The President of the Republic and the Minister of Environment have submitted an executive bill to alter the area currently occupied by Las Baulas Marine National Park (PNMB) to the Committee on Environment of the Legislative Assembly. This project was published in La Gaceta on Monday, June 29, Case No. 17383.

The government insists on this initiative, which, according to the deputies of the political party Partido Acción Ciudadana (PAC), only seeks to benefit large developers.

Playa Langosta and the area of Cerro El Morro, located north from Las Baulas Park, are the sites that would remain outside the protection zone for real estate development, but this time within the national park area.

According to Congressman Sergio Alfaro, such legal reform proposes the creation of a refuge of mixed ownership to allow the construction of urban systems, hotels, tourism development and recreational areas, as well as public and private infrastructure and even ecotourism, by leaving aside the hydro-geological study of the National Ground Water, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA, for its acronym in Spanish), which qualifies the park as of "extreme vulnerability," meaning that no development of any kind, not even as eco-friendly as it could be, could be developed here.

Alfaro said that the SENARA study concluded that that there is an aquifer under that area that could be seriously affected. "The project is awash with private benefits seeking for the reduction of this area to benefit them even more. The turtles, the water, everything else are taking a second place," he said.

However, the use of refuges of mixed ownership does exist in Costa Rica. For many eco-vulnerable places, the country does not have the funds to protect these areas, and thus utilizes funds from outside parties to pay for protection, otherwise they would be left unprotected.  The utilization of mixed ownership is what the Playa Grande owners consider a fair solution, states Jacques Fostroy, land owner and vice-president of the Association for the Protection of the Leatherbacks.  “In relation to the project, it was a proposal of the MINAET in which the owners of properties have participated actively, this project guarantees the effective protection of the places where the eggs are laid, strongly regulates the development and has many measures of protection for the environment. It is a perfect solution by the State, who already has recognized that they do not have the funds to expropriate. Without having to disburse a cent, the State assures that the Baulas are protected and that development is of low density.”

In view of the insistence by the government, Karen Olsen de Figueres, Alvaro Ugalde and Mario Boza submitted a document outlining the serious consequences this project could have for the future of the leatherback turtles if it becomes a law, According to the document,  "The most disappointing aspect of all is realizing that we are sacrificing a national park of immeasurable ecotourism appeal that belongs to Costa Ricans and to a noble species, the leatherback turtle, in order to benefit some lot vendors. The infamous project intends to eliminate the existing park and convert it into a wildlife refuge of mixed ownership that would not protect anything, since the document states that the construction of any type of building will be allowed within ‘the park’s’ boundaries. The impact of massive urban development would eliminate all the marine and land fauna of this national park.”

This all-or-nothing stance is what the land owners of Playa Grande are debating against, and as Fostroy explains, “In fact in Playa Grande the area of protection is not reduced but actually augmented to the turtle by 100%.The 1995 law created the PNMB with the limits of law clearly described in the 50 meters and the sea, which in my opinion is the only legal definition. Under the scheme of national wildlife refuge of mixed property, a 150 meter strip is added to the egg laying area. And so, the park is actually increased with a strip of 150 meters by 6 km.  If you take the limits with the illegal interpretation of the PGR, in fact it adds a strip of only 75 meters by 6 km. The argument that the park is reduced does not make any sense because a park only exists when the private lands are expropriated and in the name of the State, like the Organic Law and the Law of Creation of the PNMB clearly states (referring to article 37 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente No. 7554, and article 2 of the Creación del Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas de Guanacaste Ley Número: 7524 Fecha: 10/07/1995).”

The park is located about 300 kilometers northwest from the capital city. It was created in 1995 to protect one of the five sites in the world where leatherbacks nest.  Leatherbacks are the largest sea turtle on the planet, weighting up to 700 pounds.

Out of its 760 hectares, about 50% is in private hands that the State must expropriate to protect the park and to respect the owners’ right to be paid for the land declared under protection.

Randall Arauz, from Pretoma, explained once, that the process to pay for the land began in 2004, but legal disputes over the value of the properties delayed the process. Last year, the Constitutional Court ordered the government to carry out the expropriations when approving an appeal from the environmentalists.

However, according to recent statements from the Minister of Environment, Jorge Rodriguez, authorities claim to lack the $500 million required. Therefore, one option is to modify the park’s boundaries.

There are two bills that were submitted by legislators Maureen Ballestero (PLN) and Jorge Eduardo Sanchez (PUSC) but they do not satisfy the environmentalists’ expectations, since the first project excludes some hills located to the North and the second excludes even the beach.

“Turtles do not nest in the mountains but if they are going to be developed, the light and other factors would drive the leatherbacks away,” said Arauz. Moreover, he emphasized that “it would be the first time that a national park will be segregated. This would set an unfortunate precedent. There is a lot of pressure on national parks and it is the time for us to defend them.”

Legal Quandary

It is clear that the Costa Rican government is in a legal quandary.  On one side, you have extreme environmentalists not supporting any kind of legal changes to the park. On the other side, you have property owners who bought this prime property legally and who are either open to finding an eco-sustainable zoning plan (such as special lighting, building heights etc) which have already been presented to the Santa Cruz municipality, or being paid the fair value of their land. The government, as it stands today, does not have the money to expropriate the land, and on top of that, areas such as Playa Langosta that are included as the national park have hotels and homes already built on the beach.

The irony is in the name of the national park itself, Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, which states that it is a marine park, a marine park that is largely shared by both Playa Grande Playa Tamarindo, and Playa Langosta.  Scientifically, nothing has been proven yet, only the speculation that the lights themselves are the reason for the diminishing numbers of the turtles. Meanwhile, numerous long-line fishing nets are occupying space in the waters in which they swim, and the effects of the slight increase in the water temperature from global warming.

The enormous amounts of money that the environmental groups receive from private donations in the name of the turtles and Costa Rica with no transparency to the Costa Rican government does not make the controversy any lighter. Nor does the fact that they also own property there, and if this quandary is resolved their in-flow of donations could also diminish.