997). The second document is a compilation of guidelines for the valuation of wetland ecosystem services, published in 2007. It arises from that in the period from 2002 to 2005 the Convention’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel reviewed the set of Ramsar guidance on wetland inventory, assessment and monitoring and recognized the need for guidance on wetland valuation to complement and update the work of Barbier, et al. (1997) prepared for the Ramsar Convention (De Groot, Stuio, Finlayson, & Davidson, 2007). The document integrates in the guidelines a more comprehensive and structured view of the reasons why wetlands are undervalued and over-used. According to this report, the reasons include: •Market failure: public goods. Many of the ecological services, biological resources and amenity values provided by wetlands have the qualities of a public good, i.e. many wetland services are seen as “free” and are thus not accounted for in the market (e.g. water purification or flood prevention). •Market failures: externalities. Another type of market failure occurs when markets do not reflect the full social costs or benefits of a change in the availability of a good or service (so-called externalities). For example, the price of agricultural products obtained from drained wetlands does not fully reflect the costs, in terms of pollution and lost wetland services, which are imposed upon society by the production process. Annex 1
113
www.neotropica.org 27
• Perverse incentives (e.g., taxes/subsidies stimulating wetland over-use). Many policies and
government decisions provide incentives for economic activity that often unintentionally work
against the wise use of wetlands, leading to resource degradation and destruction rather than
sustainable management. An example might be subsidies for shrimp farmers leading to
mangrove destruction.
• Unequal distribution of costs and benefits. Usually, those stakeholders who benefit from an
ecosystem service, or its over-use, are not the same as the stakeholders who bear the cost. For
example, when a wetland is affected by pollution of the upper catchment by runoff from
agricultural land, the people living downstream of the wetland could suffer from this. The
resulting loss of value (e.g., health, income) is not accounted for and the downstream
stakeholders are generally not compensated for the damage they suffer.
• No clear ownership. Ownership of wetlands can be difficult to establish. Wetland ecosystems
often do not have clear natural boundaries and, even when natural boundaries can be defined,
they may not correspond with an administrative boundary. Therefore, the bounds of
responsibility of a government organization cannot be easily allocated and user values are not
immediately apparent to decision-makers.
• Devolution of decision-making away from local users and managers. Failure of decision-makers
and planners to recognize the importance of wetlands to those who rely on them, either directly
or indirectly (De Groot, Stuio, Finlayson, & Davidson, 2007).
The report highlights the need to have participatory instances in the design and assessment of policies
and, consequently, the valuation processes. Similarly, within a comprehensive proposal, it introduces
the need to identify and create an inventory of the ecosystem functions and services.
It adopts the model of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment to identify these services. Table 5,
adapted from that report, shows a comparison of the relative size (by surface unit) of each ecosystem
service provided by diverse types of wetland according to the opinion of international experts (De Groot,
Stuio, Finlayson, & Davidson, 2007).
Table 5- Services provided by selected coastal wetlands and relative magnitude of each service. Source: Adapted from De
Groot, et. al. (2007).
Services Estuaries and marshes Mangroves (Tidal tropical
forested wetlands)
Provisioning
Food High High
Fresh water Low None
Fibre and fuel and other raw materials Medium Medium
Biochemical products and medicinal
resources
Low Low
Genetic materials Low Low
Ornamental resources Low Low
Regulating
Air quality regulation Low Medium
Climate regulation Medium Medium
Annex 1
114
www.neotropica.org 28 Hydrological regimes (recharge and discharge) Low None Pollution control and detoxification Medium Medium Erosion protection Medium High Natural hazards mitigation High High Biological regulation Medium High Cultural and recreational Cultural heritage and identity High Low Spiritual and artistic inspiration High Low Recreational High Low Aesthetic High Low Educational Low Low Supporting Biodiversity and places for breeding Medium Medium Soil formation Medium Medium Nutrient cycling Medium Medium The original Table includes more types of continental and coastal wetlands. Here we include two systems which seem important to establish parameters for the goals of this study, estuaries and marshes and mangroves as a representation of tidal tropical forested wetlands. Similarly, the report develops indicators to determine the sustainable use of the different wetland ecosystem services. Furthermore, it establishes parameters for ecological and sociocultural valuation. In economic terms, it also adopts the TEV framework for the monetary valuation of ecosystem services. Figure 7 shows us the application of the ecosystem services provided by wetlands, according to the authors.
Annex 1
115
www.neotropica.org 29 Figure 7- TEV elements and examples of ecosystem services corresponding to each element. Source: De Groot, et al. (2007) Within this framework, the report also focuses on the need for a variety of direct and indirect estimation methods, recognizing all methodologies set out in the TEEB report. This includes slow direct valuation methodologies, shadow prices, contingent valuation and the quick value transfer methodology. Regarding the latter, when there is no time to perform an original investigation, or there is no available data, benefits transfer may be used, but with caution (De Groot, Stuio, Finlayson, & Davidson, 2007). Having developed the TEV valuation framework for the valuation of ecosystem services and its application to wetlands, we now focus on the methodology applied by that framework to the valuation of environmental damage. 4. Framework for the valuation of environmental damage The application of this framework to the monetary valuation of environmental damage has found, as recognized by Moreno (2005), one of its prevalent expressions in the biophysical and social costs method of the Instituto de Políticas para la Sostenibilidad (Institute on Sustainability Policies, IPS) from Costa Rica.
Annex 1
116
www.neotropica.org 30 The base document for this methodology is from 2001, and was developed by a multidisciplinary team from that non-profit organization, whose goal of analysing and formulating policies for development and conservation. Its main activities are research and training. The document was developed for SINAC (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001). As a starting point, environmental damage is defined as an action or activity that causes an unfavourable disturbance in the natural environment. This action causes a change in the condition of the affected resources; therefore, it is necessary to know the state of conservation of the resource before and after the disturbance. Thus, it considers this change as that considered in the analysis of the terms of the expression, effects, causes and agents involved, which serves as basis for the methodology proposed in the estimation of the restoration cost and the social cost (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001). To define the environmental damage, the study starts by determining the state before and after the action that causes the damage (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001). It is expressed by the equation: (4)𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷=􀶱[𝑓𝑓1(𝑡𝑡)−𝑓𝑓2(𝑡𝑡)]𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥𝑡𝑡0 where DA: is the damage caused to the natural resource, j, f1(t): explains the behaviour of the natural resource (or environmental factor) before the damage, f2(t): explains the behaviour of the natural resource (or environmental factor) after the damage, t: time, x: duration of the effect on factor j. It graphically represents the change condition according to Figure 8. The Total Cost is expressed by three components: (5)𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇=𝑅𝑅𝑅 +𝑆𝑆𝑆 +𝐸𝐸𝐸 where TC: is the total monetary cost associated to the environmental damage,
Annex 1
117
www.neotropica.org 31 RC: is the restoration cost (used as indicator of the value of the biophysical damage) of the natural environment affected to its initial state of conservation, SC: is the social cost, which depends on the loss of generated benefits due to the effects on the state of conservation of the natural environment, and the quality and quantity of flows provided by the natural capital, EC: is the value of the total extracted production, in the case of extractions (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001). Figure 8- Graph representation of the environmental damage. Source: Barrantes and Di Mare (2001) Thus, Barrantes and Di Mare (2001) indicate that for purposes of estimating restoration costs it is necessary to identify the state of conservation of the natural resources affected and the degree of the effects thereon. Knowing the state of conservation prior to the disruption, it is possible to determine the estimated time for restoration of the resource, which shall result in a more correct approximation of the economic costs that it will entail. Specifically, the methodology developed to estimate the restoration cost is a function of the inputs required and time for restoration of the natural resources affected to the conditions before the disturbance. Since the action may affect one or more resources, the time for restoration must correspond to the resource with the longest recovery time (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001; Vega, Evaluación Económica del daño ambiental causado por los incendios forestales en Costa Rica, 2004). The estimation of the social costs considers the benefits lost due to the environmental damage caused. Thus, it is necessary to determine the group of benefits provided by the natural environment affected and how these benefits have decreased due to the environmental disturbance. If the benefits are measurable, a direct method is proposed which depends on the available information on the benefits
Annex 1
118
www.neotropica.org 32 lost and the means to compensate them. If, on the contrary, the benefits are not measurable, a method is proposed where the social cost is proportional to the restoration cost, where the proportionality constant is based on the change in the state of conservation (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001; Vega, Evaluación Económica del daño ambiental causado por los incendios forestales en Costa Rica, 2004). Furthermore, the methodology proposes assessing the initial state of the natural resources involved by measuring the potential to provide the flows or environmental services that benefit society. The qualities proposed are 1) scale, 2) elasticity (resilience), 3) representativeness, 4) complexity and the fact of being or not a 5) key component. A weighing proposal is presented, as well as ranges. In addition, a series of possible indicators to determine the state of conservation of the natural resources is specified. Flexibility is recommended in the selection of indicators and weighing according to the factors of the specific contexts (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001; Vega, Evaluación Económica del daño ambiental causado por los incendios forestales en Costa Rica, 2004) Although the environmental services framework defined by the methodology is not as broad and detailed as that developed above based on the MEA (e.g. it does not contemplate the systematization of provisioning, regulation, habitat and information services) it is quite comprehensive. The weighing of the state of conservation ideally depend on direct field verifications or, depending on that established by the study, the development of an updated, reliable, systematic, continuous and consistent database, which allows having statistics about the biophysical state of natural resources and the flows that benefit the population’s welfare (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001; Vega, Evaluación Económica del daño ambiental causado por los incendios forestales en Costa Rica, 2004) The valuation methods recommended are fundamentally direct and indirect valuation, of the slow methods established above. In addition, it must be noted that the study does not specifically adopt a governing framework of the estimation, such as the total value estimate, tool adopted here and previously in the application of this context to the Crucitas mining project by Aguilar et al. (2012). The Crucitas mining conflict in Costa Rica also generated advances in the application of this valuation framework, as it introduced variants with the quick value transfer methodology in the studies requested by the National Comptroller’s Office and the Contentious-Administrative Court that determined, in the execution of the judgment of first instance, the monetary value of the environmental damage caused by this project, declared illegal by that judicial forum (Aguilar, et al., 2012; Marozzi, Chacón, Alpizar, & Mata, 2012). C. Applications of the described frameworks in Costa Rica and Latin America 1. Valuation of ecosystem services The most comprehensive study is that of a researcher from Universidad Nacional, Mary Luz Moreno, which documents the trends in valuation literature in Costa Rica, both on ecosystem services and
Annex 1
119
www.neotropica.org 33 environmental damage, up to the first decade of the XXI Century (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001; Vega, Evaluación Económica del daño ambiental causado por los incendios forestales en Costa Rica, 2004) This work identified seven types of studies, among the best known and influential studies. Table 6 summarizes the 36 studies examined by Dr. Moreno, by categories and methods identified. Furthermore, it indicates which have been influential in environmental decision-making in the country. Some of the trends in this study are summarized as follows: First, the vast majority of literature is grey, mainly composed of studies published with reviewers regarding the study of protected wildlife areas and the water resource. Furthermore, the studies that have had an effect on environmental policies are mainly related to water resources and estimations of environmental damage. The studies using alternative methodologies with participatory elements or a multiple-criteria analysis do not seem to have much influence until this review. Finally, it can be noted from Moreno’s study that in most cases no distinction is made between the implications of a valuation study from environmental economics and from ecological economy. An important study not contemplated by Moreno (2005) is the study by the former Minister of the Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, René Castro, who performs a valuation of the environmental services generated by Costa Rican forests to offset climate change (Castro, 1999). The trends identified by Moreno also appear in the review subsequently performed by Aguilar (2007) of 55 studies in Latin America. A notable difference is that the collective work found in that study clearly distinguishes for the first time the studies that can fall within the framework of environmental economics and those that fall under ecological economy. This study publishes several investigations listed by Moreno and other new ones. Three studies are included that are considered to be from ecological economics (one with the cluster analysis methodology and two multiple-criteria analysis). Furthermore, 10 more studies from an environmental economics approach are included (Aguilar B. , Reflexiones y estudios de caso utilizando una Teoría Multidimensional del Valor: recomendaciones para Centroamérica, 2007).
Annex 1
120
www.neotropica.org 34 Table 6-Summary or the review of the valuation literature by Moreno (2005). Source: Summarized from Moreno (2005) Category Study Methods Effect on Costa Rican Environmental Policies Published with review / Grey literature Valuations related to water resources Barrantes, Vega and Maldonado (2003) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) Executive Decree that stipulates the charging of a fee to water concessionaires in Costa Rica G Corella (2001) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) G Segura et. al. (2001) Revealed preference (shadow prices) G Reyes and Córdoba (2000) Revealed preference (shadow prices) G Barrantes and Castro (1999) Revealed preference (shadow prices) and stated preference (contingent valuation) Served as basis to develop a plan for the collection and payment of the water environmental services, environmentally adjusting the rate for the distribution of drinking water. P Barton (1999) Stated preference (contingent valuation) G Merayo (1999) Stated preference (contingent valuation) G Barrantes and Castro (1998a) Stated preference (contingent valuation) The study served as basis for discussion of possible rates and income from the water part of the environmental area. G Barrantes and Castro (1998b) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) P Marozzi (1998) Stated preference (contingent valuation) G Valera (1998) Stated preference (contingent valuation) G Solórzano, et. al. (1995) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) and stated preference (contingent valuation) G Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services Hearne and Motte (2001) Choice experiments G Mejías, Alpízar and Watson (2000) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) G Bolaños et al. (1996) Direct valuation G Carranza et al. (1996) Revealed preference (shadow prices) The first amount paid for PSA in Costa Rica was in 1997 and was based on this study. G Menkhaus and Lober (1995) Revealed preference (shadow prices) P Valuation of specific ecosystems De Sena (1997) Revealed preference (shadow prices) and stated preference (contingent valuation) G Barton (1995) Direct valuation G Valuation of conservation areas, national parks and biological reserves Adamson (2001) Stated preference (contingent valuation) P Mejías (2001) Direct valuation and stated preference (contingent valuation) G Echeverría et al. (1997) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) and stated preference (contingent valuation) G Shulz et al. (1994) Stated preference (contingent valuation) P
Annex 1
121
www.neotropica.org 35 Category Study Methods Effect on Costa Rican Environmental Policies Published with review / Grey literature Gutic (1993) Direct valuation G Tobias and Mendelsohn (1991) Revealed preference (shadow prices) P Valuations to measure environmental damage Barrantes and Vega (2004) IPS- Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) G Barrantes et al. (2004) IPS- Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) Input for the Environmental Administrative Tribunal to punish the perpetrator and to carry out actions related to the recovery, compensation or mitigation of the damage. G Vega et al. (2004) IPS- Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) G Vega, Vega and Barrantes (2004) IPS- Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) G Espinoza et al. (2001) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) With this information SETENA determined that the company had to pay a penalty. Although it considered that the damage caused is not measurable, it estimated that the penalty would be fair to respond to the contamination of the river caused by wastewater of the accused company. The Environmental Administrative Tribunal issued a resolution on the case based on the valuation performed. G Valuation with alternative methodologies Marozzi (2004) Multiple criteria analysis G Reyes et al. (2004a) Multiple criteria analysis G Reyes et al. (2004b) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) with focus groups G Camacho et al. (2003) Case study and multiple criteria analysis G Hartley (2002) Multiple criteria analysis G ICE (1994) Direct valuation and revealed preference (shadow prices) with focus groups G
Annex 1
122
www.neotropica.org 36 An aspect not contemplated in Moreno’s study (2005) is the presence of biophysical valuations for Costa Rica. A more notable example is the work compiled by Hall (2000). This work includes an evaluation of implicit energy in the country’s development model and a series of studies by production sector using various methodologies of this type (Hall, 2000). This trend has been followed by other studies such as Informe del Estado de la Nación, which in its last issues has reported the evolution of the country’s ecological footprint (Programa del Estado de la Nación en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, 2011). It is important to note a study from 2007 which in the context of Costa Rica and Panama makes a combination of monetary and qualitative methodologies. A study by Marozzi and Solís (2007) expressly recognizes the value of combining the TEV techniques with the multiple criteria technique. This comprehensive methodology is applied to the problem of the conservation of the wetlands Gandoca-Manzanillo and San San Pond Sak in Panama (Marozzi & Solís, Valoración económica total de los humedales Gandoca-Manzanillo San San Pond Sak en el caribe fronterizo entre Costa Rica y Panamá, 2007). Subsequent evolution has demonstrated the trend of performing valuations that measure the socioeconomic contribution of protected wildlife areas through a cluster analysis methodology (Moreno, Choden, Floquet, & Mongbo, 2011). Furthermore, it is important to mention the studies that have combined or promoted the combination of methodologies within a multi-dimensional framework for the valuation of environmental damage at Isla Portillos, Humedal Caribe Noreste or for the Humedal Nacional Térraba-Sierpe (Aguilar-González & Moulaert, 2011; Aguilar-González & Moulaert, 2013). The work compiled in the second of these studies has been pioneering with regard to the use of the multiple-criteria methodology and having an impact on the environmental policy, as it was instrumental to the approval of the Management Plan for that wildlife area. 2. Valuation of environmental damage In an extensive compilation study, UNEP reported the state of art in terms of the recognition of methodologies for the valuation of environmental damage up to 2006, with strong emphasis on the European Community and Latin America (Castañón del Valle, 2006). A series of constants were extracted from the instruments examined. First, it distinguishes between the systems based on a subjective understanding and those with an objective understanding of environmental damage. The Subjective System is where the originator of the damage is considered liable if there are subjective elements of guilt or negligence. It is the system that prevails in countries such as Italy, France, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Holland, among many others. According to this mechanism, in order to repair environmental damage the behaviour of the parties that cause such damage is taken into account. On the other hand, in the Objective System the originator of the damage is considered liable independently of proof of guilt or negligence, and can only be exempted from liability if it is proven that the damage was caused by force majeure, or was inevitable and unavoidable (Castañón del Valle, 2006). Castañón del Valle recognizes two central concepts as typical stages of the various systems examined: 1 -
Annex 1
123
www.neotropica.org 37 identification and determination of the effects of the damage, and 2 - valuation of the damage. (Castañón del Valle, 2006; Barrantes, Metodología para la evaluación económica del daño ambiental, 2011). Secondly, it can be verified from the examination that the theoretical framework of the total value equation is recognised within both of these legal environments as one of the guiding frameworks of common application. However, it is worth noting, perhaps because of the date of the source, that an organizing framework for environmental services, such as that of the MEA, is not documented as having being widely used. Furthermore, according to this source, the diversity of valuation methods, from slow direct and indirect methodologies to quick (value transfer) and multiple criteria methodologies are recognized by legal theory and by the instruments examined (Castañón del Valle, 2006). After citing examples of instruments that require the valuation of environmental damage, such as Decree N° 233 of the General Environmental Law of El Salvador, from 1998, the General Environmental Law of Panama (41 of 1998), or that of Peru (28611 of 2005, it concludes generally that there are no standards in the assessed instruments that establish procedures for valuation or common criteria to put into practice their contents, which creates problems regarding the legal certainty of the offenders. Even when examining the situation in the European Union, it indicates that “the White Paper on Environmental Liability of the European Commission recommends that when restoration is technically not possible, the valuation of the natural resource has to be based on the costs of alternative solutions, aiming at the establishment of natural resources equivalent to the destroyed natural resources... Apart from that guideline, the European Union lacks, as is practically the case of the entire international community, specific guidelines for the valuation of environmental damage.” It recognizes that in the case of the European Union as well as in other areas there are cases that use: 1) the value of the environmental damage, irrespective of the restoration or cleaning costs, 2) the compensation of resources through primary restoration or compensation from another site, and 3) a mix of the two (Castañón del Valle, 2006). Thus, it concludes that the process of valuation of the environmental damage cannot be as simple as applying previously defined valuation techniques, as it needs to be much more sequentially elaborate. First, a starting point needs to be established, to determine the initial conditions of the environmental damage caused, assessment of the damage caused, the number of affected parties, initial situation of the damaged environment, etc. This first phase is followed by the valuation per se, which shall estimate the loss suffered, and thirdly, using all of the foregoing information, decide on the reparation best suited for the fact under consideration. The whole process, in all phases, must adapt to the characteristics of each case (Castañón del Valle, 2006). There are two additional points worth noting regarding this review. First, the existence of systems that define standardized values by amount or space of the environmental damage. This is the case of the United States with damage due to oil spills, where mitigation costs were standardized following the EXXON-Valdez spill in Alaska (1998). Second, there are systems where a standardized and unique value is defined by species (or damage to a species). This is the case of Decree 4/1986,
Annex 1
124
www.neotropica.org 38 from 22 January, which extends the list of protected species and establishes rules for their protection in the territory of the Autonomous Community in Andalucía (Spain), where, for example, the value of a sea turtle is estimated at €3,005.10, the same as that for an imperial eagle and other marine mammals (Castañón del Valle, 2006). To provide an example of recent cases in Latin America, we can cite here methodologies for the valuation of environmental damage recently applied in Ecuador and in Costa Rica, in compliance with their domestic environmental law in the administrative venue. These are summarised in Table 7. The countries seem to be moving toward the establishment of more advanced methodological frameworks. Table 7 - Methodological backgrounds applied for the valuation of damage in Ecuador and Costa Rica. Source: Prepared by the authors based on the cited studies. It can be observed that the records from Ecuador from the beginning of the 2000s show the establishment of a fixed price per hectare of primary forest and secondary forest, based on the methodology recommended by IPS, which was subsequently recommended for Paraguay (Barrantes & Cháves, Valoración Económica del Daño en Bosques Naturales. Estudio de Caso: Bosque Húmedo Tropical en Ecuador, 2000). The estimated values per hectare range from $1,357.76 to $2,160.43. Reference areaYear Economic value of the environmental damages Hectares affected Value per hectare MethodPerformed byTropical wetlands of Ecuador2001 and 2008$2,160.43 1$2,160.43 Restoration cost, market and ecosystem weighingMinistry Agreements 442 from 2001 and 178 from 2008 regarding restoration csots, based on Barrantes (2000)Tropical wetlands of Ecuador2001 and 2008$1,357.76 1$1,357.76 Restoration cost, market and ecosystem weighingMinistry Agreements 442 from 2001 and 178 from 2008 regarding restoration csots, based on Barrantes (2000)River protection area, Puriscal, Costa Rica2010$71,698 0.02$71,698 Investment to cause the damage and ecosystem weighingACOPAC Technicians for the Environmental Court, based on Barrantes (2002)Native primary forests and intervened forests in Ecuador2012 $2,000 - $20,000 1 $2,000 - $20,000 Restoration cost by hectare and ecosystem weighing, between high and lowMinistry Agreement 1330 from 2012 on restoration costsRiver protection area, Alajuela, Costa Rica2012$533.21 0.004$143,220.52 Market and ecosystem weighingTechnicians from the ACCVC Grecia Office for the Environmental CourtDeforestation of the Crucitas Mining Project, Costa Rica2012$4,600,000.00 86.5$53,179.19 Restoration cost and value transfer based on SIG for loss of environmental servicesMultidisciplinary team of Fundación Neotrópica, at the request of MINAERiver protection area, Alajuela, Costa Rica2014$312.34 0.04$8,008.72 Market and ecosystem weighingTechnicians from the ACCVC Grecia Office for the Environmental CourtDeforestation of the Crucitas Mining Project, Costa Rica2015$6,400,000.00 58$110,344.83 Restoration cost and and cost of environmental services, estimated using a mix of techniques, based on fieldwork and weighingMultidisciplinary team appointed by the Administrative Court at the request of the plaintiff
Annex 1
125
www.neotropica.org 39 This situation persisted in that country until 2012, when the system for the application of the current law was modified, changing to a system that uses as elements the base value and an ecosystem weighing of four factors: water, timber and non-timber products, carbon storage and biodiversity, through Likert scales. This new methodology increases the values per hectare to a range of $2,000.00 to $20,000.00 depending on the degree of priority and valuation factors (Ministry Agreement 1330 from 2012, Ecuador). In the case of Costa Rica there is a similar evolution, with interesting manifestations at the judicial level. During the first half of the first decade of this century there is concern regarding the development of these methodologies, which is addressed by the work of IPS. However, not all administrative entities adopt the methodology proposed. For example, in the case of National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), each conservation area adopts independent valuation methods. This need is in part due to the creation of the Environmental Administrative Tribunal, which requires them due to its punitive function, pursuant to article 99 of the Organic Environmental Law of Costa Rica (Law 7554 of 1995). Thus, in some areas valuations have been developed which seem disproportionate and do not correspond to the most common theoretical standards of the theory on the valuation of ecosystem services. This is the case of the valuation of environmental damage performed by the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Sequeira, 2010), in this case using the value of the investment to cause the damage, increased by a 1000% due to a weighing of indicators of the seriousness of the damage caused by a technical appraiser. The value of the damage by hectares recorded in Table 5 is evidently extreme in comparison to others included in the sample. For 2012 and 2014, we find technical reports for the same purpose which are based on the quantification of the value of the environmental damage in the sum of the restoration cost (recovery, follow-up and monitoring) and of the social cost expressed in the loss of ecosystem services. The sum is deflated by weighing the degree of environmental damage done to the resources, and the degree of initial conservation of the damaged site (prior to the damage). This is used to determine the chargeable damage. These applications in the administrative sub-region of Grecia, part of the Central Volcanic Range Conservation Area, however, make the mistake of not looking for means or additional information that would allow them to transfer values in the absence of “social cost” primary estimates. They limit themselves to the use of IPS’s research, which repeats the restoration cost (Barrantes & Cháves, Valoración Económica del Daño en Bosques Naturales. Estudio de Caso: Bosque Húmedo Tropical en Ecuador, 2000). This means that the restoration cost is added twice, and deflated by the degree of the chargeable damage. Subsequently, the net present value is calculated for the period of time until recovery of the ecosystem (in this case 25 years) (Jiménez, Valoración del Daño Ambiental. Propiedad Kattia Vargas Arias Rodríguez de Valverde Vega-, 2014). In the case of the valuation from 2012, the difference is that recovery costs are not estimated because the area is small; rather, the costs of removal of the works that cause the damage are estimated (Jiménez, Valoración del Daño Ambiental Area de Protección Quebrada Pilas Propiedad de Digna Prendas Loría, Candelaria de Naranjo-Alajuela, 2012).
Annex 1
126
www.neotropica.org 40 In the case of the administrative proceedings regarding the damage caused by the Crucitas mining project, the practice in Costa Rica introduces new elements. Having declared in this judicial venue the unlawfulness of the permits and decrees that facilitated the start-up of the strip mining project, the Attorney General's Office requested the Ministry of the Environment (MINAE) to perform a valuation of the environmental damage caused by the clearing of trees and vegetation and the restoration costs, in order to have an idea of the liability that could eventually correspond to the State, according to the ruling, given that the regulations establish joint liability with the originator of the damage. Minister Castro engaged Fundación Neotrópica as an independent third party to perform the task (Aguilar, et al., 2012). Since the valuation was requested to be performed within a short period of time, and the infringing company denied entry to inspect the properties, as the execution of the judgment phase was about to begin, a transfer of value methodology was chosen. An interdisciplinary team was put together, comprised of three ecological economists, one expert in political ecology, a technician in natural resource management, a tropical biologist, a sociologist and a technician in sustainable tourism. Satellite photos and an overflight were used to measure the change in land use in the project’s area of operation, thus estimating the costs of losses of environmental services, which are added to the restoration costs documented by reviewing the literature and consultation to technicians of the Huetar Norte Conservation Area. A range of values is estimated with respect to the loss of environmental services, using the value transfer methodology and various scenarios of the net present value (NPV), projecting the flow of loss of environmental services to 10 and 25 years, with discount rates of 1%, 4% and 10%. The highest NPV, 25 years, with a discount rate of 1%, is $11.86 million. Along with a restoration cost of $159,449.75 gives a NPV of $11.88 million. Prudently, through the use of the median of the estimates in the range, a valuation with a 4% discount and 25-year projection of the NPV to recover environmental services is suggested. It amounted to $4.6 million dollars (Aguilar, et al., 2012). In the execution phase of the judgment, an interdisciplinary group of expert witnesses, appointed by the court, at the request and recommendation of the applicant, performs a valuation with verification of the state of the properties through field inspections. The valuation takes several months, and results in an estimate of damage to 58 hectares, plus restoration costs and loss of felled timber of $6.4 million. This estimate was made with a discount rate of 3% and a projection of flow of services for the NPV to 50 years. The technical team had suggested a higher estimate, using a 0% rate of $10.4 million (Marozzi, Chacón, Alpizar, & Mata, 2012). The Court prudentially accepted the first in its ruling. This decision was appealed. In sum, this study is based on the environmental services framework defined by the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment. The monetary estimation falls within the framework of the theoretical tool of the Total Value Equation, comprised of direct and indirect values of environmental goods and services, widely recognised by the theory of natural resource/environmental economy and ecological economy. Consequently, this method is accepted by the influential TEEB report by UNEP. Furthermore, it is a reference in the application of the economic valuation of wetland
Annex 1
127
www.neotropica.org 41 ecosystems, as evidenced in the technical recommendations reports issued by the RAMSAR Convention. The value of the damage is estimated using a mix of the methodologies prescribed by IPS, modified through the recent experience in Costa Rica and Latin America. Specifically, the estimation uses the direct valuation and shadow price methodologies. Furthermore, slow and quick methodologies are mixed with the necessary prescriptions indicated in the literature. V- Estimation of the monetary value of the environmental damage caused in Isla Portillos, according to the facts ascertained in the Judgment of 16 December 2015 This chapter presents the process for valuation of the damage caused by the construction of the three caños in the territory of Isla Portillos, HCN, Costa Rica. First, the process for selection of ecosystem goods and services to be assessed in the monetary valuation of damage is presented, followed by the data collection process from the technical and legal sources available. Subsequently, the methodological specifications of the estimation are presented, to conclude with the presentation of the results. A- Preliminary determination of the ecosystem goods and services included The government of Costa Rica has expressed its wish to act with the good faith that is suggested by Court in its judgment when it gave the parties a prudent time to agree on the reparation of the material damage caused by the actions of the Government of Nicaragua in Isla Portillos between 2010 and 2013. To this end, three meetings were held by the valuation team, the SINAC technical team and the technical team of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [of Costa Rica]. The framework of the ecosystem goods and services defined in the MEA, with the adaptations made by the RAMSAR Convention regarding wetlands, were used as the guiding framework for the classification of the effects in the area of the three caños. Furthermore, we used the evaluation table for valuations presented in Table 4, from Liu et al. (2010), published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, in order to assess the potential for valuation, according to the prevailing doctrine, of those goods and services to be adequately assessed. Furthermore, in order to provide an adequate basis for valuation through value transfer of some of these goods and services affected, if necessary, we used the assessment made by that scientific publication of the transferability of valuations of such services. Thus, it was agreed that the country would concentrate the valuation of damage in Isla Portillos on the environmental goods and services which, apart from being affected, had the most developed and credible experience regarding their potential for valuation and the highest transferability. Those which were affected but had a lower potential for valuation or less transferability are only mentioned. The result of this process in presented in Table 8.
Annex 1
128
www.neotropica.org 42 To strengthen the selection, the relative magnitude of the services in the coastal wetlands ecosystem presented in Table 5 is included. We only modified the relative magnitude of the regulation service of the hydrological regime in view of the specific technical considerations of the Ramsar technical missions, which indicate the importance/magnitude of the service in the HCN, referring to the specific weather and hydrological regime of that area (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010). Regarding provisioning services, in conformity with the high presence and ecological value of biodiversity in the area (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010) it was recognized that the area has perceptible stock or reserves. However, since it is a protected wildlife area with regulations regarding the possibilities of use, it cannot be said that there is a flow of service with regard to hunting, fishing, or gathering of edible plants. Since the wetland has mangroves (Araya & Mena, Informe de Gira. ACTo-GMRN-EPMF-364-2013, 2013; Monge, Jiménez, & Bonila, 2013), the permitted uses restrict fishing that is not artisanal fishing for domestic use, the harvesting of crustaceans and molluscs, etc. Thus, the technical team prefers to not consider this service among the due and therefore, chargeable damage. Similarly, standing timber and fibre-based raw materials, with proven losses, can be recorded as losses in reserves. Although commercial use is restricted, these are national reserves for which there would at least be an option value, given that as its sovereign right the country could decide to use these materials in various situations, including emergencies. Thus, it was decided to account for this aspect both from the perspective of the standing timber lost and the estimation of the raw materials (comprised of fibres, energy and ornamental resources). A qualitative description and monetary quantification are performed. Regarding the provisioning services derived from biodiversity (biochemical, medicinal), Costa Rica’s experience in sustainable use has been widely documented from the perspective of extraction of samples within the framework of the biodiversity law, for information uses. This is the case of the HCN (ACTO-SINAC-MINAET, 2009). However, information resources and the time available could limit the individual quantification of this service. We deemed it reasonable to assess the possibility of quantifying the loss from a perspective of flows, along with habitat and nursery services (biological regulation) and information/cultural, science and education. If the valuation of at least one of these categories is possible, having available data or reference studies, we can obtain an idea of the whole. This conservative decision was made even though it might lead to an undervaluation of such services. For pest and disease control and pollination, despite evident flows in the area, we were unable to find support in the technical reports to evidence the loss of those flows as a result of the damage.
Annex 1
129
www.neotropica.org 43 Table 8- Preliminary selection of ecosystem goods and services for monetary valuation by the valuation team and the technical team of SINAC and the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Source: Prepared by the authors. Ecosystem goods or services Ease of valuation Transferability of the monetary value Magnitude in the ecosystem Perceptible reserve in the area Perceptible/legal flow in the area Verifiable loss due to damage Qualitative description Monetary valuation Provisioning 1. Food High High High Yes No No No No 2. Freshwater High Medium None No No No No No 3. Timber, combustible fibre and other raw materials. High High Medium Yes No Yes Yes Yes 4. Biochemical and medicinal resources High High Low Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5. Genetic materials Low Low Low Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6. Ornamental resources High Medium Low Yes No Yes Yes Yes Regulating and supporting 7. Air quality and gas regulation Medium High Medium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8. Climate regulation Low High Medium Yes No No No No 9. Hydrological regime - recharging and discharging High Medium Medium* Yes Yes Yes Yes No 10. Natural hazards mitigation High Medium High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 11. Pollution control High Medium to High Medium Yes No No No No 12. Regulation of other wastes High Medium to High ? Yes No No No No
Annex 1
130
www.neotropica.org 44 Ecosystem goods or services Ease of valuation Transferability of the monetary value Magnitude in the ecosystem Perceptible reserve in the area Perceptible/legal flow in the area Verifiable loss due to damage Qualitative description Monetary valuation 13. Erosion control Medium Medium High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14. Soil formation Medium Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 15. Nutrient cycling Medium Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 16. Pest and disease control Medium High High Yes Yes No No No 17. Biological control (control, habitat and nursery) Medium High High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 18. Pollination Medium High High Yes Yes No No No Cultural and recreational 19. Historic and spiritual Low Low Low Yes No No No No 20. Recreational High Low Low Yes Yes Yes Yes No 21. Aesthetic and artistic High Low Low Yes Yes Yes Yes No 22. Science and education Low High Low Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Annex 1
131
www.neotropica.org 45 Similarly, although it is evident that the existence of a high biological diversity has a positive effect on the number of genetic resources of old-growth forests in complex ecosystems (Thorne, Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican territory, 2011), the development and execution of techniques for their valuation and the low transferability of values from other sites would require a primary study with measurement of samples, which entails a high cost. Consequently, the team decided to not include this point in the valuation performed. Drinking water is not quantified because there is no provision of public services in the affected area and because of the small number of houses in the nearest area, several of which were abandoned due to the border dispute conflict, which ended with the judgment of December 2015 (Monge, Jiménez, & Bonila, 2013). Regarding regulating and supporting services, several groups of goods and services are assessed, due to the difficulty of performing a primary study for the valuation of services and stock considered affected and collectible. This is the case of the erosion control regulating services and soil formation and nutrient cycling supporting services. Air quality and gas regulation services will be valued, as they are essential to the country’s environmental goals. It was also determined that the natural hazards mitigation service is important to the area, the infrastructure and nearby towns, especially because these areas are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change (ACTO-SINAC-MINAET, 2009; Monge, Jiménez, & Bonila, 2013). Thus, it was identified as a service that needs to be highlighted individually. The remaining supporting, regulating and cultural goods and services will not be measured. Regarding the hydrological regime regulating service, the time and resources necessary for its valuation by means of slow methods, and the lack of recent studies in tropical coastal wetland areas led the valuation and the technical team to decide not to value it in spite of its importance. As in other cases, we opted for a qualitative description. Regarding pollution control and other waste regulating services and the historical and spiritual cultural service, the team decided that the flows are not sufficiently perceptible in the area. This is not the case for aesthetic and recreational cultural services, which although not economically valued, were qualitatively described. Since the damage was caused on separate dates, the estimations are segregated for each area affected. Thus, the estimations are separated for C2010 and CE2013. In each case, the name refers to the affected areas as a whole (deforested, cleared, physically opened caño, etc.). Regarding CO2013, as can be inferred from the technical tests its development was not significant (Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, 2014), therefore Costa Rica decided not to file a pecuniary claim in this regard. In sum, of the 22 categories of ecosystem goods and services considered, 10 were selected for preliminary consideration for their monetary valuation. A qualitative description of the damage will be provided for four other services, without monetary valuation. The remaining four will have neither. The
Annex 1
132
www.neotropica.org 46 final assessment and selection is performed considering the availability of information necessary for the valuation of resources according to the methodologies most common in the literature, or, in its absence, adequate reference studies to apply the value transfer methodology. Damage is segregated according to the area affected in 2010 and in 2013, called C2010 and CE2013. B- Evaluation of the availability of data and refinement of the estimation methodology To adequately assess the balance between the required data and the need for valuation, the data requirements and direct and indirect monetary valuation methods that prevail in the literature were first determined. The results of this process are presented in Table 9. The most used methods are determined by complementing the information included in Table 4 with Ramsar’s most recent guidance on the valuation of wetlands (De Groot, Stuio, Finlayson, & Davidson, 2007; Liu, Costanza, Farber, & Troy, 2010). In view of the data requirements observed in Table 9, the goods and services that can be estimated with the data collected in the technical reports on the record are limited to the provision of timber and erosion control or soil formation. The time and resource requirements, and the difficult access to the area, make it impossible to estimate the value for the others. Table 9- Methods most used in the literature and data required for the monetary valuation of the preselected ecosystem goods and services Source: Prepared by us. Preselected goods or services Most used method Required data Provisioning 3. Timber M, P Volume, market prices, shadow prices 3. Fibres, fuels and other raw materials M, P Volume, market prices, shadow prices 4. Biochemical and medicinal resources AC, RC, P Medical costs or health costs 6. Ornamental resources AC, RC, H Cost of substitute decorative elements, effect on price of related goods (e.g. real estate) of the amenity created with the ornament. Regulating and supporting 7. Air quality and gas regulation CV, AC, RC Costa Rican’s willingness to pay, cleaning costs, mitigation costs, greenhouse gas fixation rates, carbon pricing. 10. Natural hazards mitigation AC Avoided cost in the destruction of infrastructure and properties. 13. Erosion control AC, RC, H Volume of lost soil, costs of fertilization to replace nutrients, costs of recovery of the coastal erosion, market costs of land, costs of machinery to recover the lost soil, effect on the price of related goods (e.g. real estate) of the amenity created with uneroded soil. 14. Soil formation AC Volume of lost soil, market costs of land, costs of machinery to replace the lost soil. 15. Nutrient cycling AC, CV Volume of lost soil, costs of fertilization to replace nutrients, Costa Rican’s willingness to pay. 17. Biological control AC, M Costs of application of agrochemicals or other methods to
Annex 1
133
www.neotropica.org 47 Preselected goods or services Most used method Required data (control, habitat and nursery) regulate species that you wish to regulate, market value of selected species. Cultural and recreational 22. Science and education RC, M Expert opinions, information regarding scientific and educational revenue generated in the country and the region for the generated information. AC, avoided cost (defensive); CV, contingent valuation; H, hedonic prices; M, market prices; P, productivity effects; RC, replacement cost; TC, travel cost. In view of the circumstances, a search was conducted for potential reference studies for a value transfer exercise, complying with a number of requirements to prevent the risks and biases inherent to that methodology (Pascual, Muradian, Brander, Gómez-Baggethun, & Martín-López, 2010; Aguilar, et al., 2012). First, studies on similar ecosystems, i.e. tropical coastal wetlands (most of the literature is on mangroves) were looked for. Second, studies that are not prior to 2000. Studies which have used the most commonly used methods for the valuation of the good or service under discussion are selected (De Groot, Stuio, Finlayson, & Davidson, 2007; Liu, Costanza, Farber, & Troy, 2010). To the extent possible, only studies published in indexed journals with peer reviews are used. For grey literature, we use the review protocol followed by the NGO specialized in the valuation of ecosystem services, Earth Economics (http://www.eartheconomics.org/), to review the studies to be included in its global database of valuation studies. Furthermore, we only seek to transfer the value of goods or services with a high or medium ease of valuation, for which transferability of values is high or medium (Table 8). Also, when selecting the values and adjusting them to the site under consideration, this is performed according to the technical recommendations of the local valuation teams and technicians from SINAC and the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Costanza, et al., 2014). The goods and services identified and the reference studies are presented in Table 10. Table 10- Reference studies1 for the value transfer that comply with the adopted specifications Source: Prepared by the authors. Study Good or service valued Site of the study Arguedas (2015) Gas regulation Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica Barbier (2007) Natural hazards mitigation Thailand Barbier, et. al. (2002) Habitat and nursery Natural hazards mitigation Thailand Camacho-Valdez, et. al. (2014) Fibre and energy raw materials Habitat and nursery Natural hazards mitigation Gulf of Mexico, Mexico Cooper, et. al. (2009) Natural hazards mitigation Belize De la Peña, et. al. (2010) Gas regulation Ciénaga Grande Santa Marta, Colombia Emerton (2005) Soil retention Coastal wetland ecosystems in Asia and Africa Gómez (2001) Gas regulation Sabana Camagüey, Cuba 1 The full list of the studies is presented in Appendix 1.
Annex 1
134
www.neotropica.org 48 Study Good or service valued Site of the study Mendoza-González, et. al. (2012) Fibre and energy raw materials Gulf of Mexico, Mexico Samonte-Tan, et. al. (2007) Habitat and nursery Soil retention Bohol marine triangle, Philippines White, et. al. (2000) Fibre and energy raw materials Olango island, Philippines The existence of these studies enables the final selection of the various ecosystem services for purposes of the loss of ecosystem goods and services component of the environmental damage, according to the equation (5). The remaining goods and services for which a loss is evident in the technical reports but are not estimated will be included qualitatively, only as presented in Table 11. In sum, of the 22 categories of ecosystem goods and services considered, the monetary valuation will be performed for six categories. Eight categories will be qualitatively described and eight will not be included in the losses accounting. Table 11- Final selection of ecosystem goods and services for valuation and qualitative description, according to the data and resources available and the existence of reference studies Source: Prepared by the authors. Ecosystem goods or services Method to be used Provisioning - to be valued Standing timber Direct valuation and opportunity cost Other raw materials (fibre and energy) Value transfer Regulating and supporting - to be valued Gas regulation Value transfer Natural hazards mitigation Value transfer Soil formation/erosion control Replacement cost Habitat and nursery (biodiversity) Value transfer Provisioning - to be described Biochemical and medicinal resources Qualitative description of losses Genetic materials Qualitative description of losses Ornamental resources Qualitative description of losses Regulating and supporting - to be described Hydrological regulation Qualitative description of losses Nutrient cycling Qualitative description of losses Cultural and recreational - to be described Recreational Qualitative description of losses Aesthetic and artistic Qualitative description of losses Science and education Qualitative description of losses Thus, equation 5 becomes: (6)𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡=𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑡𝑡+𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑡𝑡 where TC: is the total monetary cost associated to the environmental damage in HCN due to the opening of artificial caños, clearing of trees and vegetation,
Annex 1
135
www.neotropica.org 49 RC: is the restoration cost (used as indicator of the value of the biophysical damage) of the HCN area affected to its initial state of conservation, In this case, the method is recommended by the SINAC forestry technicians, with an intervention of at least three years. SC: is the social cost, which depends on the loss of benefits from the six groups of ecosystem goods and services (selected as a representation of all of those provided by the ecosystem) generated by the effects on the state of conservation of the natural environment, and on the quality and quantity of flows of goods and services provided by the natural capital of the HCN area affected, to its initial state of conservation, t: is the time that elapses until the HCN area affected returns to its initial state of conservation or, if not possible, to a state of recovery deemed sufficient. Regarding the value of the flow of losses of the social cost over time, it is calculated in accordance with the standards of the net present value (NPV). Thus, (7)𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡= Σ𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵/(1+𝑟𝑟)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡1; where BSE: is the monetary value of the loss of benefits generated by the effects on the state of conservation of the natural environment and on the quality and quantity of flows of goods and services (selected as a representation of all of those provided by the ecosystem) provided by the natural capital of the HCN area affected, to its initial state of conservation, r: is the discount rate used for the current value of the flow of ecosystem goods and services, t: is the time that elapses until the HCN area affected returns to its initial state of conservation or, if not possible, to a state of recovery deemed sufficient. Choosing the discount rate is a delicate matter, thoroughly discussed in the ecological economy literature. The discount rate is applied as a financial-economic conventionalism to determine the NVP, as it is considered that the opportunity cost of using that capital for other purposes should be taken into account for that future value. This view has been opposed with the idea of a social discount rate that takes into account future social preferences. In environmental matters, the use of the discount has been accused of devaluating the future flows of environmental services. The ecological economist Clive Spash (1993) indicates that there is a correlation between the economic and epistemological perspectives. Using the discount rate entails a moral judgement. He indicates that a zero rate implicitly prevents environmental damage from being ignored in the future (Spash, 1993). The TEEB report devotes a whole chapter to this topic. Summarizing the most important considerations, it is worth noting the difference between discount rates based on the perspective of an individual and discount rates based on a social preference where the responsibility toward future generations can be considered. Since a significant portion of the progress of current generations has been obtained by depleting natural capital reserves, the study calls for the use of low rates, including zero and negative
Annex 1
136
www.neotropica.org 50 rates, depending on the time period involved, the degree of uncertainty, the ethical responsibility toward the world’s poorest and the scope of the project or policy being evaluated. However, it calls for consideration of the macroeconomic implications of the rates chosen, apart from the microeconomic ones, given that a low discount rate for the entire economy in a development model such as the current one might favour more investment and growth and more environmental destruction. Due to the frequency of interdependent relationships between countries, this destruction can be transferred to poor areas in other countries, where the world’s poorest are suffering disproportionately from the loss of ecosystems and biodiversity (Gowdy, Howarth, & Tisdell, 2010). Costa Rican jurisprudence set a pioneering precedent in the execution phase of the judgment regarding the Crucitas environmental conflict. The independent appraisers’ report established alternative discount rates of 4% and 0% in the valuation of the environmental damage caused in Crucitas de Cutris, northern Costa Rica, quite close to HCN (Marozzi, Chacón, Alpizar, & Mata, 2012). In its judgment, the Environmental Administrative Tribunal accepted a discount rate of 4% (Resolución 2015111438 de 24 de noviembre, 2015). We adopt the same approach in this study. C- Compilation and methodological processing of the required data Having selected the ecosystem goods and services, the data required for the monetary valuation was determined. This is identified in Table 12. It indicates the source used from the body of evidence. As explained above, the estimation of the monetary value is fully based on the body of evidence described in Table 2. Similarly, the categories of goods and services to be presented qualitatively will be supported by the indicated sources. Table 12- Location of the required data in the sources from the technical body of evidence on record to justify the monetary valuation or qualitative description Source: Prepared by the authors. Ecosystem good or service affected Required data Source in the technical body of evidence Provisioning - to be valued Standing timber Inventory of trees felled, volume by area and measurement of the area of trees felled. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14. Other raw materials (fibre and energy) Area measurement and description of the elimination of vegetation in deforested and cleared areas. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14. Regulating and supporting - to be valued Gas regulation Area measurement and description of the elimination of vegetation in deforested and cleared areas. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14. Natural hazards mitigation Area measurement, description of the elimination of vegetation in deforested and cleared areas, total area intervened in caños, description of the hydrological impact on the area. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
Annex 1
137
www.neotropica.org 51 Ecosystem good or service affected Required data Source in the technical body of evidence Soil formation/erosion control Area measurement, description of the elimination of vegetation in deforested and cleared areas, total area intervened in caños, volume of soil removed. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Habitat and nursery (biodiversity) Area measurement, description of the elimination of vegetation in deforested and cleared areas, information on species present in the area. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. The estimate of the social cost component of the environmental damage requires two additional elements which are confirmed in the technically relevant facts presented in Table 2. First, the time period is required to calculate the net present value of the flow of ecosystem goods and services lost. In conformity with the methodological specifications of the framework for the valuation of environmental damage adopted, this time period is the time for recovery of the ecosystem to the state prior to the damage caused (Barrantes & Di Mare, Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica, 2001). Based on the confirmed technical reports, that time is of 50 years, even though trees that were over 200 years old were cut down (Aguilar-Gonzalez, et al., 2011; MINAET, 2011; Thorne, Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican territory, 2011). Supporting this judgment, the time period matches the time ruled as necessary in the report for valuation of environmental damage prepared by the expert witness team appointed by the Contentious Administrative Court for the Crucitas mining conflict that affected a tropical forest near the area in HCN subject to this case (Marozzi, Chacón, Alpizar, & Mata, 2012). It is worth noting that the initial state of the areas affected corresponds to non-intervened areas with forests aged over 200 years, in a protected wildlife area in the case of C2010 and CE2013 and the cleared areas. This has been clearly established in the technical reports and in the judgment of the ICJ. In the case of CO2013 and other areas affected by sediments in Isla Portillos, the technical body of evidence established that there were areas with pastures managed by squatters or in non-consolidated possession (Thorne, Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican territory, 2011; Monge, Jiménez, & Bonila, 2013). Another important element to consider is the recommendation of restoration measures, which must be included as another element of the total value of the environmental damage. There are engineering restoration measures and direct and indirect restoration of the ecosystem in various sources of the technical documents mentioned (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010; Oreamuno & Villalobos, 2013; MINAE, 2014; Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, 2014). It can be inferred from these recommendations that active restoration models would be advisable, not natural regeneration, due to the magnitude of the damage and the conditions of the area.
Annex 1
138
www.neotropica.org 52 However, in Costa Rican forestry literature there are no specific cost models for the restoration of ecosystems in an area with the nature of the affected area and the type of damage caused (combining the clearing of trees and vegetation and the removal of significant amounts of soil). There are studies on the restoration costs of wetlands composed of different species, including yolillo (Raphia taedigera) and marillal, with a predominance of species such as cedro maría (Callophylum brasiliense), cerillo (Symphonia globulifera) and Campnosperma panamense where damage was caused by fire. This is the case of the Caño Negro Wildlife Refuge, located in northern Costa Rica, which is part of the complex of cross-border wetlands between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The cost per hectare affected in this case was estimated at $929.21 including the repopulation of species, control, monitoring and infrastructure (Vega, Evaluación Económica del daño ambiental causado por los incendios forestales en Costa Rica, 2004; Montes de Oca Lugo, 2006). On the other hand there are models to establish the cost of forest plantations of native species with a maintenance model over 5 years developed for the northern area of Costa Rica. This model assumes fixed and variable costs per hectare of $2,169 (Ulate, 2010). Because of the amount of soil removed in the affected areas (9502.72 m3), the replacement cost of soil lost due to the effects of dredging of the caños must be added to the model selected. The valuation team favours a conservative selection of the restoration cost taken from the Caño Negro Wildlife Refuge study, adding the soil restoration costs. The processing of data was complemented by an overflight by the leader of the valuation team with two members of the SINAC technical team (Miguel Araya) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Arnoldo Brenes) on May 31, 2016. They flew over the areas with clearing of trees, clearing of undergrowth vegetation and the caños. This exercise contributed to refining the criteria for compilation and processing of data for the valuation. Data on the affected goods and services is processed according to the selected methodologies. To determine the monetary value of standing timber, the loss is quantified from the perspective of the eliminated stock and the growth potential of that stock from the moment of the damage to the preparation of this study. Thus, a value is presented for damage due to the loss of standing timber, national stock, resulting from the volume per hectare estimated in the technical studies and the area affected in C2010 and CE2013 (Araya, Appraisal al maximum average age of trees felled in primary forest areas in the Punta Castilla, Colorado, Pococí and Limón sectors of Costa Rica, as a result of the Nicaraguan Army´s occupation for the apparent restoration of an existing canal, 2010; Araya, Age approximation of trees cut in the Area under Costa Rica´s Environmental Management located on the causeway of the artificial channel built on a portion of territory of Calero Island to connect the San Juan River with los Portillos Lagoon, 2011; MINAET, 2011; Thorne, Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican territory, 2011; Araya, Estimación preliminar de impactos en el extremo norte de Isla Portillos por la apertura de dos nuevos canales artificiales entre junio y setiembre de 2013, 2013; MINAE, 2014; Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, 2014; Thorne, Written Statement. Dispute Concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), 2015). To calculate this the average price of standing timber per cubic metre is used for the inventoried species, according to the applicable publications of the National
Annex 1
139
www.neotropica.org 53 Forestry Office closest to the facts of the corresponding years, translated into U.S. dollars (Salazar & Salas, 2009; Oficina Nacional Forestal, 2013). For those species for which a price is not indicated in that publication, the lowest prices published for the identified species that do have them were used. Those prices are indicated in Appendix 2. This same information is used for the growth potential during the time elapsed from the damage to date, named opportunity cost of forest growth (Delgado, 2007). The volume of standing timber per hectare used is 211 cubic metres, with a harvesting rate of 50%. Similarly, a growth rate of volume per hectare of 6 cubic metres per year is used, with the same harvesting rate. Regarding the ecosystem service of soil formation/erosion control, the replacement cost is used. It is calculated by multiplying the volume of soil removed (MINAET, 2011; Thorne, Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican territory, 2011; Araya, Estimación preliminar de impactos en el extremo norte de Isla Portillos por la apertura de dos nuevos canales artificiales entre junio y setiembre de 2013, 2013; MINAE, 2014) by the costs or excavations and earth movements by cubic metre published by the Costa Rican Association of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, 2007). This price was used by the expert witness team and was accepted by the Administrative Court and Civil Court of Finance in the execution of the judgment for the Crucitas Mining Conflict in Costa Rica (Marozzi, Chacón, Alpizar, & Mata, 2012; Resolución 2015111438 de 24 de noviembre, 2015). The initial calculations of the volume were refined with the help of SIG tools by the ACTO technical team (Araya, Entrevista sobre los Daños Ocasionados por la Construcción de los Caños Artificiales en Isla Portillos en los Años 2010 y 2013, 2016). The ecosystem goods and services in the raw materials, habitat and nursery categories (biodiversity) are estimated through value transfer, calculating the mean of the values per hectare provided by the ecosystems studies in the reference studies, as performed by renowned studies (Costanza, et al., 1997; Costanza, et al., 2014). This value is multiplied by the hectares affected in C2010 and CE2013. In the case of raw materials, affected areas cleared but without removal of the trees were also included. Regarding the loss of the environmental services of natural hazards mitigation, the value transfer is qualified by selecting a low value from the range of selected studies. This is performed given that as recorded in the technical reports and confirmed in the field visit, it is an area with low density of population, with nearby towns 4 kilometres away, few houses on the river meadows, some SINAC infrastructure on the Costa Rican side, and an airstrip on the Nicaraguan side (ACTO-SINAC-MINAET, 2009; Monge, Jiménez, & Bonila, 2013). The specific situation of the ecosystem services of gas regulation and, consequently, air quality, deserve special mention. In spite of finding several reference studies, we chose to use as basis the calculations of the study concluded in 2015 by Maureen Arguedas at Centro Agrícola Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) under the supervision of Dr. Miguel Cifuentes, main expert in Costa Rica on the estimation of carbon reserves in wetlands. This study has the advantage that it is based on the fixed carbon estimate of studies in Costa Rican wetlands, both in biomass and soils. Furthermore, it presents the stock by hectare and the annual fixation (flow) by hectare estimated for the mangrove areas of the Gulf of Nicoya (Arguedas, 2015). Because of the advantages of this level of specificity, and having
Annex 1
140
www.neotropica.org 54 identified mangroves in the affected area (Araya & Mena, Informe de Gira. ACTo-GMRN-EPMF-364-2013, 2013), we opt to use these numbers to estimate both the lost stock and flows of this ecosystem service. Figure 9 shows us the mangrove area identified in the northern part of CE2013. Having indicated the sources of the data used and how they were processed, the results are now presented. This exercise is divided into various sections, as explained below.
Annex 1
141
www.neotropica.org 55 Figure 9 – Photograph of the North End of CE2013, in which you can observe the presence of mangrove trees. Source: Araya & Mena (2013) E- Results The presentation of results is divided into two sections. The first presents the environmental damage due to the documented effects on ecosystem goods and services that cannot be valued monetarily. The second presents the monetary estimation of the environmental damage permitted by the available information. The results are presented separately for C2010 and CE2013. The cleared area affected in 2010 is highlighted where appropriate. These are consolidated for the final sum of the monetary value of the environmental damage. As previously indicated, Costa Rica has chosen not claim the damage caused by the construction of CO2013, although they are documented in the body of evidence presented in Table 2.
Annex 1
142
www.neotropica.org 56 Figure 10- Areas affected by environmental damage in C2010 (left panel), CO2013 and CE2013 (right panel). Source: MINAET (2011) and Araya (2013). Figure 10 shows us the areas affected by the environmental damage in C2010, CO2013 and CE2013. The total area felled in C2010 is 2.48 hectares. The area of clearing of undergrowth, or cleared area, is 3.28 hectares in 2010. The area in CE2013 is 0.43 hectares. The total area affected is 6.19 hectares. In both areas a total of 9502.72 m3 of soil were removed. 1- Environmental damage to ecosystem goods and services documented but not valued As previously mentioned, a number of environmental goods and services categories have been identified for which losses can be confirmed through the existing technical reports, but for which the data is insufficient for a monetary valuation of the damage. Table 13 provides the qualitative descriptions of the impacts identified on those ecosystem goods and services. It also includes the sources from the technical reports on record and additional bibliographical sources. This description shows that the monetary estimation is a relatively conservative and partial amount, based on the substantial value that can be perceived from such descriptions for the neighbouring communities, the country and the world. Subsequently, we present the estimation of the monetary value of the damage caused to the goods and services for which the available data allows quantification. Felling 1 - 16,712 m2 Felling 2 - 3,292 m2 Felling 3 - 4,785 m2 Elimination of undergrowth - 32,784 m2 Artificial caño Sediment deposit Portillos Lagoon San Ju Estimation of the size of the affected areas 1 2 Total Area (m2) 4340.9 2189.7 6530.6 Length (m) 210.3 323.5 533.8 Width (m) Nov-31 04-Nov Distance between caños 360
Annex 1
143
www.neotropica.org 57 Table 13- Qualitative description of the ecosystem goods or services for which damage can be confirmed in the technical evidence on record but that cannot be valued. Source: Prepared by us. Ecosystem goods or services Description of the environmental and source Provisioning Biochemical and medicinal Documented impact of the loss of vegetation in large areas of wetland and primary forest (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010; Thorne, 2011; Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, 2014; Thorne, 2015). The documented species present in the undergrowth vegetation of Isla Portillos include Passiflora sp., known as passion flower (Monge, Jiménez, & Bonila, 2013). Passiflora quadrangularis has been documented by the Herbario Nacional de Costa Rica (Costa Rican National Herbarium) as having anti-diarrheic, decongestant and other uses (Quesada, 2008). Genetic materials Documented impact on fauna of the possible decrease in the successful breeding of marine species in the area’s wetlands. This fauna is the most important in the area. In the ichthyic province of San Juan there are records of eight families, 25 genus and 54 species of freshwater fish, and at least 84 species of marine fish. Furthermore, it is worth noting the presence of regulated or endangered species, such as the manatee (Tricherus manatus) or hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010; Thorne, 2011; Monge, et al., 2013; Thorne, 2015). Ornamental resources Documented impact of the loss of vegetation in large areas of wetland and primary forest (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010; Thorne, 2011; Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, 2014; Thorne, 2015). The documented species present in the undergrowth vegetation of Isla Portillos include ferns, orchids and bromeliads, widely used for ornamental purposes (Monge, et al., 2013). Regulating and supporting Hydrological regulation Reported impacts on the following elements of the physical and hydrological systems: surface water hydrology, surface water drainage network, changes in the surface and ground water, aquifers, alteration of the freshwater-saltwater interface, etc. (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010; Thorne, 2011; Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, 2014; Thorne, 2015). Nutrient cycling Reported effects on the wetland’s sediment balance. The increase in the sediment flow to certain areas alters the nutrient balance, affecting the trophic state of the lagoons. This type of disturbance can cause an unbalance in the food chain, thus considerably affecting the food sources of the inhabitants. (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010; Thorne, 2011; Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, 2014; Thorne, 2015). Cultural and recreational Recreational Reported effects on the area’s tourism potential (Aguilar-Gonzalez, et al., 2011; Thorne, 2011). Tourism activity is reported in the area, though emerging and irregular, of national tourists who camp in the freshwater areas, for fishing and recreational purposes. The inhabitants of the area have cabins where they receive them and also provide water transport (Monge, et al., 2013). Aesthetic and artistic Documented effect on the aesthetic value of the area due to the fragmentation of habitats and the blocking of biological corridors in the wetland, as it results in a loss of spatial continuity previously observed in the vegetation formations in the area (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010; Thorne, 2011; Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar, 2014; Thorne, 2015). Science and education Losses and changes in the ecosystem affect the possibility of usage of this value in areas where it is occurring in the country. For example, there is a
Annex 1
144
www.neotropica.org 58 Ecosystem goods or services Description of the environmental and source growing interest in the study and documentation of the uses of the predominant species in the area, such as yolillo (Raphia taedigera) (Calvo-Gutiérrez, et al., 2013). Similarly, the Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (National Biodiversity Institute) has fed its databases with data on scientific knowledge of species from the area (Monge, et al., 2013). 2- Estimated monetary value of the environmental damage Table 14 presents the estimate of the monetary value component of the social cost (loss of ecosystem goods and services) of the environmental damage caused in the affected areas of C2010 and C2013, due to the clearing of trees and vegetation and removal of soil, including areas where only vegetation was removed, for the first year of alteration of the ecosystem. Furthermore, the net present value calculation is made for the social cost to 50 years, with a discount rate of 4%. The estimation data shows that the highest monetary values for damage in C2010 and CE2013 correspond to the loss of the greenhouse gas fixation service, loss of the soil formation and erosion control service, and the stock of standing timber and opportunity cost of forest growth. This is the result of the process of clearing of trees and excavation of caños that took place in that area (confirmed in images such as those presented in Figure 11) and the great capacity of wetlands in coastal areas for carbon fixation not only in the biomass but also in its soils (Cifuentes, 2012; Sepúlveda-Machado & Aguilar-González, 2015; Arguedas, 2015). Figure 11 shows us the consequences of the clearing of trees and vegetation and excavation of caños that led to the values established. This helps us to understand the relationship between the monetary value and the magnitude of the damage caused.
Annex 1
145
www.neotropica.org 59 Figure 11- Image comprising several photos included in the records which evidence the damage caused by the clearing of trees and vegetation and dredging of C2010 and CE2013. Source: Technical reports included in Table 2. Figure 12 shows the SC over time for C2010 and CE2013 from the first year up to 50 years, documented term for minimum recovery of the ecosystem’s ability to provide the ecosystem services lost. Apart from the economic-financial requirement, this estimate illustrates the possibility of a progressive decrease in the value of the monetary loss as the ecosystem services are gradually recovered.
Annex 1
146
www.neotropica.org 60 Table 14- Monetary value of the social cost (loss of ecosystem goods and services) of the environmental damage caused in the affected areas of C2010 and CE2013. Source: Prepared by the authors. Ecosystem good or service Affected area Amount and reference unit of the loss Monetary value by unit2 •Estimated total of the loss in U.S. dollars (2016) Provisioning Standing timber (Includes the opportunity cost of forests, OCF) C2010 211 m3/ha for standing timber with a 50% harvesting rate and OCF of 6 m3/ha per year of growth with a 50% harvesting rate in 2.48 ha $64.65 $19,558.64 CE2013 211 m3/ha for standing timber with a 50% harvesting rate and OCF of 6 m3/ha per year of growth with a 50% harvesting rate in 0.43 ha $40.05 $1,970.35 Other raw materials (fibre and energy) C2010 (includes cleared area) Value of the service per ha. in 5.76 ha $175.76 $794.06 CE2013 Value of the service/ha. in 0.43 ha $175.76 $38.14 Regulating and supporting Gas regulation/air quality (Includes stock and annual flow) C2010 Value of the service/ha. in 2.48 ha $14,982.06 $37,139.03 CE2013 Value of the service/ha. in 0.43 ha $14,982.06 $6,502.21 Natural hazards mitigation C2010 Value of the service/ha. in 2.48 ha $2,949.74 $7,312.11 CE2013 Value of the service/ha. in 0.43 ha $2,949.74 $1,280.19 Soil formation/erosion control C2010 Replacement cost of 5,815 m3 of removed soil (collection and transport) $5.87 $33,610.69 CE2013 Replacement cost of 3687.72 m3 of removed soil (collection and transport) $5.87 $21,315.00 Habitat and nursery (Biodiversity) C2010 Value of the service/ha. in 2.48 ha $855.13 $1,613.52 CE2013 Value of the service/ha. in 0.43 ha $855.13 $282.49 Total SC First year C2010 $100,028.04 CE2013 $31,388.38 Total SC 50 years C2010 $2,148,820.82 CE2013 $674,290.92 2 The different values weighted are included in Appendix 3.
Annex 1
147
www.neotropica.org 61 Figure 12- Monetary value of the social cost of the environmental damage calculated for C2010 and CE2013 with a discount rate of 4% over 50 years. Source: Prepared by the authors. The value for restoration of the wetland, according to the previously stated assumptions (cost of $929.79 per ha for restoration cost of a wetland in the Costa Rica-Nicaragua cross-border wetland area) is $2,304.86 for C2010 and $403.53 for CE2013, for a total of $2,708.39. The total value of the replacement of the dredged soil is, in conformity with the above estimates, $33,610.69 for C2010 (due to the removal of 5,815 m3 of soil) and $21,315.00 (due to the removal of 3,867.72 m3 of soil) for CE2013. This adds up to a grand total restoration cost for the affected area of $57,634.08. Thus, the monetary calculation of the environmental damage according the assumptions, the ecosystem goods and services in the affected area that can be valued and the methodologies presented is as follows: (7)𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡= $57,634.08+ $2,823,111.74= $2,880,745.82. As previously indicated, this estimate is conservative since the inventory of ecosystem goods and services used is partial. We provide our conclusion below. $0,00 $20.000,00 $40.000,00 $60.000,00 $80.000,00 $100.000,00 $120.000,00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Monetary value of the social cost of the enviromental damages calculated for C2010 and CE2013 with a discount rate of 4% over 50 years CE2013 C2010
Annex 1
148
www.neotropica.org 62 VI- Summary and conclusion This report has performed a monetary valuation of the environmental damage caused by the actions confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its final and definitive judgment on the activities ordered by the Government of Nicaragua in the Humedal Caribe Noreste, through the opening of three caños and clearing trees and vegetation in 2010 and 2013. To perform this estimation the facts ascertained by the Court and the technical reports available for purposes of the valuation were first examined. The methodological framework for the valuation was defined by developing three elements accepted in the most recent literature. First, the use of the ecosystem services framework recognized by the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment was defined. This framework organizes ecosystem services into four groups: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural/information services. This allows organizing and systematically choosing the ecosystem goods and services to be valued. As a second element for the theoretical framework we adopt the Total Economic Value (TEV) accepted by the state of art as adequate to combine the direct and indirect values of ecosystem goods and services arising from consumptive, sale, and non-consumptive use values and option values. This part of the framework established the most appropriate and most used methods for the valuation of the elements that constitute the TEV, from a direct valuation perspective (using market prices) and indirect valuation (using shadow prices, surveys, etc.). It also introduced the option of using quick value transfer valuation methods when the conditions require it or with the methodological precautions indicated by the most recent literature. The application of these instruments within the prevailing framework for the estimation of environmental damage in Costa Rica, with applications in other countries in Latin America, was discussed. This method, initially developed by Barrantes and Di Mare (2001), includes elements of environmental damage such as restoration costs, reparation for biophysical damage and the social costs of losses in the flow of ecosystem goods and services. This flow must be estimated until the full recovery of the ecosystem element which takes the longest. Several applications of the selected methods in Latin America which show its evolution and prevalence for purposes of this technical report were presented. Ecosystem goods and services whose impact due to the damage can be quantified monetarily according to the technical information available were selected. The provisioning services of standing timber and other raw materials were included. The regulating and supporting services of gas regulation/air quality, natural hazards mitigation, soil formation and soil retention, and habitat and nursery services were also included. Furthermore, we selected those services for which losses can be documented qualitatively based on the technical information available. This selection included several categories of provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural/information services. The full selection made was conservative and this is how the results should be interpreted, given that with more available resources several groups of ecosystem goods and services could have been selected and their loss quantitatively measured.
Annex 1
149
www.neotropica.org 63 The monetary value of environmental damage was estimated through a mix of direct valuation, replacement cost and value transfer methodologies. A term of 50 years for the recovery of the damage to the ecosystem, as defined by the technical reports on record, was determined. The areas of the damage included were also confirmed in the technical reports as 2.48 hectares of clearing of trees and 3.28 hectares of clearing of undergrowth in the area of the caño built in 2010, denominated Caño Pastora (C2010). In this area the soil removed due to dredging was 5,815 cubic metres. Regarding the area affected in 2013, only the damage caused in one of the two caños was taken into account, the one named Caño Este (CE2013). The affected area of that caño measures 0.43 hectares, and 3,687.72 cubic metres of soil were removed. The area of Caño Oeste (CO2013) is 0.22 hectares. The restoration costs were estimated based on an estimation model applied in the Refugio de Vida Silvestre Caño Negro (Caño Negro Wildlife Refuge), which is part of the complex of cross-border wetlands between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. To the value per hectare estimated in that model we added collection and transport costs as an approximation of the replacement cost of the amount of soil removed in the affected areas. Thus an estimate of the monetary value of environmental damage of $2,880,745.82 was obtained. This estimate is composed of restoration costs in the amount of $57,634.08 and a social cost of $2,823,111.74 related to the loss of stock and flows of ecosystem services, estimated with a recovery term of 50 years, with an environmental discount rate of 4%.
Annex 1
150
www.neotropica.org 64 VII- Bibliography ACTO-SINAC-MINAET. (2009). Plan de Manejo del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del Colorado Costa Rica. Pococí, Limón, Costa Rica: Área de Conservación Tortuguero, SINAC, MINAEt. Aguilar González, B. (2014). Decisiones deliberativas bajo un enfoque multicriterial para Latinoamérica. In M. Vallejo, & M. Aguado (Eds.), Reflexiones sobre los límites al desarrollo. Memorias del VI Congreso Iberoamericano sobre Desarrollo y Ambiente VI CISDA (pp. 83-130). Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO, Sede Ecuador; Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo. Aguilar, B. (2002). Paradigmas Económicos y Desarrollo Sostenible: La Economía al Servicio de la Conservación (1era. ed.). San José, Costa Rica: UNED. Aguilar, B. (2007). Reflexiones y estudios de caso utilizando una Teoría Multidimensional del Valor: recomendaciones para Centroamérica. In R. Ulate, & J. Cisneros, Valoración económica, ecológica y ambiental (pp. 37-77). Heredia, Costa Rica: Editorial Universidad Nacional. Aguilar, B., Erbure, L., González, A., Jarquín, M., Lucke, I., Hidalgo, A., et al. (2013). Conciliando Productivamente: Identificación de Actividades Viables de Producción Sostenible para Pobladores/as de la Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce. San José, Costa Rica: INOGO, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University. Aguilar, B., Kocian, M., Batker, D., Hidalgo, M., León, E., Córdoba, K., et al. (2012). Valoración Económico-Ecológica Rápida de los Daños Ambientales Relacionados a los Cambios en la Cobertura del Suelo en la Fincas Propiedad de Industrias Infinito luego de la Resolución 244-2008-SCH del Área de Conservación Huetar Norte. San José, Costa Rica: Fundación Neotrópica. Aguilar, G. B., Navas, G., & Brun, C. (2015). Estudio sobre la conflictividad generada por proyectos de extracción minera en Guatemala. San José, Costa Rica: Fundación Neotrópica para PNUD-Guatemala. Aguilar-González, B., & Moulaert, A. (2011). A Preliminary Ecological-Economic Estimation of the Environmental Service Loss Due to the Current Ecoloigcal Conflict in the Isla Portillos Region in the Caribe Noreste Wetland in Northeastern Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: Fundación Neotrópica. Aguilar-González, B., & Moulaert, A. (2013). ECOTICOS. Multi-dimensional valuation for environmental conflict analysis in Costa Rica. In H. Healey, J. Martínez-Alier, L. Temper, M. Walter, J.-F. Gerber, H. Healey, J. Martínez-Alier, L. Temper, M. Walter, & J. Gerber (Eds.), Ecological Economics from the Ground Up (pp. 465-487). Londres: Earthscan. Aguilar-Gonzalez, B., Moulaert-Quirós, A., Rivera, J., Erbure, L., González, A., Umaña-Ledezma, L., et al. (2011). A Summary of Actual and Potential Environmenta Service Losses Due to the Current Ecological Conflict in the Portillos/Calero Island Region in the Caribe Noreste Wetland in Northeastern Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: Fundación Neotrópica.
Annex 1
151
www.neotropica.org 65 Araya, M. (2011). Age approximation of trees cut in the Area under Costa Rica´s Environmental Management located on the causeway of the artificial channel built on a portion of territory of Calero Island to connect the San Juan River with los Portillos Lagoon. Pococí, Limón, Costa Rica: ACTO-SINAC-MINAET. Araya, M. (2010). Appraisal al maximum average age of trees felled in primary forest areas in the Punta Castilla, Colorado, Pococí and Limón sectors of Costa Rica, as a result of the Nicaraguan Army´s occupation for the apparent restoration of an existing canal. Pococí, Limón, Costa Rica: ACTO, SINAC-MINAET. Araya, M. (3 de marzo de 2016). Entrevista sobre los Daños Ocasionados por la Construcción de los Caños Artificiales en Isla Portillos en los Años 2010 y 2013. Araya, M. (2013). Estimación preliminar de impactos en el extremo norte de Isla Portillos por la apertura de dos nuevos canales artificiales entre junio y setiembre de 2013. Pococí, Limón, Costa Rica: ACTO-SINAC-MINAE. Araya, M., & Mena, O. (2013). Informe de Gira. ACTo-GMRN-EPMF-364-2013. Área de Conservación Tortuguero. Arguedas, M. (2015). Valoración económica de servicios ecosistémicos brindados por el manglar del Golfo de Nicoya, Costa Rica. Turrialba, Costa Rica: Tesis sometida a consideración de la División de Educación y el Programa de Posgrado como requisito para optar por el grado de Magister Scientiae en Socioeconomía Ambiental, CATIE. Barbier, E., Acreman, M., & Knowler, D. (1997). Valoración económica de los humedales. Guía para decisores y planificadores. Gland, Suiza: Oficina de la Convención RAMSAR. Barrantes, G. (2011). Metodología para la evaluación económica del daño ambiental. Asunción, Paraguay: Alianza San Pedro Sostenible, USAID, Fundación Moisés Bertoni, DAP. Barrantes, G., & Cháves, H. (2000). Valoración Económica del Daño en Bosques Naturales. Estudio de Caso: Bosque Húmedo Tropical en Ecuador. Heredia, Costa Rica: IPS. Barrantes, G., & Di Mare, M. (2001). Metodología para la evaluación económica de daños ambientales en Costa Rica. Heredia, Costa Rica: IPS. Beaumont, N., Austen, M., Atins, J., Burdon, D., Desgraer, S., Dentinho, T. S., et al. (2007). Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 54, 253-265. Calvo-Gutiérrez, C., Bonilla-Murillo, F., & Sasa, M. (2013). Uso y conservación de humedales de yolillo Raphia taedigera (Arecaceae) en el Área de Conservación Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical , 61 (Suppl 1), 163-178.
Annex 1
152
www.neotropica.org 66 Castañón del Valle, M. (2006). Valoración del Daño Ambiental. México DF, México: PNUMA, Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe. Castro, R. (1999). Los Servicios Ambientales: El Caso de Cambio Climático. México D.F., México: Programa Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 150, 152 (International Court of Justice 16 de diciembre de 2015). Cifuentes, M. (2012). Evaluación de carbono en el Humedal Nacional Térraba-Sierpe. San José, Costa Rica: BIOMARCC-SINAC-GIZ. Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica. (3 de Agosto de 2007). Lista de Materiales de Constucción. Retrieved 14 de abril de 2016 from http://www.cfia.or.cr/descargas/precios_materiales.pdf Costanza, R., d´Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S. G., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature , 387, 253-260. Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S., Kubiszeski, I. F., et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change , 26, 152-158. De Groot, R. (1994). Environmental Functions and the Economic Value of Natural Ecosystems. In A. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, & R. Costanza, Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability (pp. 151-168). Washington D.C., EEUU: Island Press. De Groot, R., Stuio, M., Finlayson, M., & Davidson, N. (2007). Valoración de humedales. Lineamientos para valorar los beneficios derivados de los servicios de los ecosistemas de humedales. Gland, Suiza: Secretariado de la Convención Ramsar. De Groot, R., Wilson, M., & Boumans, R. (2002). Ecosystem functions, goods and services: Classification, description and valuation guidelines. Ecological Economics , 393-408. Delgado, A. (2007). Manual del Usuario Valca 4.2.0. Dixon, J., & Sherman, P. (1990). Economics of Protected Areas: A New Look at Benefits and Costs. Washington D.C., EEUU: Island Press. Evans, S. (1999). The Green Republic. A Conservation History of Costa Rica (1era ed.). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Gowdy, J., Howarth, R., & Tisdell, C. (2010). Discounting, ethics, and options for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. In TEEB, & P. Kumar (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations (pp. 257-284). Londres Inglaterra y Washington D.C., EEUU: Earthscan.
Annex 1
153
www.neotropica.org 67 Hall, C. (2000). Quantifying Sustainable Development. The Future of Tropical Economies. San Diego, California, EEUU: Academic Press. Jiménez, G. (2012). Valoración del Daño Ambiental Area de Protección Quebrada Pilas Propiedad de Digna Prendas Loría, Candelaria de Naranjo-Alajuela. Grecia, Alajuela, Costa Rica: Área de Conservación Cordilera Volcánica Central. Jiménez, G. (2014). Valoración del Daño Ambiental. Propiedad Kattia Vargas Arias Rodríguez de Valverde Vega-. Grecia, Alajuela, Costa Rica: Area de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central. Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services. Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1185, 54–78. Marozzi, M., & Solís, J. (2007). Valoración económica total de los humedales Gandoca-Manzanillo San San Pond Sak en el caribe fronterizo entre Costa Rica y Panamá. San José, Costa Rica: Informe no publicado para Alianzaas, UICN:ORMA. Marozzi, M., Chacón, E., Alpizar, E., & Mata, R. (2012). Valoración Económica Ambiental del Daño Ecológico Mina Crucitas,Pocosol, Costa Rica, Zona Norte. San José, Costa Rica: Informe Pericial. MINAE. (2014). Valoración de los daños ambientales ocasionados por el gobierno de Nicaragua mediante la construcción de nuevos caños artificiales abiertos en el extremo norte de Isla Portillos en septiembre de 2013. San José, Costa Rica: Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía. MINAET. (2011). Evaluation and assessmet of the environmental situation in the North-eastern Caribbean Wetland (Humedal Caribe Noreste) pursuant to the Order of the International Court of Justice. San José, Costa Rica: Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, Technical Report to Ramsar. Monge, A., Jiménez, M., & Bonila, S. (2013). Estudios científico-técnicos de la Isla Calero, Machuca y Portillos para considerar su cambio de categoría de manejo. Pococí, Limón, Costa ica: Área de Conservación Tortuguero, SINAC, MINAE. Montes de Oca Lugo, J. (2006). Los humedales transfronterizos de Nicaragua y Costa Rica: documento informativo. San José, Costa Rica: UICN. Moreno, M. (2005). La valoración económica de los servicios que brinda la biodiversidad: la experiencia de Costa Rica. From http://www.inbio.ac.cr/otus/pdf/valoracion-economica-biodiversidad-cr.p… Moreno, M., Choden, S., Floquet, A., & Mongbo, R. (2011). Protected Areas-Not just for Biodiversity Conservation. The Contribution of Protected Areas to the Economic and Social Development in Bhutan, Costa Rica and Benin. Heredia, Costa Rica: CINPE-UNA, CEBEDES, NCD. Naber, H., Lange, G., & Hatziolos, M. (2008). Valuation of Marine Ecosystems: A Gap Analysis. Retrieved 1 de marzo de 2016 from https://www.cbd.int/marine/voluntary-reports/vr-mc-wb-en.pdf
Annex 1
154
www.neotropica.org 68 Oficina Nacional Forestal. (2013). Precios de la Madera para las Principales Especies Comercializadas. San José, Costa Rica: Oficina Nacional Forestal. Oreamuno, R., & Villalobos, R. (2013). Technical assessment of the artificial canals on Isla Portillos. San José, Costa Rica: Centro de Investigaciones en Desarrollo Sostenible (CIEDES), Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Costa Rica. Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Martín-López, B. V. (2010). The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In TEEB, & P. Kumar (Eds.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (pp. 183-256). Washington, DC, EEUU: Earthscan. Pearce, D., & Moran, ,. D. (1994). The Economic Value of Biodiversity. Londres, Inglaterra: Earthscan. Pearce, D., & Turner, R. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Baltimore, Maryland, EEUU: John Hopkins University Press. Programa del Estado de la Nación en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible. (2011). Decimoséptimo Informe del Estado de la Nación en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible. San José, Costa Rica: Programa del Estado de la Nación en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible. Quesada, A. (2008). Plantas al Servicio de la Salud. San José, Costa Rica: Museo Nacional de Costa Rica. Ramsar Secretariat. (2010). Ramsar Advisory Mission Report N. 69: North-eastern Caribbean Wetland of International Importance (Humedal Caribe Noreste), Costa Rica. Gland, Suiza: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Resolución 2015111438 de 24 de noviembre, 08-001282-1027-CA (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo del II Distrito Judicial de Goicoechea 2015). Salazar, G., & Salas, N. (2009). Precios de la madera en Costa Rica (Primer Semestre 2009). San José, Costa Rica: Oficina Nacional Forestal. Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar. (2014). Informe Final Misión Ramsar de Asesoramiento No. 77 Humedal de Importancia Internacional Caribe Noreste, Costa Rica. Gland Suiza: Convención Ramsar. Sepúlveda-Machado, M., & Aguilar-González, B. (2015). Significance of blue carbon in ecological aquaculture in the context of interrelated issues: A case study of Costa Rica. In S. Mustafa, & R. Shapawi (Eds.), Aquacultre Ecosystems. Adaptability and Sustainability (pp. 182-242). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Sequeira, W. (2010). Valoración de Daños Ecológicos. Expediente 443-10-02-TAA. Delito: Infracción a la Ley Forestal 7575. Puriscal, San José, Costa Rica: Area de Conservación Pacífico Central, Subregión Puriscal. Spash, C. (1993). Economics, Ethics, and Long-Term Environmental Damages. Environmental Ethics , 117-132.
Annex 1
155
www.neotropica.org 69 TEEB. (2010). The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. (TEEB, & P. Kumar, Eds.) Washington, DC, EEUU: Earthscan. Thorne, C. (2011). Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican territory. Nottinghham, Reino UNido: Nottingham University. Thorne, C. (2015). Written Statement. Dispute Concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Nottingham, Reino Unido: University of Nottingham. Ulate, C. (Agosto de 2010). Establecimiento Plantación Forestal:Costo/Hectárea. Noticias de Corredores Biológicos Area de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte, Costa Rica . Vega, E. (2004). Evaluación Económica del daño ambiental causado por los incendios forestales en Costa Rica. Retrieved 1 de marzo de 2016 from http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/Panamerica/Oct%2004%20Ne… Vega, E. (2004). Evaluación Económica del daño ambiental causado por los incendios forestales en Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: IPS. Working Group MEA-UNEP. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Annex 1
156
www.neotropica.org 70 Appendix 1: List of the studies used for the estimations based on the value transfer methodology 1.Arguedas, M., 2015. Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Mangrove of the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica. Turrialba, Costa Rica: Thesis submitted for consideration of the Education Division and the Postgraduate Program to obtain a Magister Scientiae in Environmental Socioeconomics, CATIE. 2.Barbier, E.B. 2007. Valuing Ecosystem Services as Productive Inputs. Economic Policy 22(1): 177-229. 3.Barbier, E.B., I. Strand and S. Sathirathai. 2002. Do Open Access Conditions Affect the Valuation of an Externality? Estimating the Welfare Effects of Mangrove-Fishery Linkages in Thailand. Environmental and Resource Economics 21(4): 343-367. 4.Camacho-Valdez, V., Ruiz-Luna, A., Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P. A. 2014. Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Coastal Wetlands in Northwest Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management. 78: 1-11. 5.Cooper, E., L. Burke and N. Bood. 2009. Coastal Capital: Belize - The Economic Contribution of Belize's Coral Reefs and Mangroves. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., 53 pp. 6.De la Peña, A. Rojas, C., De la Peña, M. 2010. Economic Valuation of the Mangrove for Carbon Storage, Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Clío América, 4:7, June 2010: 133-150. 7.Gómez, G. 2001. Economic Analysis of the Environmental Functions of the Mangrove in the Sabana Camagüey Ecosystem. Instituto Superior Politécnico José Antonio Echeverría (CUJAE), Ciudad Habana, Cuba. 8.Mendoza-Gonzalez, G., Martínez, M. L., Lithgow, D., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Simonin, P. 2012. Land Use Change and its Effects on the Value of Ecosystem Services along the Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Ecological Economics 82, 23–32. 9.Samonte-Tan, G.P.B., A. T. White, M. A. Tercero, J. Diviva, E. Tabara and C. Caballes. 2007. Economic Valuation of Coastal and Marine Resources: Bohol Marine Triangle, Philippines. Costal Management 35(2): 319-338. 10.White, A.T., M. Ross and M. Flores. 2000. Benefits and Costs of Coral Reef and Wetland Management, Olango Island, Philippines. In: Cesar, H. (editor), “Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs”, Kalmar, Sweden: CORDIO, Kalmar University: 215-227.
Annex 1
157
www.neotropica.org 71 Appendix 2: Standing timber prices used Table 15- Species present in Caño Pastora and compiled prices. Source: Prepared by the authors with data from the National Forestry Office as of 2009 Species Vernacular Price pmt-p colones ONF 2009 Price m3-p colones Caesarea Sp Cesarea ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Ceiba pentandra Ceiba ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Unknown Unknown ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Grias cauliflora Tabacón ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Inga Sp Guabilla ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Lonchocarpus Sp Chaperno ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Mimosaceae Mimosaceae ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Pachira aquatica Popenjoche ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Pentaclethra macroloba Gavilán ₡93.00 ₡33,666.00 Pterocarpus officinalis Sangrillo ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Simira maxonii Guaitil Colorado ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Spondias mombin Jobo ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Symphonia globulifera Cerillo ₡90.00 ₡32,580.00 Table 16- Species present in Caño Pastora and compiled prices. Source: Prepared by the authors with data from the National Forestry Office as of 2013 Species Vernacular Precio pmt-p colones ONF 2013 Precio m3-p colones Caesarea sp Cesarea ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Ceiba pentandra Ceiba ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Unknown Unknown ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Grias cauliflora Tabacón ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Inga sp Guabilla ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Lonchocarpus sp Chaperno ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Mimosaceae Mimosaceae ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Pachira aquatica Popenjoche ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Pentaclethra macroloba Gavilán ₡105.00 ₡38,010.00 Pterocarpus officinalis Sangrillo ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Simira maxonii Guaitil Colorado ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00 Spondias mombin Jobo ₡60.00 ₡21,720.00 Symphonia globulifera Cerillo ₡50.00 ₡18,100.00
Annex 1
158
www.neotropica.org 72 Appendix 3: Weighted monetary values for the value transfer Ecosystem good or service Study Value per hectare Area of the study Raw materials (fibre and energy) Camacho-Valdez, V. et al. (2014) $467.94 Gulf of Mexico, Mexico Mendoza-Gonzalez, G. et al. (2012) $2.02 Gulf of Mexico, Mexico White, Ross & Flores (2000) $57.31 Olango Island, Philippines Habitat and nursery Camacho-Valdez, V. et al. (2014) $2.02 Gulf of Mexico, Mexico Samonte-Tan, et. al. (2007) $292.45 Bohol Marine Triangle, Philippines Barbier, et. al. (2002) $109.66- $4,432.19 Thailand Gas and climate regulation Arguedas (2015) $14,955.23 (stock) $15.56- $38.10 (flow) Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica Gómez (2001) $105.11- $512.41 Sabana Camagüey De la Peña, et. al. (2010) $116.04- $3,367.07 Cienaga Grande Santa Marta, Colombia Natural hazards mitigation Camacho-Valdez, V. et al. (2014) $3,731.38 Gulf of Mexico, Mexico Cooper, et. al. (2009) $7,282.72 Belize Barbier (2007) $11,615.69 Thailand Barbier, et. al. (2002) $2,949.74 Thailand
Annex 1
159
Annex 2Fundación Neotrópica, “Explanatory addenda to the Report ‘Monetary Valuation of the environmental damages arising from the construction of caños and clearing of trees and vegetation performed by the Government of Nicaragua in the Costa Rican territory on Isla Portillos, as required by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 16 December 20158 December 2016English translation
161
1 Explanatory addenda to the Report “Monetary valuation of the environmental damages arising from the construction of artificial caños and clearing of trees and vegetation in Isla Portillos, Humedal Caribe Noreste, Costa Rica, in conformity with the Judgment of the International Court of Justice, The Hague” in view of the request for clarification by Nicaragua in the noteaddressed to Ambassador Sergio Ugalde (HOL-EMB-280) dated 18 November 2016 I - Clarification regarding the process of monetary valuation of the ecological or ecosystem services The process for selection of the ecosystem services to be accounted for as losses in the monetary valuation of the environmental damages was meticulously performed, within the available timeframe and in conformity with the technical information on record that confirmed the damages. To this end the report describesthe technical environmental background that supports the valuation, specifically citing the documents and relevant inputs with their specific location (as summarized in Table 2). We highlight the technically-relevant facts that support the documented losses. The ascertained facts and technical evidence on record provide the causal link of the claimed damages. These technical facts, ascertained by the Judgment of the Court, are supported by professionals in biology, forestry, hydrogeology and specificallywetlands, as included in the case records: ProfessorColin Thorne (U. of Nottingham, United Kingdom), SINAC technicians (Costa Rica), technical personnel of the RAMSAR Secretariat, technical personnel from CIEDES (UCR, Costa Rica), etc.
Annex 2
162
2 They were also discussed and assessed by the technical team that worked on the report, which includes three professionals in environmental sciences, part of the team of Fundación Neotrópica, an organization with over thirty years of experience in fieldwork in Costa Rican protected areas and ecosystems. This discussion and assessment included continuous feedback from the technical personnel of the Tortuguero Conservation Area, the bio-geographical conservation unit in charge of Humedal Caribe Noreste, where Isla Portillos islocated. The process of verification of the current status included an aerial inspection by means of an overflight with personnel from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Conservation Area and Fundación Neotrópica.Furthermore, we structured both the claimed services and the available methodologies according to the international state of the art on the monetary valuation of ecosystem services and environmental damages, not only to have clarity regarding the methods used but also in order for the assessment of the ecosystem functions involved to be comprehensive, avoid redundancy and maintain proportionality with the ascertained damages. This process included the key component of reviewing the application on coastal wetland ecosystems commissioned by theRAMSAR Convention itself, to have a perspective on the specific application to those ecosystems and its challenges. Furthermore, we documented the applications made in Latin America and specifically in Costa Rica, which, as confirmed by the Court’s ruling, has sovereignty over the territory where the damages occurred. In this process the technical preparation of the professional who led the report includes education and extensive experience in environmental law, environmental economy and ecological economy, both nationally and internationally.Based on this body of evidence, and with a highly selective spirit, we performed a preliminary selection of ecosystem goods and services for which losses were ascertained in the Judgment, to be considered for the valuation (Table 8). We took into consideration the parameters established in international literature regarding the ease of performing the valuation of those goods and services, the transferability of the estimated monetary values from similar ecosystems located in other sites, the magnitude of the presence in the area of the damages, the perceptible reserves and flows therein, and the extent to which it is possible to verify the loss due to the damages caused and
Annex 2
163
3 ascertained in the judgment according to the opinion of the environmental technicians and legal experts consulted. We thus arrived at a list of 11 categories of preselected goods and services. This preliminary determination was subjected to a thorough examination of the data available to perform the valuation according to the most accepted methodologies and their reliability. In accordance with the good faith of the Government of Costa Rica, only six (6) categories were selected for valuation of the attributable damage and eight (8) categories to be presented as a qualitative description. Of these services, the valuation of standing timber and soil formation/erosion control was performed through direct valuation, opportunity cost and replacement cost. These constitute approximately 60% of the base estimate.It is worth noting here an error in the original report; however, it does not affect the calculations. Table 16 was named “Species present in Caño Pastoraand compiled prices”. The correct name should have been “Species present in Caño Este2013 and compiled prices”. The species are the same and the table tries to show the price levels used for the calculation of the monetary value in 2013 when CE 2013 was excavated, which are different from those used in 2010 when Caño Pastorawas excavated.The three other categories (raw materials, gas regulation, natural hazard mitigation, habitat and nursery) were estimated using the value transfer methodology, from similar sites. Rigorous parameters were used in the selection process to comply with that recommended in the technical literature, so that the base studies used the most recognized studies and for the transferability of the service to be medium or high (Table 8). Furthermore, as established in page 46of the report1:“… First, studies on similar ecosystems, i.e. tropical coastal wetlands (most of the literature is on mangroves) were looked for... To the extent possible, only studies published in indexed journals with peer reviews are used. For grey literature, we use the review protocol followed by the NGO specialized in the valuation of ecosystem services, Earth Economics (http://www.eartheconomics.org/), to review the studies to be included inits global database of valuation studies... Also, when selecting the values and adjusting them to the site under consideration, this is performed according to the technical 1 Translator’s note: This page number refers to the English translation. It corresponds to page 48 of the original Spanish.
Annex 2
164
4 recommendations of the local valuation teams and technicians from SINAC and the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Costanza, et al., 2014).”Consequently, the studies selected and presented in Table 10 comply with that indicated by UNEP in its study “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity”, which defines the state of the art on this matter. It is also worth noting that for each of the categories of goods and services included in the valuation, in Table 10, its grounds and causal link to the facts ascertained by the Court are confirmed in conformity with the sources listed in the column “Source in the technical body of evidence” in reference Table 2.II - Clarification regarding the accuracy of the value transfer methodology and the adequacy of the transferred values The value transfer method is used to estimate the lowest percentage of the selected categories, and it is performed with all due thoroughness, reviewing the base studies (their methodology, whether they are current and their location) and the transferability of the values in the specific category of ecosystem goods and services. Specifically, the base studies given preference are mainly from coastal wetlands in Costa Rica, Central America and the Caribbean, with exceptions justified in that we sought to obtain a more conservative and accurate valuation.We quote page 52of the report2and expand on this. “The ecosystem goodsand services in the raw materials, habitat and nursery categories (biodiversity) are estimated through value transfer, calculating the mean of the values per hectare provided by the ecosystems studies in the reference studies, as performed by renowned studies (Costanza, et al., 1997; Costanza, et al., 2014). This value is multiplied by the hectares affected in C2010 and CE2013. In the case of raw materials, affected areas cleared but without removal of the trees were also included. 2 Translator’s note: This page number refers to the English translation. It corresponds to page 55 of the original Spanish
Annex 2
165
5 Regarding the loss of the environmental services of natural hazards mitigation, the value transfer is qualified by selecting a low value from the range of selected studies. This is performed given that as recorded in the technical reports and confirmed in the field visit, it is an area with low density of population, with nearby towns 4 kilometres away, few houses on the river meadows, some SINAC infrastructure on the Costa Rican side, and an airstrip on the Nicaraguan side(ACTO-SINAC-MINAET, 2009; Monge, et al., 2013).The specific situation of the ecosystem services of gas regulation and, consequently, air quality, deserve special mention. In spite of finding several reference studies, we chose to use as basis the calculations of the study concluded in 2015 by Maureen Arguedas at Centro Agrícola Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) under the supervision of Dr. Miguel Cifuentes, main expert in Costa Rica on the estimation of carbon reserves in wetlands. This study has the advantage that it is based on the fixed carbon estimate of studies in Costa Rican wetlands, both in biomass and soils. Furthermore, it presents the stock by hectare and the annual fixation (flow) by hectare estimated for themangrove areas of the Gulf of Nicoya (Arguedas, 2015). Because of the advantages of this level of specificity, and having identified mangroves in the affected area(Araya & Mena, 2013), we opt to use these numbers to estimate both the lost stock and flows of this ecosystem service. Figure 9 shows the mangrove area identified in the northern part of CE2013. Thus, Table 14 presents the values transferred in the categories of other raw materials, gas regulation/air quality, natural hazards mitigation, habitat and nursery (biodiversity). The monetary value of the service lost per hectare per year is presented in the table. The transferred values are included in appendix 3, as stated in note 2. The complete references of the studies are included in appendix 1.
Annex 2
166
6 The other raw materials are estimated from the average values of studies in the Mexican Pacific and Caribbean and in the Philippines. All of the values are from coastal tropical wetlands with presence of mangroves. It includes three published studies with peer reviews. Note that this is an environmental service that is highly adequatefor economic valuation and has a high transferabilityof values (Tables 4 and 8).Another unintended error that does not affect the results should be noted here. In Appendix 3, the area of the study of Camacho-Valdez should read "Gulf of California, Mexico". For gas regulation and climate regulation we used the study by Arguedas in the coastal wetlands of the Gulf of Nicoya in the Costa Rican Pacific. The monetary value considers adding the value of the stock and the average value of the flow by hectare. Note that this is an environmental service with a high transferabilityof values (Tables 4 and 8).For natural hazards regulation we chose a more conservative approach, as mentioned in the text, given that the area of Isla Portillos has a low density of population. Thus, we used the lowest value identified in the studies that qualified within the desired time range and performed in coastal wetland ecosystems with the presence of mangroves: Barbier et. al., 2002 from Thailand. Note that this is an environmental service with a medium transferabilityof values (Tables 4 and 8).The values of the habitat and nursery services are estimated from the average of the studies indicated in Appendix 3 of coastal wetlands with the presence of mangroves in Mexico, Philippinesand Thailand. Note that this is an environmental service with a high transferabilityof values as well (Tables 4 and 8).
Annex 2
167
7 III - Clarification regarding the 50-year projection adopted (instead of another duration) As indicated in page 50of the report3:The estimate of the social cost component of the environmental damage requires two additional elements which are confirmed in the technically relevant facts presented in Table 2. First, a time period is required to calculate the net present value of the flow of ecosystem goods and services lost. In conformity with the methodological specifications of the framework for the valuation of environmental damages adopted, this time period is the time for recovery of the ecosystem to the state prior to the damage caused(Barrantes & Di Mare, 2001). Based on the confirmed technical reports, that time is of 50 years, even though trees that were over 200 years old were cut down (Aguilar-Gonzalez, et al., 2011; MINAET, 2011; Thorne, 2011).Supporting this judgment, the time period matches the time ruled as necessary in the report for valuation of environmental damages prepared by the expert witness team appointed by the Administrative Environmental Court for the Crucitas mining conflict that affected a tropical forest near the area in HCN subject to this case(Marozzi, et al., 2012)It is worth noting that the initial state of the areas affected corresponds to non-intervened areas with forests aged over 200 years, in a protected wildlife area in the case of C2010 and CE2013 and the cleared areas. This has been clearly established in the technical reports and in the judgment of the ICJ. It can beseenthat the Costa Rican claim, although it could have justified a longer time since damages were ascertained to trees over 200 years old, in good faith adopts a reasonable term for the recovery of the ecosystem flows affected, in conformity with the causal link established on record. 3 Translator’s note: This page number refers to the English translation. It corresponds to page 53 of the original Spanish
Annex 2
168
8 We expand on that specific reasoning below. Our report states on p. 314:…for purposes of estimating restoration costs it is necessary to identify the state of conservation of the natural resources affected and the degree of the effects thereon. Knowing the state of conservation prior to the disruption, it is possible to determine the estimated time for restoration of the resource, which shall result in a more correct approximation of the economic costs that it will entail. Specifically, the methodology developed to estimate the restoration cost is a function of the inputs required and time for restoration of the natural resources affected to the conditions before the disturbance. Since the action may affect one or more resources, the time for restoration must correspond to the resource with the longest recovery time (Barrantes & Di Mare, 2001; Vega, 2004).According to the reports presented by Costa Rica, the longest time could have been over 200 years, since there were trees in the areas affected that went beyond this age. This would have defined a much longer time for the projection and, therefore, a much larger amount to claim. However, the estimate here also adopted a very conservative approach, in good faith. Therefore, our estimate sought a time frame that would guarantee that the growth of the trees in the area would be enough so as to ensure that all ecosystem services valued would be restored. We resorted to two sources/criteria to justify this. 1-The valuation reports that were accepted in the Crucitas court case in forested areas that have some similar characteristics in terms of the climateconditions and other ecosystem features and is roughly 70 km away, almost on a straight horizontal line to the site of Isla Portillos. Specifically, we looked at the method suggested by the report “Evaluación del daño al bosque afectado por la empresa Industrias Infinito en Crucitas de Pocosol, Alajuela”(Evaluation of the damages to the forest affected by the company Industrias Infinito in Crucitas de Pocosol, Alajuela) written by a multidisciplinary team of natural scientists. 4 Translator’s note: This page number refers to the English translation. It corresponds to pages 32-33 of the original Spanish.
Annex 2
169
9 They suggest determining the time needed for the recovery in the deforested area by estimating the average age of the trees in the plot. They estimated this average age and the percentage of trees that were beyond certain ages. Their averages (for the areas measured) were 112 and 83 years. Of the trees in one area, 50% were over 45 years old and in the other over 55 years old. Based on these age estimates, they recommend an estimate of the recovery time for ecosystem services to be no less than 50 years which may be the age needed for the forest to recover the structure, richness and species composition at the time of the damage.(Chacón, et al., 2012). This report was accepted by the Costa Rican court that has made the first instance decision on the Crucitas conflict and was the basis for the monetary valuation of damages that was accepted by that same court in 2015. In our case, the average age of the trees in the deforested area, as measured for Caño Pastora by SINAC and confirmed by Dr. Colin Thorne, was 115 years. Of the trees in the deforested area, 66% were over 50 years old, 55% over 75 years old, and 46% over 100 years old. It is worth noting that, as indicated on record, the tree estimate for CO2013 and CE2013 accepted by the International Court of Justice was based on the inventory for Caño Pastora. 2-Dr. Colin Thorne had already stated in the records of the proceedings that tree diameters are a good estimate for tree age (Memorial of Costa Rica, Vol. 1 pp. 365). In his reporthe estimated the growth rate to be between 4 and 6 mm per year in diameter. If we assume a mean growth rate of 5 mm, a minimum of 50 years would mean that the trees in the area would have approximately 25 cm in diameter and heights above 20 meters. We consulted with the natural scientists in our team and SINAC’s technical team if this seemed a reasonable minimum parameter for the forest in the wetland to continue providing the ecosystem services claimed in the monetary estimation presented.
Annex 2
170
10 IV - Clarification regarding the selection of a discount rate of 4% We clarify that already indicated in the report. Costa Rican jurisprudence set a pioneering precedent in the execution phase of the judgment regarding the Crucitas environmental conflict.The independent appraisers’ report established alternative discount rates of 3% and 0% in the valuation of the environmental damage caused in Crucitas de Cutris, northern Costa Rica, quite close to HCN(Marozzi, et al., 2012). In its judgment, the Administrative Courtaccepted a discount rate of 3% (Resolution No. 2015111438 of 24 November 2015). In this same conflict, the valuation report of Fundación Neotrópica adopted a slightly more conservative rate, in close rangeof 4% for a report prepared for the Ministry of the Environment at request of the Attorney General’s Office(Aguilar, et al., 2012). We adopt this approach in this study.This decision is based on recent literature regarding the specific rates to use. The TEEB report states that different social rates of discount should be used for different scenarios, using a zero discount rate in cases of investments for environmental sustainability and other rates for other cases of public investment (Vardakoulias, 2013).A lead economist in Synapse Economics, Dr. Liz Stanton, summarised in 2010 the situation regarding the discount rates used, stating that current conventional wisdom calls for a discount rate that is somewhat like the short-term “risk-free” interest rate (3 to 5%) for calculating the worth today of values that will existsometime within the next 20 or 30 years and slightly lower for longer term horizons(Stanton, 2010). More conservatively, the Obama administration recommended of a 2.5-3and a 5% discount rate to determine the social cost of carbon for an analysis that stretches hundreds of years into the future (Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, 2010).
Annex 2
171
11 Goulder and Williams (2012) report the implicit discount rates inthree influential studies on climate change policies to be in a range between 1.4% and 4.3%. These studies include Nicholas Stern’s influential 2007 work “The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review”. This study recognizes the need to distinguish between financial performance rates and rates used in situations where what matters is the effect over social wellbeing, as is the case of this study. The study reaffirms the difficulties of addressing the subjectivity implied in the definition of social welfare functions. Further, it considers the effect of uncertainty in these estimates, suggesting declining rates in long-term horizons (Goulder & Williams, 2012). This last proposal is used in other reports which restate the lack of consensus on specific rates and suggest the use of declining as a pragmatic approach, citing studies that propose rates of 4% for the first 5 years, 3% from year 6 to year 25, 2% from year 26 to 75, 1% between years 76 and 300 and 0% for the longer term horizons(Cunninghmam, 2009).England uses a somewhat similar approach for discounting the costs and benefits of social projects, where in the first 30 years they apply a rate of 3.5% and for longer periods a lower rate(Vardakoulias, 2013).In view of these international parameters on the difficulty of defining inflection points where differential rates could be used and of the ongoing international discussion, this study adopts a conservative approach through a slightly higher rate amid the ranges found in the literature and the studies for Crucitas in Costa Rica: 4%. It represents the average of the ranges presented by Stanton (2010) and suggested by the Obama administration for the social cost of carbon. It is also the most conservative rate suggested by Goulder & Williams (2012). We use this rate in this study to discount the flow of values that allow the determination of the net present monetary value of the ecological damage assessed in the chosen time horizon of 50 years.
Annex 2
172
12 Works cited ACTO-SINAC-MINAET, 2009. Management Plan of the Barra del Colorado National Wildlife Refuge, Costa Rica, Pococí, Limón, Costa Rica: Área de Conservación Tortuguero (ACTo, Tortuguero Conservation Area), SINAC, MINAET.Aguilar, B. et al., 2012. Quick Economic-Ecological Valuation of the Environmental Damages Related to Changes in the Soil Cover at Properties Owned by Industrias Infinito Following Resolution No. 244-2008-SCH of the Huetar Norte Conservation Area, San José, Costa Rica: Fundación Neotrópica.Aguilar-Gonzalez, B. et al., 2011. A Summary of Actual and Potential Environmental Service Losses Due to the Current Ecological Conflict in the Portillos/Calero Island Region in the Caribe Noreste Wetland in Northeastern Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica: Fundación Neotrópica.Araya, M. & Mena, O., 2013. Log of the visit to the disputed territory. ACTo-GMRN-EPMF-364-2013, s.l.: Tortuguero Conservation Area.Arguedas, M., 2015.Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Mangrove of the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica. Turrialba, Costa Rica: Thesis submitted for consideration of the Education Division and the Postgraduate Program to obtain a Magister Scientiae in Environmental Socioeconomics, CATIE.Barrantes, G. & Di Mare, M., 2001. Methodology for the Economic Valuation of Environmental Damages in Costa Rica.Heredia, Costa Rica: IPS.Chacón, E., Alpizar, E. & Mata, R., 2012. Evaluation of the damages to the forest affected by the company Industrias Infinito in Crucitas de Pocosol, Alajuela, San José, Costa Rica: Expert witness report for the Administrative Court.Costanza, R. et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, Volume 387, pp. 253-260.
Annex 2
173
13 Costanza, R. et al., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, Volume 26, pp. 152-158.Cunninghmam, R., 2009. Discount Rates for Environmental Benefits Occurring in the Far-Distant Future, www.iearesearch.com: Independent Economic Advisers.Goulder, L. & Williams, R., 2012. The Choice of Discount Rate for Climate Change Policy Evaluation, Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, 2010. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Washington, DC., EEUU: Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government.Marozzi, M., Chacón, E., Alpizar, E. & Mata, R., 2012. Economic Environmental Valuation of the Ecological Damages of the Crucitas Mine, Pocosol, Costa Rica, Zona Norte. San José, Costa Rica: Expert Witness Report.MINAET, 2011. Evaluation and assessmet of the environmental situation in the North-eastern Caribbean Wetland (Humedal Caribe Noreste) pursuant to the Order of the International Court of Justice, San José, Costa Rica: Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, Technical Report to Ramsar.Monge, A., Jiménez, M. & Bonila, S., 2013. Scientific-technical studies of Isla Calero, Machuca and Portillos to Consider Changes in their Management Category, Pococí, Limón, Costa Rica: Tortuguero Conservation Area, SINAC, MINAE.Resolution No. 2015111438 of 24 November 2015of the Administrative Court of the Second Judicial District of Goicoechea, San José, Costa Rica.
Annex 2
174
14 Stanton, L., 2010. Public Goods: The economics of climate, equity and shared prosperity. The future now for a Fraction of the cost! [Online] Available at: https://lizstanton.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/the-future-now-for-a-fracti… access: 1 October 2016].Thorne, C., 2011. Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican territory,Nottinghham, United Kingdom: Nottingham University.Vardakoulias, O., 2013. Discounting and Time Preferences, United Kingdom: New Economics Foundation.Vega, E., 2004. Economic Assessment of the Environmental Damage Caused by Forest Fires in Costa Rica. [Online] Available at:http://www.fire.unifreiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/Panamerica/Oct%2004%20Net… access: 1 March 2016].
Annex 2
175
Annex 3Costa RicanMinistry of Foreign AffairsNew Works in The Northeast Caribbean Wetland, Report for the Executive Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on WetlandsJuly 2013English translation
177
0 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Costa Rica NEW WORKS IN THE NORTHEAST CARIBBEAN WETLAND Report for the Executive Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands July 2013
Annex 3
178
1 Table of Contents 1. Background ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. The works ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. New posts for the Public Forces and expansion of the existing post at Delta Colorado ...... 5 2.2. Isla Calero Technological Project, Tower Infrastructure for Control and Surveillance......... 5 2.3. Biological Station ................................................................................................................. 7 2.4. Ruta1856 ............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 1: Illustrative map of the new works at the HCN ......................................................... 9 Figure 2: Containers and construction of Tower A at Delta Post 7 ..................................... 10 Figure 3: Tower B at Isla Calero .............................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Power line for police post and Tower at Delta 7 ................................................... 12 Figure 5: Wiring for electrical connection of Tower B ........................................................... 13 Figure 6: Police post and Tower C at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon ........................... 14 Figure 7: Power supply for police post and Tower C at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8: Access to police post and Tower D at Punta Castilla .......................................... 16 Figure 9: Police post at Punta Castilla .................................................................................... 17 Figure 10: Tower D at Punta Castilla ...................................................................................... 18 Figure 11: Photograph of the side of the MINAET biological station .................................. 19 Figure 12: Bases of the MINAET Biological Station ............................................................. 20 Figure 13: Sewage treatment plant of the MINAET biological station ................................ 21 Figure 14: Photovoltaic electric system of the MINAET biological station ......................... 22 ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Annex 3
179
2 1. Background As a result of the occupation and use of the Costa Rican territory in the area of Finca Aragón, Isla Portillos, carried out illegally by Nicaragua in October 2010, which also included environmental damages to the area, on November 18 of that year Costa Rica filed an application before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accompanied by a request for provisional measures. The Costa Rican territory that was occupied and damaged by Nicaragua is part of the Northeast Caribbean Wetland (Humedal Caribe Noreste, hereinafter “HCN”) which is a Ramsar site, registered in the list of wetlands of international importance of the Ramsar Convention since March 20, 1996. Due to this circumstance and in compliance with the provisions in paragraph 3 of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as a waterfowl habitat, known as the Ramsar Convention, Costa Rica informed the Ramsar Secretariat of the facts, on the grounds that they were altering the ecological balance of the wetlands. The Ramsar Convention entered into force on 21 December 1975, and it was signed by Costa Rica and adopted as a law of the Republic through Act No. 7224, published in the Gazette N ° 86 of 8 May 1991 In the Order of Provisional Measures issued by the ICJ on 8 March 2011, the following provision was included: “86. For these reasons, THE COURT, Indicates the following provisional measures: (1) Unanimously, Each Party shall refrain from sending to, or maintaining in the disputed territory, including the caño, any personnel, whether civilian, police or security; (2) By thirteen votes to four, Notwithstanding point (1) above, Costa Rica may dispatch civilian personnel charged with the protection of the environment to the disputed territory, including the caño, but only in so far as it is necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the part of the wetland where that territory is situated; Costa Rica shall consult with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention in regard to these actions…” In accordance with the provisions of the ICJ in this paragraph, the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (Ministerio del Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, MINAET) of Costa Rica created a group of national experts so that along with three experts appointed by the Ramsar Secretariat a Joint Mission would be integrated to perform an environmental assessment on the status of the resources in the area indicated by the ICJ to determine the actions necessary to prevent further irreparable damage to that part of the wetland. Said visit was conducted on 5 and 6 April 2011. The conclusions of the visit and the corresponding work plan were presented to the Ramsar Secretariat in October 2011 in the document "First Technical Report for the Initial Evaluation and
Annex 3
180
3 Assessment of the Environmental Situation in the Northeast Caribbean Wetland within the framework of the Order of the International Court of Justice". On the other hand, the Order of Provisional Measures of 8 March 2011 included the following considerations paragraph: “78. Whereas, in order to prevent the development of criminal activity in the disputed territory in the absence of any police or security forces of either Party, each Party has the responsibility to monitor that territory from the territory over which it unquestionably holds sovereignty, i.e., in Costa Rica’s case, the part of Isla Portillos lying east of the right bank of the caño, excluding the caño; and, in Nicaragua’s case, the San Juan river and Harbour Head lagoon, excluding the caño; and whereas it shall be for the Parties’ police or security forces to co-operate with each other in a spirit of good neighbourliness, in particular to combat any criminal activity which may develop in the disputed territory;” This paragraph requires both countries to provide security to the area from their corresponding territories which are not in dispute. In the case of Costa Rica, since their police cannot navigate the San Juan River to reach the area, this provision meant having to establish new police posts, as well as infrastructure to enable effective monitoring, such as towers and surveillance cameras. Moreover, the occupation and use of Costa Rican territory and environmental destruction carried out by Nicaragua in the area of Isla Portillos in October 2010 was later accompanied by other hostile acts by that country, which evidenced Nicaragua’s intention to entirely ignore the border regime. For example, in November 2010 President Daniel Ortega announced Nicaragua’s intention to claim from Costa Rica a right to free navigation on Colorado River, which international instruments do not grant. Additionally, during the oral hearings relating to the request for provisional measures submitted by Costa Rica against Nicaragua before the International Court of Justice, the Nicaraguan Agent announced his country’s position to ignore the regime of condominium in the bays of Salinas and San Juan del Norte. In addition, Nicaragua’s representatives defended the -incorrect- legal position that according to the instruments that govern the border regime, Nicaragua has right to occupy Costa Rican territory and Costa Rica only would only be entitled to compensation. Subsequently, President Ortega threatened to reclaim the Costa Rican province of Guanacaste, and the Chief of the Nicaraguan Army announced his intention to stop Costa Ricans who visit the area indicated by the International Court of Justice in compliance with the Order of Provisional Measures of 8 March 2011. In view of the threats to national security and territorial integrity from the Nicaraguan actions, Costa Rica, as a sovereign country and pursuant to the right to defend itself, has the power within the framework of international law of having the appropriate infrastructure that will allow its public authorities and inhabitants to transit easily along the border, as well as providing access to the border communities from other points in the interior of the country, if necessary, and to perform any act of defence of its territorial integrity. This is particularly important in the sector of Costa Rican territory where there was no other means of
Annex 3
181
4 communication apart from the San Juan River, on which navigation has been systematically restricted by the Nicaraguan authorities, despite Costa Rica’s perpetual right to free navigation, established in the respective instruments and ratified in 2009 by the International Court of Justice. As a first measure, the Government of Costa Rica initiated actions in December 2010 in order to allow access by land to the police post located at the Delta where the San Juan River forks and the Colorado River is born, site known as Delta 7 (see Figure 1). Thus, an existing route was rehabilitated between the Delta and the town of Fatima, which is located in the Northeast Caribbean Wetland. Later these works were extended to the West, along the border that runs along San Juan River, in order to allow not only the police and other Costa Rican institutions to have land access to different points of the national border area, but also to allow the inhabitants to move if necessary. Therefore, this road also has the function of reducing the dependence of the inhabitants of the border communities, and of the State institutions that provide basic health and education services, on the use of the San Juan River as the only way of communication that has traditionally existed in that area, given the restrictions imposed by Nicaragua to Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan River. Within this context, the Government of Costa Rica issued Executive Decree No. 36440-MP published in The Gazette No. 46 of 7 March 2011, Publication no. 14 (see Annex 1), which ordered a "State of emergency situation and the process triggered by the violation of Costa Rican sovereignty by Nicaragua." Considering clause 5 of the Decree reads as follows: “5. That Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 36440-MP, declares a State of Emergency in the cantons of La Cruz, Upala, Los Chiles, Sarapiquí, San Carlos and Pococí as these border with Nicaragua, a country that performs illegal actions on Costa Rican territory which threaten the life, physical integrity and property of its inhabitants, as well as against the national sovereignty and the environment“. This Decree also allowed protecting the works that have been performed in the Northeast Caribbean Wetland. The foregoing background and context explain the reasons why the Government of Costa Rica saw the need to perform new works in the Northeast Caribbean Wetland. Below these works will be explained in greater detail. 2. The works The works that are being built at the HCN consist of the installation of 2 new police posts (one at the entrance of the fresh water lagoon and the other at Punta Castilla) and the expansion of the one that already existed at Delta del Colorado; a biological station at Punta Castilla; four surveillance towers (two at Colorado Delta, one at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon and one in Punta Castilla; and electrical connection and computer infrastructure named Isla Calero technological project. There is also a portion of Ruta 1856 located within the boundaries of the HCN,
Annex 3
182
5 therefore it is included in this report. Figure 1 shows the location of each of these works, which are described below. The exception is made that the area of the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon is located outside the limits of the HCN, but it has been included in this report due to its relationship with the other works. 2.1. New posts for the Public Forces and expansion of the existing post at Delta Colorado On 26 December 2010 a police post was installed at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon, using a house that already existed in the area of approximately 100 square meters (see Figure 6. In addition, it has a tower for video surveillance and protection of the sector, 60 metres high. Electricity was brought to this station with a line of approximately 10 km (see Figure 7), for which the corresponding permits were processed before the National Emergencies Commission (see Annex 3) and the National System of Conservation Areas, SINAC (see Annex 4). On 15 January 2012 the improvements to the physical plant of the so-called Delta Costa Rica post (Delta 7) began, which already existed from the end of the 1970s of approximately 80 square metres. In addition, three containers were placed at this post, which serve as a sleeping area for the policemen posted to the area, and one which operates as an office (See Figure 2). These works are temporary, while the permanent works are built. In addition to the improvements to the physical structure, two towers were installed to perform video surveillance and protection of the sector, the first 60 metres high, on the south bank of the Colorado River and the second tower on the north bank of the Colorado River with a height of 30 metres (see Figure 3). Electricity was brought to this station with a line of approximately 25 km starting from La Aldea (see Figure 4), for which the corresponding permits were processed before the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (see Annex 2). It has been planned to build in the future a new police station on the southwestern point of Isla Calero, on the left bank of the Colorado River, in front of the Delta 7 post. On 25 January 2012 a police post was installed in the sector of Punta Castilla, with a physical structure of approximately 160 square meters. In addition, it has a tower that is 60 metres high. The power supply is based on solar panels. (See Figures 8-14) 2.2. Isla Calero Technological Project, Tower Infrastructure for Control and Surveillance This project consists of the construction of four surveillance towers, located at the following sites: two in the Delta sector, one at post at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon and the other at the post at Punta Castilla. Figure 1 shows the four towers identified with letters A (post at Delta 7), B (Isla Calero, opposite the Delta 7 post on the opposite bank of the Colorado River), C (mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon) and D (Punta Castilla). At the time of the visit of the Ramsar Technical Mission the towers were under construction, as shown in the photographic record included, but were subsequently concluded.
Annex 3
183
6 Initially the project contemplated the construction of 6 towers, but it was then adjusted to 4 in the areas defined as priority and shown in the figures included in this section of the report. The towers will have long range cameras (15 kms) to serve as a support for the national security strategy in the border area. While the process of acquisition of long-range cameras is completed, others with a smaller range have been installed temporarily. The camera at Punta Castilla (D) receives electricity from photovoltaic cells, while the other three receive electricity through cables. To provide electricity to the police station located at Delta 7 and to the surveillance towers and cameras (A and B), as well as for the benefit of the inhabitants of the area, a power distribution line was traced on the existing public street, 24.6 kilometres long, between the villages of Aldea and Delta, which also entails the installation of approximately 255 concrete posts, 11m high (see Figure 4). Furthermore, subsequently a submarine cable was installed under the bed of the Colorado River to provide electricity to tower B, located on the southwest point of Isla Calero (See Figure 5). In the case of the police post, the tower and the camera at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon (C), an electric distribution line was traced from the village of Barra del Colorado, with a distance of 10.9 km long (see Figure 7). The Ministry of Public Security, with the technical support of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), was responsible for the construction of these works. MINAET issued the corresponding guidelines, specifically for the Delta Costa Rica sector, so that the power line after the Delta was a submarine line. ICE called this activity "Isla Calero Technological Project" and said Institute processed all of the environmental permits required under the Administrative File # D1-5901-2011-SETENA, obtaining the environmental feasibility of the project, approving the stage of Environmental Management stage subject to compliance with the environmental commitment clause. The work was planned based on Executive Decree N° 36440, published in The Gazette No. 48 of 7 March 2011 and Agreement N° 330-2011 of 24 August 2011, as well as Agreement N° 363-2011 on 21 September 2011, both of the Board of Directors of the National Emergency Commission. On the website of the Presidential House the work performed in the North area is explained in the following terms: "In addition, thanks to a 24-km power line built by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), more than 100 families of Fatima, San Antonio and Delta-Costa Rica, in the canton of Sarapiquí, Heredia and the border area with Nicaragua, benefited with electricity for the first time. This work -which represents an investment of ¢250 million colones- allows for the improvement of socio-economic, educational and safety conditions of the inhabitants of this region." ICE filed before SETENA an application for approval of the environmental viability for the works of two power lines, one from Aldea to Delta Costa Rica and the other from Barra del Colorado to Agua Dulce. MINAET issued in administrative file N° TO01 - PCE-SU-00341-2012, the resolution ACTO-GWRN-OFAU-116-12 whereby
Annex 3
184
7 it grants permission to cut 324 trees and 183 coconut palms necessary for the project. The authorization was provided by ICE’s “Área de Desarrollo de Guápiles” (Guápiles Development Area), which is responsible for the works on site. In both projects ICE had the support of the Offices of the Tortuguero Conservation Area (ACTo). This conservation area analysed and reviewed the routes and made environmental recommendations. The electric network of Aldea-Delta was already built and is in operation, while the electrification from Barra del Colorado to Agua Dulce is in process. 2.3. Biological Station The Tortuguero Conservation Area, supported by the Emergency Plan approved by the CNE in attention to Executive Decree No 36440-MP, began the construction of a biological station at Punta Castilla, which measures approximately 162 m2 (see Figures 11 and 12). This work was tendered through Institutional Purchases (Proveeduría Institucional), following the procedures established by CNE, and the blueprints were duly approved by the Costa Rican Association of Engineers and Architects, and the CNE conducted the corresponding monitoring of the work, as well as an external supervision performed by a company of specialists and consultants on this topic. The creation of a biological station in the area of Isla Calero-Isla Portillos of the Northeast Caribbean Wetland area obeys the following objectives: -Consolidate the management of the Northeast Caribbean Wetland through a research program that allows generating scientific information that will permit updating the management of the HCN and the management plans of the Barra del Colorado National Refuge and Tortuguero National Park. -Create an appropriate programme for biological monitoring of the status of existing resources, mainly on Isla Calero, allowing management to take the necessary preventive and corrective measures. -Consolidate a prevention and control programme to prevent the alteration of the existing natural resources. MINAET hopes to achieve these goals through a research programme specializing on the subject, with the participation of national and foreign researchers, as well as a biological monitoring programme to measure the status of existing ecosystems, and finally a programme for prevention and control of natural resources to protect the biological diversity existing on Isla Calero-Isla Portillos and neighbouring sites. It has been estimated that for the adequate functioning of the Biological Station 21 MINAET employees are required. At the time of the visit of the Ramsar Technical Mission, the construction of the biological station had been completed in a satisfactory manner, and already had the accommodation equipment for lodging. Sanitation, adequate disposal and wastewater treatment works were finished in February 2013. Figure 13 shows the waste treatment plant, while Figure 14 shows the batteries that provide power from photovoltaic energy to the station. This aspect is particularly sensitive due to
Annex 3
185
8 the high groundwater levels existing on the site. Furthermore, as part of the research project, a utility vehicle for four people was acquired. It is expected that the Station will have a laboratory to handle the samples. 2.4. Ruta1856 As indicated in the background section, a portion of Ruta 1856 is located within the limits of the HCN, between Delta 7 and the town of Fátima. This section can be seen in Figure 1, and it measures 14.9 kilometres. It has an average road width of 5.14 metres, and an average right of way of 21.42 metres. This was the first sector of Route 1856 that was built, and it consisted in the rehabilitation of an existing rustic road, so its construction did not alter at all the use of the existing soil prior to the work, given that it had already existed for many years, since it was the only way of communication, very limited, between Fátima and the Delta. Enabling this passage for vehicles originated in the need to allow land access to the Delta 7 police station, in order to facilitate their work in national defence. The Government of Costa Rica is currently in process of creating the bid for the final plans of the entire Ruta 1856, for which the work was divided into five sections. The stretch from Delta7-Boca Sarapiquí, which includes the sector of the route which passes through HCN, was opened to a bidding process through an abbreviated tender, so it is expected that the final plans will be available in the medium term.
Annex 3
186
9 NEW WORKS AT THE NORTHEAST CARIBBEAN WETLAND Figure 1: Illustrative map of the new works at the HCN Annex 3
187
10
DELTA COSTA RICA TORRE A
Figure 2: Containers and construction of Tower A at Delta Post 7
Annex 3
188
11 DELTA COSTA RICA TORRE B Figure 3: Tower B at Isla Calero
Annex 3
189
12 ALIMENTACION ELECTRICA A TORRE A Figure 4: Power line for police post and Tower at Delta 7
Annex 3
190
13 ALIMENTACION ELECTRICA A TORRE B Figure 5: Wiring for electrical connection of Tower B
Annex 3
191
14 AGUA DULCE TORRE C Figure 6: Police post and Tower C at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon
Annex 3
192
15 ALIMENTACION ELECTRICA A TORRE C Figure 7: Power supply for police post and Tower C at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon
Annex 3
193
16 PUNTA CASTILLA TORRE ACCESOSD Figure 8: Access to police post and Tower D at Punta Castilla
Annex 3
194
17 Figure 9: Police post at Punta Castilla
Annex 3
195
18 Figure 10: Tower D at Punta Castilla
Annex 3
196
19 Figure 11: Photograph of the side of the MINAET biological station
Annex 3
197
20 Figure 12: Bases of the MINAET Biological Station
Annex 3
198
21 Figure 13: Sewage treatment plant of the MINAET biological station
Annex 3
199
22 Figure 14: Photovoltaic electric system of the MINAET biological station
Annex 3
201
Annex 4Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE)Report of works carried out from 26 March to 10 April 201516 April 2015English translation
203
1 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES 16 April 2015ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Eng. Laura Rivera QuintanillaACTo AddressMatter:Report of works carried out from 26 March to 10 April 2015 within the framework of the implementation of the VI Investment Plan pursuantto Decree N° 36440-MP named “Mitigation measures in artificial cañosbuilt by the Government of Nicaragua in Isla Portillos, disputed territory, according to the resolution of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.”1_BACKGROUNDIn September 2013, Costa Rica informed the International Court of Justice of “new and serious activities by Nicaragua in the disputed territory” by means of satellite images of the area where they are located. Specifically, it was indicated that Nicaragua had begun the construction of two new artificial cañosin the disputed territory. Both cañoswere located in the northern part of the disputed territory, the larger one toward the East (hereinafter “East caño”).As a result of the provisional measures requested by Costa Rica, the International Court of Justice issued an Order of Provisional Measures on 22 November 2013. In this Order the Court took into consideration that the cañosare located in the disputed territory, within the “Humedal Caribe Noreste” (Northeast Caribbean wetland), which is under Costa Rica’s responsibility pursuant to the Ramsar Convention. Consequently, dispositive paragraph (E) of the Order of the Court of 22 November 2013 established that “following consultation with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention and after giving Nicaragua prior notice, Costa Rica may take appropriate measures related to the two new caños, to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the environment of the disputed territory; in taking these measures, Costa Rica shall avoid any adverse effects on the San Juan River.”In conformity with the ruling of the Court, in August 2014, after a visit to the site by a Ramsar Advisory Mission, it was determined that there is in fact a risk of irreparable prejudice to the area, if a combination of factors cause the San Juan River to continue all the way to the sea by creating a new mouth through the cañoexcavated by Nicaragua. In this regard the Ramsar Secretariat indicated that: “Regarding the analysis of the possible scenarios, the Ramsar Advisory Mission recommended, following the principle of precaution and looking to improve the quantitative analysis of the area of study, the implementation of scenario 1 [measures for closing of the caño] accompanied by the rigorous implementation of a monitoring programme.” It is important to clarify that the other proposed scenario was named scenario 0 and consisted of not implementing any measures to close the caño.
Annex 4
204
2 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 2 of 27 Based on that recommended in the report Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 77, it is in Costa Rica’s best interest to prevent this effect from occurring and to act as quickly as possible due to the following reasons: a.The breaking of the sandbar would change the course of the San Juan River irreversibly, resulting in loss of land for Costa Rica, to the detriment of the country's territorial integrity. b.The closing works must be performed before the end of the decrease in rains typical of October, given that it is immediately followed by the season of very heavy rains in the area, during which the risk of breakage of the sandbar that separates the cañofrom the Caribbean sea increases. c.Delays in carrying out the works will increase the costs of implementation, due to the increase in operating costs (fuels, materials, labour) necessary to perform the works. d.The Order of the Court was issued in November 2013 and the coordination with the Ramsar Secretariat recommended the closing works for August 2014. By November 2014 the National Emergency Commission, pursuant to Executive Decree No. 36440-MP, had approved the V Investment Plan for the project named “Construction of dykes as mitigation measure where the artificial cañosare located, built in Isla Portillos, disputed territory, according to the resolution of the International Court of Justice in The Hague”. This investment plan, in sum, contemplated the construction of two dykes to close the “East caño” by carrying sandbags through the San Juan River. On 12 November 2014, 5 December 2014 and 17 December 2014, specifically, the environmental authorities of the Tortuguero Conservation Area travelled from Delta Costa Rica to the site of the “East caño” to begin the construction of dykes in that caño. However, the military authorities located at Delta Nicaragua prevented their navigation on the San Juan River, claiming, among other, that they needed an authorization from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua or that Costa Rica had to comply with the requirements of Nicaraguan law in order to use the San Juan River. This last aspect was not contemplated in the Order of the Court of 22 November 2013.Due to the aforementioned impediment, since January 2015 Costa Rica began the coordination necessary to rethink the actions to comply with the order of the Court and recommendations of the Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 77.
Annex 4
205
3 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 3 of 27 Thus, toward the end of March 2015 final approval was given for the VI Investment Plan, pursuant to Executive Decree No. 36440-MP, for execution of the project “Construction of a dyke as mitigation measure where the artificial cañosare located, built in Isla Portillos, disputed territory, according to the resolution of the International Court of Justice in The Hague”. Unlike the previous investment plan, this initiative centres on the construction of a single dyke, carrying the materials by air, specifically a helicopter, as it is the only means available due tothe Nicaraguan refusal to allow navigation on the San Juan River. Subsequently, dated 30 March 2015 and through diplomatic note No. DM-AM-166-2015, before beginning the works and in conformity with that established by the Court, Costa Rica informed Nicaragua of the operation to close the “East caño”.On that same day, through diplomatic note No. DM-AM-165-2015, Costa Rica also informed the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of the beginning of works, following the recommendations provided in the report of the Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 77.Finally, for 31 March 2015, through note ACTo-GMRN-O-092-2015, the company hired through bid No. SINAC-CDE-001-2015 was notified that the beginning of works for the “East caño” would be 1 April 2015. 1.1 Location of the new “East caño”The “East caño” is located about 1600 metres downstream from the mouth of San Juan River into the sea. The cañois located in the narrowest stretch of land between the right bank and the beach on the coast. The approximate length between the river and a small lagoon into which the cañoflows is 300 metres. Its location is shown in figure No. 1.More specifically, the new cañois located at the beginning of a bend in the river, where it changes direction from northwest to west. The new caño continues approximately with the direction of the river before it enters the bend.
Annex 4
206
4 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 4 of 27Figure 1. Geographic location of the “East caño" Miguel Araya, 2015.1.2. Goal of the proposal:As indicated, the initial goal of the proposed measures is to stop the environmental impact derived from the construction of this new artificial caño, in view of the existing threat of irreparable damage that the San Juan River could generate by consolidating a new exit to the sea during a season where its volume of flow increases. The subsequent goal is to promote restoration of the natural conditions of the wetland prior to the construction of the caño. These conditions refer to the following three topics:
Annex 4
207
5 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 5 of 27 • closing of the artificial caño,• regeneration of the vegetation that existed in the affected area,•restoration of the natural conditions of water exchange between the river and the wetland.The following measures are proposed to achieve the aforementioned goals.1.3. Proposed theoretical model: The construction solution proposed for the closing of the “East caño” was based on the following technical premises:•Use of natural materials from the area, preferably.•The transport and placement of these materials shall not produce impacts additional to the existing ones.•The intermediate site proposed would be defined at the time of beginning the works, depending on the available access and transport of materials. •The closing dyke would be built from the bottom of the cañoto the height of the banks, which has been estimated at 1.6 metres high. •The body of the dyke would be built with sacks, each filled with 30 sandbags weighing 30 Kg, forming a block of the following dimensions: 0.84 m x 0.84 m x 0.60 m high, with an approximate weight of 900 Kg. Along the width of the caño, the placement will be a staggered arrangement, as shown in Figure 2.•The theoretical volume of each sack is 0.42 m3.•The typical cross section of the closing dykes canbe seen in Figure 2 below. Arranged in three rows, varying from five sacks at the base to three on the crest, a slope is obtained with a theoretical incline of 1 vertical to 0.7 horizontal.•The theoretical height of the sacks is indicated as 1.8 metres. In practice, due to the settling of the sacks and lowering of the foundation, the effective height would decrease to 1.5-1.6 metres.
Annex 4
208
6 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 6 of 27•A woven type of geotextile will be placed, 2 mm thick, as base for the sandbags in the sediment at the bottom of the caño. In addition, the top row of each dyke will include sediment from the deposits located on the banks in the first entrance of the artificial caño.These sediments contain organic matter that promote vegetation growth.Figure 2 Typical cross-section of closing dykesSource: Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, 2015.Figure 3. Plan view of closing dykeSource: Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, 2015.
Annex 4
209
7 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 7 of 27 Figure 4. Front view of dam (looking northwest)Source: Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, 2015.1.4 Selection of site to obtain material to fill the sacks:Ideally, the filling material for thesandbags to be used for the construction of the dyke would be the same material that was removed during its excavation; however, this option was materially impossible due to the following:•Most of the material extracted was scattered in the San Juan River and in the area adjacent to the site of the caño, which is a flooded grassland, causing it to sink: thus, only an insufficient fraction remained with optimal characteristics for collection.•All of the land located in the dispute territory, including kilometres to the south, is very flat land with wetland characteristics, which prevented access to heavy loam material similar to that extracted to fill the sandbags.•Carrying material of similar characteristics by land from the Delta Costa Rica for its subsequent transport by air to the “East caño” was ruled out because it multiplied the cost of the operation in an exaggerated manner.Given the aforementioned limitations, the use of sand was selected. This material is not alien to the ecosystem, given that a few tens of metres from the location of the dyke on the “East caño”there is a lagoon with a sandy bottom. In spite of the foregoing, it was not possible to access the sand on the beach near Punta Castilla given that Article 100 of Executive Decree No. 29300 MINAE, among other, establishes the prohibition of mining activity on the beaches adjacent to the territorial sea. Thus, the closest point to access sand was the Agua Dulce mouth, which is approximately 10 Km southeast (SE) from the location of thecaño(see figure 5). Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 8 of 27
Annex 4
210
8 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Figure 5. Map of the location of the “East caño” with regard to the Agua Dulce mouth.In the area of the mouth of Agua Dulce lagoon an ample sand bank was identified, measuring approximately 2.4 ha, within which an area of 0.94 ha was selected as estimate to fill the sandbags. However, due to technical recommendations for the operation with an aircraft, only about 1265 m2(13.4%) of the area contemplated was used (See figure 6).In the area contemplated to fill the sandbags approximately 6360 sandbags were filled (5460 synthetic fibre bags and 900 natural fibre bags), with an approximate 87.04 m3of sand as sole filling material. The impact of the filling of sandbags in the area contemplated for that purpose is minor, given that it entailed the removal of a layer of sand of slightly less than 7 cm.
Annex 4
211
9 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 9 of 27 Figure 6. Map of the location of the area destined to fill the sandbags for the construction of the dyke. Miguel Araya, 2015.2_FILLING OF THE BAGS WITH SANDAs indicated, this work was performed fully in the sector of the mouth of the Agua Dulce lagoon. Approximately 20 officers of the Public Forces participated in this work, in addition to the support on some days by 8 employees of the Tortuguero Conservation Area. The work of filling the sandbags began on 28 March 2015 and continued until 04 April 2015. During the first 6 days regular bags were filled and the larger sacks were created; on the last two days burlap sacks were filled, which would be part of the final materials to be placed in the dyke.Each bag was filled with approximately 30 kg of beach sand. It was tied and placed inside alarger sack. Each of these sacks contained 30 small sandbags, to reach an approximate weight of 900 kilograms, with an approximate volume of 0.53 m³ each.
Annex 4
212
10 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 10 of 27Photo 1.Panoramic view ofthe site destined for the filling of sandbags during the first day. Photo by Miguel Araya. 29 April 2015In total 212 sacks were filled. Based on the original design, it was initially planned that approximately 380 would be required; however, as the works progressed it was estimated that the amount would be lower, therefore the filling of sacks was suspended. The same happened with the filling of the burlap sacks; after 30 were filled it was determined that they were enough to conclude the works.For thework to fill the sandbags shovels were used, as well as burlap sacks, sacks, black plastic to cover the material that was ready to prevent an increase in weight due to accumulation of humidity, string to tie each sack and weighing scales to control the weight of each sack filled. The selection of synthetic fibre to structure the dyke was due to the need for that structure to remain stable for at least two years, while the natural succession processes allow the regeneration of the site until reaching conditions similar to those that existed prior to the opening of the “East caño”. On the other hand, the natural fibre sacks (burlap sacks) selected for the top layer are intended to help secure the coconut fibre and, due to the short duration of the fibre, the colonizing vegetation will be able to have an underlying layer for its establishment.3_TRANSPORTING OF SACKSPrior to beginning the works a session was held by staff of the company responsible for the air transport in which they explained theprocedure to hook and release the sacks from the device which the helicopter would use to perform the transport, as well as the security measures to be applied.The work of transporting of sacks with the helicopter began on 31 March 2015, with the hookingof each sack in the Agua Dulce sector and its transfer to the cañowhere the dyke would be established. This work continued until 6 April, concluding on that date. The following table provides the details of the transport performed during the execution of the works.
Annex 4
213
11 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 11 of 27Photo 2. Session with the personnel in charge of collaborating with the transport of sacks. Photo by Miguel Araya, 30 March 2015.Table 1. Details of the transport of sacks, weight and volume transported per day to the dyke constructed in an artificial caño, Isla Portillos, Colorado. April 2015DayNumber of sacks transportedVolume of sandWeight (tonnes)31 March21.061.81 April189.5316.22 April179.0015.33 April2211.6419.84 April147.4112.65 April2412.7021.66 April147.4112.6Total111 sacks58.75 m³99.9 tonnesSource: Field data. Olman Mena, 2015.It is worth noting that 5 of the sacks carried correspond to burlap sacks that were placed on the top part of the dyke, as planned. The burlap sacks contained in each sack were taken out and placed systematically on the surface of the dyke, placing approximately 110 burlap sacks. The rest of the large sacks (106) made up the body of the dyke.During the execution of the works weather conditions and mechanical problems arose that interfered with the progress of the works, as it was necessary to pause while such issues were resolved. The details of what occurred are provided below.
Annex 4
214
12 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 12 of 27Table 2. Weather conditions and unexpected events that occurred during the work of transporting sacks to the artificial caño, Isla Portillos, Colorado. April 2015DayWeather conditions30 MarchGood.At around 2:00 there was a heavy rain in Agua Dulce, which delayed practice programmed with the aircraft.31 MarchGood1 AprilGood2 AprilRegular.At around 10:00 the transport had to be suspended because of strong winds and rain both at Agua Dulce and the caño. It was resumed at around 12:00 pm.Approximately at 2:00 work had to be stopped again because of problems with the fuel transfer pump that supplies the helicopter.3 AprilRegular From 8:30 to approximately 10:00 the transport had to suspended because due to rain in the Agua Dulce area.4 AprilRegular.At around 10:00 sack transport works had tobesuspended due to strong winds in the cañoarea. The personnel present at the cañohad to be evacuated at 15:30 due to a strongstorm that was headed from Agua Dulce to the cañoarea.5 AprilGood.In spite of moderate winds, the pilots carried sacks.6 AprilRegular.There were only 14 sacks pending transport, and this concluded at 11:30. Due to problems with winds, the helicopter had to leave when it released the last load, and it had to return to evacuate the personnel.7 AprilGoodSource: Field data. Olman Mena, 2015.To perform the process to hook the sacks, the personnel had the safety equipment necessary, as the wind generated by the helicopter caused sand to fly everywhere, possibly affecting the personnel. It is worth noting that on some occasions there was collaboration of the Public Forces to perform this manoeuvre.
Annex 4
215
13 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 13 of 27Photo 3. Partial view of the work of hooking the sacks for transport at the mouth of Agua Dulce Lagoon. Photo by Miguel Araya, 4 April 2015.4_RESULTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DYKEPhoto 4.Partial view of site selected for construction of the dyke. 30 March 2015 Photo by Christian Birkel.4.1. Definition of the site where the dam would be established:In the company of Engineer Christian Birkel, who participated in directing the works, the current structure of the cañowas analysed, and a site very close to that contemplated in the investment plan was selected. This point is located at the coordinates indicated in Figure 7.
Annex 4
216
14 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 14 of 27The site was mainly colonized by grasses, keeping water in an open riverbed 6.5 metres wide. The depth of the riverbed was 1.1 metres in the northeast bank and 1.5 metres in the southwest bank. On both sides there were mounds of material, the results of the dredging.After these mounds you could see the natural ground level (see photos 4 and 5).Figure 7. Geographic location of the site selected for the construction of the dyke in the east caño. Miguel Araya, 2015.Toward the north of the caño, we observed that the sedimentation process had favoured the decrease in the depth of the riverbed, therefore this site was deemed inadequate to place the dyke. The place chosen agrees with pictures of the furthest entry of the dredger that built the caño in 2013.
Annex 4
217
15 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 15 of 27Photo 5. Approximate alignment of the dyke built in the “East caño” superimposed on the picture of the same site from September 2013. Photo by Miguel Araya. September 2013.Photo 6.Panoramic view of site proposed in the project for establishment of dyke 2. Note visible sedimentation in the banks of the riverbed. 30 March 2015 Photo by Christian Birkel.Once the place where the work would begin had been determined, the following tasks were performed.4.2 Marking and placement of the geotextile:Once the point for construction of the works had been selected, the site was prepared to place the geotextile that would serve as the base of the dyke. It was defined on both sides until where it was necessary to place the sacks to reach the ground level and height required. Using an inflatable boat, personnel stood on both sides of the riverbed and laid out the geotextile. Location of the
Annex 4
218
16 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 16 of 27They tried to cover the entire work area, cutting off the excess material. Since the available material allowed it, two layers of textile were placed at the base, before placing the first row of sacks. Once the first row of sacks had been placed, another layer of fibre was laid out to improve the stability of the works. 4.3 Placement of marks for positioning of the sacks:In order to achieve the most accurate placement of the sacks and prevent incidents of the personnel, a system of ropes was used with a mark to reference the point where each hauled sack had to be placed. The system was mainly used for the first five trips, which corresponded to the firstrow of sacks that were submerged in the riverbed. Once this progress was achieved, othertechniques were used to facilitate the accurate placement of the sacks.4.4 Placement of the sacks: As previously mentioned, each sack was made up of 30 sandbags that weighed 30 kilograms each, meaning that each sack weighed approximately 900 kilograms. Due to the capacity of the helicopter, each haul permitted the transport of only one sack. This work began on 31 March 2015, and on that day two sacks were placed in the caño.Photo 7.Release and placement of the sacks in the caño. Photo by Olman Mena.3 April 2015The sacks were placed from West to East, on the riverbed with water and ensuring that they covered the geotextile placed in advance. A first row was created, crossing the artificial bed, using 5 sacks that covered from one side to the other.Subsequently, a second row was placed, trying to make it form a triangle with regard to the sacks on the first row. At the site it was agreed with Engineer Birkel the direction in which the 4 rows would be placed as floor, waiting to see their behaviour to determine whether a fifth row would be required at the base of the dyke. This assessment included observing whether the sacks sank into the sediment existing at the bottom of the riverbed, as this could entail the need for a better base for the works. Intotal, 106 large sacks filled with sandbags were required to finish the body of the dyke.
Annex 4
219
17 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 17 of 27It is important to note that in theory approximately 380 sacks were needed to cover the area of the dyke. However, on site we found that the theoretical model was contemplated for a site with a width of 25 metres, and with an even riverbed. The site selected had different characteristics; the width was smaller (final measurement 17.4 metres, but the dyke ended up at 19 metres) and it had an irregularly shaped riverbed. The diagram below provides a description thereof:Figure 8. Diagram of front view of the dyke built Prepared by Olman Mena. April 2015The proposed model agreed in the number of lines and rows (or levels) of sacks necessary to adequately perform the works, given that 5 lines of sacks were needed in the first row, 4 lines in the second row and 3 lines in the third row. As indicated, 111 sacks were used to complete the works,as well as geotextile and coconut fibre (see Figure 9).Figure 9.Diagram of front view of the dyke built Prepared by Olman Mena. April 2015Some of the actions performed to improve the works included tying the sacks through the rings placed to hook them to the helicopter. This helped to improve its shape and to make the dyke more compact. This tying was both at the opening of the sack as well as between the lateral lines of sacks with regard to the middle lines.Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 18 of 27Ground levelRiverbed with water flow2.55 m4.25 m19 mLine of the riverbed as of 31 March 2015
Annex 4
220
18 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Photo 8. Arrangement and tying of sacks. Photo by Olman Mena, 2 April 2015.4.5 Placement of woven coconut fibre, burlap sacks and cover of soil, seeds and some plants: Along with the progress in the placement of the sacks in the third row of the dyke, the final finishes began to be applied. This was conducted from the north-east end toward the south-west end of the dyke. After some empty spaces were filled with soil, the coconut fibre was laid out on top ofthe sacks.Photo 9. Coconut fibre laid out over the sacks (A) and burlap sacks placed to set the coconut weaved textile. Photo by Miguel Araya, 6 April 2015.This weave was set with burlap sacks, since it is very thin, to prevent it from being moved by a strong breeze. Raphia taedigera(Yolillo) seeds were found and spread all over the dyke, and they were covered with material from the edges of the caño.A
Annex 4
221
19 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 19 of 27In addition, plants of the same species were planted, as well as Brachiaria mutica(Pará) which is a type of grass present at the site, and some Pterocarpus officinalis(Sangrillo) seedlings, a tree that is common in the area. All of these species are common in this sector, and grow in wetland conditions, which is typical of this sector.Photo 10.Partial view of the coconut fibre setting process using natural fibre sacks, and placement of soil in surrounding areas. Photo by Miguel Araya, 6 April 2015. Since there were mounds on the edges of the riverbed, result of the dredging process, this material was used to cover the dyke until the sediment was completely used up.The works were completed on 6 April, 2015, seven days after the beginning of the transport of material to the caño.Photo 11.Covering of the dyke with material present at the site, result of the dredging. Planting over the dyke. Photo by Miguel Araya, 6 April 2015.B
Annex 4
222
20 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 20 of 275_ EFFECTS OF THE DYKE CONSTRUCTION WORKSThe main tasks conducted at the construction of the dyke were: filling of the sandbags and sacks with sand, transportation of this material by helicopter, and the construction of the dyke over the artificial caño. Based on these works one can determine that the alterations to the environment were concentrated in two sites: first at the spot where the sacks were filled, meaning the beach at Agua Dulce; and the second site was the spot chosen specifically for the construction of the dyke, in the artificial cañoat Isla Portillos. 5.1_Impact on Agua Dulce:Since the filling of sacks was conducted manually, no machinery entered the area (except for the helicopter to transport the sacks). Therefore the estimated effects occurring at this area were: Therefore, the estimated effects produced in this area were: 5.1.1 Removal of 87.04 m³ of sand:This was conducted in an area of less than 1200 m², which helped to make sure that the affected area demonstrated fewer signs of the action. The layer of sand removed is calculated to be less than 7 cm deep. Since most of this material was loose, the effect was minor. 5.1.2 Generation of solid waste:The presence of employees and representatives during the sack filling activities led to the production of solid waste at the site. However, when the works were completed, these materials were removed for their adequate disposal. Only the extra sacks and sandbags from the works remained, and their final use or destination is yet to be determined. Photo 12.Partial view of the sack filling area after the works were completed. Photo by Miguel Araya, April 08, 2015.
Annex 4
223
21 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page. 21 of275.1.3 Generation of wind by helicopter:Thehelicopter operation generated wind over the sack-filling area. However, since this area lacked vegetation or buildings, no tangible effects were produced at this area. The nearest plants were coconut palm trees, which appeared to be resistant to the winds, thus the impact there was minimal. 5.2 Impact at the dyke construction site:5.2.1 Generation of noise by the helicopter:The helicopter operation produced loud noise over the site where the sacks were deposited. However, it is important to consider that this effect occurred during the approach, release of the sacks and evacuation of the site, which lasted 2 to 3 minutes per haul. It was brief and not continuous, which reduced the effect on the environment at that point. It is important to mention that the fauna around the dyke did not show evidence of being affected by the works and the noise produced at the site. 5.2.2 Generation of wind by helicopter:The main effect noticed was the crushing of plants at the edges of the caño, mainly grass at the site. This effect is reversible since the plants were not cut or altered directly. Another effect observed included broken branches of nearby trees, something that happened sporadically and without reducing the highest crown beyond approximately 10% ofeach tree.5.2.3 Drying of plants caused by stepping on them: Drying of plants caused by stepping: Due to the constant passing of personnel on the edges of the dyke at the caño, certain B. mutica(Pará) plants dried out. Additionally, this was worsened by the strong sunshine during a portion of the time of the works. Photo 13. Final condition of the area where the dyke was built. Photo by Miguel Araya, 6 April 2015.It is important to take into account that after the works ended and the site returns to its normal activity, the stems that result from these plants and others in the surrounding areas will easily colonize the affected area, which is less than 30 m².
Annex 4
224
22 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 22 of 275.2.4 Generation of solid waste:The presence of employees during the dyke construction works contributed to the generation of solid waste, which was removed at the end of the works and taken to Agua Dulce for disposal. 5.3_Other effects:5.3.1 Generation of noise and gases by the helicopter: These were caused by the helicopter's travelling. However, based on its route, this effect was distributed throughout a very large area, thus the effects were reduced. 5.3.2 Fuel spills: Fuel was spilled during a transfer of fuel to fill the helicopter. It was not possible to determine how much was spilled. This happened on the mainland, at the Puerto Lindo area. As a preventive measure, sawdust and sand were kept at the site. The liquid was covered by these materials so that it could be absorbed and not contaminate water sources. The contaminated sawdust and sand were collected and taken to the site for adequate disposal.6_RELEVANT OPERATION STATISTICS6.1 Materials used for the construction of the dyke:The following table shows the amount of materials used for the construction of the dyke: Table 3. Materials used for the construction of the dyke at the artificial caño, Isla Portillos, Colorado. April 2015Materials usedMeasurement unitAmount used at the dykeConventional sandbagsunit3180Burlap sandbagsunit105Sacksunit111Geotextilemeters80Coconut fibrerolls2String-based roperolls3Sandtons99.9Volume of sacks hauledcubic metres58.75Source: Field data. Olman Mena, 2015.The placement of 111sacks at the cañorepresents the use of over 52% of the total sacks filled for that purpose.
Annex 4
225
23 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 23 of 276.2 Number of personnel who participated in the operation:Table 4 summarizes the number of supporting personnel who participated in the entire operation for construction of the East caño, for the different locations involved: construction site at the caño, mouth of the Agua Dulce lagoon, and Operating Station of Barra de Colorado at RefugioNacional de Vida Silvestre Barra de Colorado.During the days of the operation, there were 9-13 employees permanently located at the different strategic locations of the project at the Tortuguero Conservation Area, conducting a variety of duties, such as: filling of sandbags, construction of the dyke, hooking of sacks at Agua Dulce, water transportation of personnel, water transportation of fuel for helicopter, transportation of materials and equipment, legal advisory, follow-up of works and meal preparation.Table 4. Numberof personnel byinstitution and total time incurredat the operation sites from 26 March2015 to 10 April2015Institution EmployeesTotal time(hours)Tortuguero Conservation Area (ACTo)/SINAC191338Border Police (MSP)36852Physical Infrastructure Office / SINAC14Technical Management Office for the Project212Ministry of Foreign Affairs111General total592217Source: Field data. Miguel Araya, 2015.Although a total of 19 employees are reported to be directly participating in the field works at the Tortuguero Conservation Area, it is important to clarify that the total amount of personnel was 24, since there was an additional team providing administrative support to the operation. The collaboration of personnel supporting the Border Police was required as of 28 March 2015, and involved the filling of sandbags, the protection of the perimeter of the works at Agua Dulce, and patrolling directly related to the operation between Agua Dulce lagoon and the southern limit of the disputed territory, with a daily number of 10-15 employees.
Annex 4
226
24 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 24 of 27Furthermore, during the phase prior to the execution and during the development of the works, there was active involvement of the ministry authorities of MINAE and of the Executive Secretariat of SINAC, specifically from the Executive Director’s Office, the Physical Infrastructure Office, Institutional Purchases Area and Legal Advisory. Employees of Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad also participated, supporting the design of the works. Not taking into account the full number of persons who participated in the different planning and coordinating meetings prior to the execution of the works, nor the personnel from the contracted company (Aerodiva S.A.), it is estimated that the operation involved at least 77 persons from the aforementioned entities. 6.3 General summary of duties:Table 5 summarizes the duties related to the construction of the dyke over the "East caño" from 26 March 2015 to 10 April 2015. Table 5. General summary of the duties related to the construction of the dyke over the "East Caño" from 26 March 2015 to 10 April 2015.TasksAmountLand transportation of staff (# of trips)9Water transportation of staff (# of trips)18Land transportation of materials (# of trips)3Water transportation of materials (# of trips)13Water transportation of fuel for helicopter (# of trips)15Synthetic fibre sandbags filled (#)5460Natural fibre sandbags filled (#)900Sacks filled with sandbags (#)212Fuel consumed for motorboats (litres)2016Effective helicopter time (hours)51:05Flights Pavas-Barra de Colorado-Pavas (# of trips)2Flights Barra Colorado-Agua Dulce-Barra Colorado (# of trips)10Flights Agua Dulce-Caño-Agua Dulce (# of trips)121Air transport of sacks (# of trips)111Source: Field data: Miguel Araya, 2015.
Annex 4
227
25 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 25 of 27From the above table it is important to note that the duties related to the construction of the dyke occurred from 31 March 2015 to 06 April 2015. Another important aspect of the table above is that the total amount of flights from Agua Dulce to the construction site and vice versa was 121 trips. However, only 111 of those flights involved the hauling of sacks. This difference involves the transportation of staff at the start of each day, and other necessary flights related to the follow-up of the works. 6.4 Materials remaining from the operation:Table 6 summarizes the amount of materials remaining from the construction of the dyke over the "East caño."Table 6. Summary of the amount of materials remaining from the construction of the dyke over the "East caño." April 2015TypeAmount(#)LocationObservationsFilled sacks (regular)79Bocana Agua DulceFilled sandbags (regular)81Bocana Agua DulceOutside of the sacksFilled sacks (burlap)25Bocana Agua DulceFilled sandbags (burlap)14Bocana Agua DulceOutside of the sacksPackages of burlap sandbags21P.O Barra ColoradoComplete packagesPolyethylene packages of sandbags10P.O Barra Colorado500 units eachPacks of sacks15P.O Barra Colorado10 units eachRolls of regular sandbags9P.O Barra Colorado100 units each, plus 17 lose unitsShovels16P.O Barra ColoradoScales2P.O Barra ColoradoTo be transported to GuapilesBurlap sacks38P.O Barra ColoradoRegular defective sandbags68P.O Barra ColoradoInside an empty sackRolls of plastic9P.O Barra ColoradoInside an empty sackEmpty sacks 3P.O Barra ColoradoBoxes of water, 10 litres70P.O Barra ColoradoUse prior to expirationBottles of water, 2 litres50P.O Barra ColoradoUse prior to expirationBoxes of supplies11P.O Barra ColoradoTo be transported to Guapiles Use prior to expirationIncomplete rolls of string9P.O Barra ColoradoRolls of yellow string1P.O Barra ColoradoInflatable boat4P.O Barra ColoradoTo be transported to GuapilesRolls of coconut fibre2P.O Barra Colorado1/4 roll of geotextile1P.O Barra ColoradoSource: Field data: Miguel Araya, 2015.
Annex 4
228
26 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 26 of 27Leftover material included sandbags and sacks filled with sand at the delta of the Agua Dulce lagoon, with a total of 2451 synthetic sandbags mostly contained in 79 sacks, and 564 burlap sandbags contained in 25 sacks. If this material is not used at the site of the cañoper the recommendations that could be issued by the project's technical management office, it could be used to contain erosion at the edge of Agua Dulce lagoon near its mouth. The legal feasibility of this action must be previously consulted with the National Emergency Commission. If it is not possible to use this material for the purposes recommended, the sandbags must be emptied and the materials must be warehoused at Agua Dulce.CONCLUSIONS•The dyke was constructed in conformity with the technical recommendations described in the original project, and the adjustments suggested by the Project's Technical Management, based on the current conditions at the site. •The dyke's final length was 19 metres, with a width of 4.25 metres on the first row of sacks (base) and 2.55 meters on the third row of sacks. It had an approximate heightof 1.6 metres. •The construction required fewer materials than those planned in the original design. •The environmental effects of the construction were minimal. RECOMMENDATIONS •It is necessary to guarantee monitoring at the site, in order to verify that the dyke behaves adequately and according to its intended purpose as an obstacle to prevent any type of artificial connection between the San Juan River and the Caribbean Sea. •The monitoring would also allow verifying the progress of the restoration of the natural conditions of the affected wetland. •It is advisable to perform inspection visits every two weeks, beginning on week 17, and then continuing on week 19; after that, they should be conducted each month, on weeks 23, 27, 31, 36, 40, 44, 49 in 2015, and weeks 02 and 06 in 2016.
Annex 4
229
27 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Laura Rivera Quintanilla, Eng.Note ACTo-GMRN-O-093-2015Page 27 of 27•For the abovementioned tasks, it is necessary to earmark a total of 45 hours of helicopter flight time for monitoring purposes from the existing authorized amount available in the VI Investment Plan Decree N° 36440-MP “Construction of a dyke as mitigation measure where the artificial cañosare located, built in Isla Portillos, disputed territory, according to the resolution of the International Court of Justice in The Hague”.•If the sandbags and sacks located at Agua Dulce are not destined for any other use, they should be used at the edges of this lagoon as containment walls, specifically at the area near the Agua Dulce Border Patrol operating post, since there is noticeable impact at this site as a result of the water movement. This area is quite close to the location of the materials. The Border Police might be able to help with these tasks. Miguel Araya Montero, Eng.Olman Mena Valverde, Eng.Natural Resource Management OfficeForestal Management ProgramMAM/mam/Oficios/2015*16.04.2015Appendix List of personnel that participated and supported the closing process of the artificial caño at Isla Portillos, disputed territory between Costa Rica and Nicaragua as per the resolution of the International Court of Justice.
Annex 4
230
28 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Appendix 1. : List of personnel that participated and supported the closing process of the artificial cañoat Isla Portillos, disputed territory between Costa Rica and Nicaragua as per resolution of the Court. April 2015Full nameDepartmentMariana Jiménez ArceACTo/Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del ColoradoErick Herrera QuesadaACTo/Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del ColoradoManuel Arias GuzmánACTo/Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del ColoradoJeffry Castillo MachadoACTo/Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del ColoradoMiguel Aguilar BadillaACTo/Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del ColoradoLisandro Zúñiga MarínACTo/Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del ColoradoJesús Granados ArayaACTo/Parque Nacional TortugueroSara Zúñiga CalderónACTo/Parque Nacional TortugueroEduardo Segura FernándezACTo/Parque Nacional TortugueroJorge Cedeño CalderónACTo/Parque Nacional TortugueroJorge Villalobos LópezACTo/Parque Nacional TortugueroAdolfo Bernard PadillaACTo/Parque Nacional TortugueroMiguel Araya MonteroACTo/Regional OfficeOlman Mena ValverdeACTo/Regional OfficeJosé Joaquín Vargas MoraACTo/Regional OfficeSebastián Bonilla SánchezACTo/Regional OfficeCarlos Calvo GutiérrezACTo/Regional OfficeCarlos Rodríguez VegaACTo/Regional OfficeDavid Chavarría MoralesACTo/Regional OfficePablo Acuña SalazarACTo/Regional OfficeMarvin Arias ZeledónACTo/Regional OfficeJosé Miguel Sánchez HerreraACTo/Regional OfficeVirgita Molina SánchezACTo/Regional OfficeLaura Rivera QuintanillaACTo/Regional OfficeJulioJurado FernándezSINAC Executive directorGuido ChavesAdvisor to the SINAC Executive directorFabio Rodríguez UlloaSE SINAC/Physical infrastructure officeMarietta Tencio OlivasSE SINAC/Institucional Purchases AreaJensy Rojas ArayaSE SINAC/Institucional Purchases AreaWilliam DalorzoSE SINAC/Institucional Purchases AreaRoberto Quesada QuirósSE SINAC/Institucional Purchases AreaGidgett Ramírez HernándezSE SINAC/Legal advisoryÓscar Romero AguilarSE SINAC/Legal advisoryEdgar Gutiérrez EspeletaMINAE MinisterPatricia Madrigal CorderoVice-Minister of the EnvironmentFernando MoraVice-Minister of WatersLeonardo ChacónDirector of the Office of the Minister of MINAE
Annex 4
231
29 / 29 Dirección: Estación Experimental Los Diamantes, Jiménez, Pococí, Limón Tel. (506)27102929 • Fax: (506)27107673 • www.acto.go.cr SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN TORTUGUERO GERENCIA DE MANEJO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES (Continuation of Annex 1)Arnoldo Brenes CastroAdvisor to the Ministry of Foreign AffairsJosé Miguel Ramírez VargasBorder Police/MSPOdilio Campos GonzálesBorder Police/MSPRafael Oporta MartínezBorder Police/MSPJorge Téllez GarcíaBorder Police/MSPCristian Mairena PomaresBorder Police/MSPJason Rojas AlpízarBorder Police/MSPAdrián Barrantes HernándezBorder Police/MSPEdwin Gutiérrez HernándezBorder Police/MSPAntonio Ledezma MoralesBorder Police/MSPJonnhy Castillo BadoBorder Police/MSPGreivin Pereira StewartBorder Police/MSPJavier Esquivel RamírezBorder Police/MSPAlexander Carrillo RomeroBorder Police/MSPPablo López PetersonBorder Police/MSPAníbal López JiménezBorder Police/MSPJean Carlos Ortiz FigueroaBorder Police/MSPEddy Hernández AlemánBorder Police/MSPAndrés Cordero HurtadoBorder Police/MSPRoynis Palma PinedaBorder Police/MSPOldemar Potoy NavasBorder Police/MSPOscar Cambronero PorrasBorder Police/MSPEder Ramírez MadrigalBorder Police/MSPAndrey CambroneroBorder Police/MSPAndrés Cárdenas HurtadoBorder Police/MSPJosé Pablo Vargas GonzálezBorder Police/MSPEduardo Cantillo JiménezBorder Police/MSPRandall Carillo JiménezBorder Police/MSPGabriel Sequeira UgaldeBorder Police/MSPRoy Jiménez CalvoBorder Police/MSPCarlos Aburto MuñozBorder Police/MSPLuis Ángel Fonseca JiménezBorder Police/MSPJesús Herrera DinarteBorder Police/MSPDavid Quesada CoreaBorder Police/MSPMarcos Pérez RodríguezBorder Police/MSPGerald Camacho SánchezBorder Police/MSPAllan Hernández PicadoBorder Police/MSPSource: Dirección ACTo, field data. April 2015ACTo: Área de Conservación TortugueroSE SINAC: Secretaría Ejecutiva Sistema Nacional de Áreas de ConservaciónMINAE: Ministerio de Ambiente y EnergíaMSP: Ministerio de Seguridad Pública
Annex 4
233
WITNESS STATEMENT
235
Annex 5Witness Statement of Mr Mario Zamora Cordero, Former Minister ofPublic Security of Costa Rica22 March 2017English translation and Spanish original
237
English TranslationNUMBERONE HUNDRED AND NINE-TEN:Before me, GUSTAVO ARGUELLO HIDALGO, Notary Public with office in San José, San Pedro de Montes de Oca, Barrio Dentfiftymetres south ofConsejo Monetario Centroamericano,at the Boulevard,appears Mr.MARIO ZAMORACORDERO, Costa Ricannational, of legal age,twicedivorced, attorney at law,resident ofSan Jose, bearer of ID numberTWO –CERO FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINE –CERO ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY.AND INDICATES THAT:Having knowledge of the penalties imposed by law for perjury and false testimony, he declares under oath that: FIRST:I was appointed Deputy Minister of Police and Governanceof Costa Ricafrom eight May two thousand tend to thirty April two thousand eleven, andthenMinister of Public Security of Costa Rica from first May two thousand eleven, until eight May two thousand fourteen.SECOND:In my positionas Minister of Public Security, I undertook the general control and direction of the Police Force. The Costa Rican police is a civic institution, the aim of which is to provide for the securityand preservation ofpublic order according to the Constitution. Its main task is to prevent, attendand pursueagainstthe commission of criminal offensesby individuals or syndicated crime. In carrying out this task, given the human and material resources limitations faced by a small country like Costa Rica, the police carry out their duties mostly in urban areas, and as such, theirequipment and training isfocused on the fighting of crime in towns and cities,in order to provide security and protection to law abiding citizens and communities. While members of the police are also present in rural areas, their presence there is limited.THIRD:First, as a result of the territorial occupationof approximately three square kilometers of Costa Rican territory at the northern sector of Isla Portillosby the Military Forces of Nicaragua,that took place in October-November two thousand ten;and thereafter, as a result of an Order of Provisional Measures indicated by the International Court of Justice on eight March two thousand eleven, the policewas faced with a drastic operational change, as we wereforced torelocate staff from many of its urban units in order to provide the necessary personnel to establish a presence in the area of Isla Portillos.Many ofthe relocated police were movedfrom units in the Central Valley, more specifically from San José, Cartago, Heredia and Alajuela, but more generally resources were relocated almost from all police units acrossthe country.Establishing and maintaining thepolice presence in the area of Isla
238
Portillos, which resultedfrom Nicaraguan actionsthere,required extensive operational and logistical efforts. First, at the height of the conflict, immediately after Nicaragua invaded Costa Rican territory,Costa Rica placed police personnel in the vicinity of Isla Portillosin order to provide security and assistance to communities in that area, and, where possible, to protect Costa Rican territory from further advances of Nicaraguan military forces. In those circumstances, and in particular given the heightenedconcern among the inhabitants of the vicinity of Isla Portillos,I hadto establish asignificant police presence in thatarea.After the Court indicatedProvisional Measures on eight March two thousand eleven, I gave instructions for theplanning ofa long termpolicepresence, in order to provide security to what was then termed “the disputed territory”. This presence was particularly challenging because,as a consequence of Nicaragua’s actions, Costa Rica did not have a choice of the adequate locationwhere it could best place a police permanent presence. It had toestablish a basic encampment on the right bank of the Los Portillos Lagoon, a location with enormous complexity, as the entire place is a wetland, and therefore there is no hard soil to build proper shelter.Aside fromthe location of the encampment, the biggest challenge was presented by the relocationof police personnel in that area. Not having readily available police forces for that kind of challenge, the Ministryunder my commandwas forced to reassign police personnel from units in towns and cities serving communities and individuals, and relocatethem to Isla Portillos.Moving these police into thearea was not asimple task either. They would first be transported to a post called Agua Dulce, where they would be acclimatized and prepared for the task that represented being stationed in the Post of Isla Portillos. From there, they would betransported to this latter post. The Post of Isla Portillos was of extreme operational difficulty, given its inhospitable conditions. Having no running water, no sewage, no electricity, and no proper installations, the personnel suffered from the severeclimateconditions, rampant illnesses, and the permanent hostility of the Nicaraguan armed forces. A police unit would be stationed for about tendaysat a timethere, but once they finish their stay,it did not mean that they would go back immediately to their urban units. They would need rest, and many instances they would go onsickleave, or leave the force altogether. This represented a serious problem for the police overall, as westruggled to secure newrecruitments, affecting overall police operations nationally.Being forced to attend to this situation imposed to Costa Rica not only decimated the police’sfinancial resources, but the police units were constantly understaffed, which meant that the Costa Rican communities were notreceiving the proper services and protection that they would have otherwise received,
239
should the police had not faced this situation. As a matter of fact, and not having a specialized unitto address these challenges, I undertook the necessary actions so that a special border police unit be formed. For sake of clarity, this border police unit was formedby takinghuman and financial resources from other operational structures of the police. It must also be stated that human and financial resources that I was forced to employtodeal with thesituation that resulted from theNicaraguan activities in Isla Portillos mainly includedthose fromthe general police force, the Coast Guard, and the Aerial Vigilance Section. FOURTH: I am aware thatthetrue financial cost of Costa Rica’s mobilization of its police forces in the area of Isla Portillos resulting from Nicaragua’s illegal conduct will not be recovered fully, because, beyond the payment of salaries and the tabulation of certain expenses related to that mobilization, the requestfor compensation does not reflect other internal operational costs, nor does it include the time taken up by administrative units, and most importantly, it does not reflect the overall loss suffered by the Costa Rican communities that were directly impacted by the decline of the police presence in towns and cities, and therefore, Costa Rica’s compensation claim that seeks the payment of police salaries employed to deal with the Nicaraguan actions is conservative. As a matter of fact, the relocation of police resources greatly impacted the planning of police activity, as many of those plans to fight crime, particularly syndicated crime, were disrupted or altogether abandoned, as a result of Nicaragua’s illegal activity in that Costa Rican territory.That isall I wish to testify. I advised the deponent of the legal value and transcendence of what he stated. I hereby issue a first testimony thereof. This document was read out loud, accepted by the deponent and signed in San Jose, at fourteen hours,on twenty twoMarchtwo thousandandseventeen.*********************************************************************MARIO ZAMORA CORDERO***********GUSTAVOARGUELLO HIDALGO***********THE FOREGOING IS AN EXACT COPY OF DEED NUMBER ONE HUNDRED AND NINE -TEN,VISIBLE AT THE BACKOF PAGEONE HUNDREDAND THREEOF BOOK TEMOF THIS NOTARY’S PROTOCOL. CHECKED AGAINST THE ORIGINAL, IT IS FOUND CORRECT,AND I ISSUE ITAS A FIRST TESTIMONYTHEREOFIN THE SAME ACT OF GRANTING OF THE ORIGINAL. (Signature)(Stamps)
241
Annex 5
242
Annex 5
243
Annex 5
244
Annex 5