Nature Air

The debate over Proyecto de Ley 17.383,which proposes to downgrade Las Baulas National Park to a wildlife refuge, revolves around three areas: legal precedent, expropriation, and science.

The legal debate is actually quite one sided. First, Las Baulas was declared a national park by executive decree 20518 in 1991, followed by law number 7524 authorizing expropriation and consolidation of the park. Costa Rica’s Comptroller General was interviewed in La Nacion and he cited a series of laws and international treaties signed by the country that provide “no technical justification to change the park’s status.” In the world of emerging nations, Costa Rica stands out as a country that reveres the rule of law and the laws regarding Las Baulas speak for themselves and the message is loud and clear.

The government’s posture regarding expropriation rests on their claim that it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to reimburse the extensive development in the park area. There is ample evidence that at the time of the executive decree, there were actually a very modest number of structures. According to Maria Teresa Koberg, who has an extensive history with Las Baulas, “when the National Park was created in 1991, only three residences and a small hotel undergoing construction, but already shamelessly compromising the 50 meter public zone, were present. Now, in 2009, 33 residences and 2 hotels occupy the area. These were constructed after the national park was created.”

Photographs taken in 1994 compared to the current situation indicate construction on pre-existing mangroves, which were filled in. According to Mario Boza, “Since mangroves by law are public lands (besides being part of the Park), those developments are illegal, and everything must be claimed by the government.  Also the government must claim the 200 m of public zone, in front of the beach, that some people registered illegally.

By claiming lots here and there, obtained illegally by filling out the mangroves of the area or by registering illegally parts of the 200 m of public zone in front of the beach, is how the government could save millions of dollars in expropriations.  The enemies of the Park say that the expropriations are not necessary; we agree with them. They are not necessary because probably between 1/3 or 1/2 of the park area is public land.”

The issue of expropriation is by no means a simple one, but the goverment cannot assuage its culpability by simpling passing a new law, rather they need to look at enforcing the exisitng ones.

At its best, science attempts to seek out the elusive truth regarding the world around us and it serves our unquenching desire for knowledge. Perhaps, the most compelling argument of all regarding the continued preservation of Las Baulas comes from this discipline.

“The National Service for Underground Water and Drainage (SENARA) has conducted technical studies in the area and concluded, coincidentally with research by the University of Costa Rica, that the area of this park constitutes an alluvial aquifer exhibiting high phreatic levels (groundwater below the water level), and describing these circumstances as of extreme vulnerability; thus, recommending that the area be subjected to conservation objectives only, as happens in the present time with its national park status.”

This is according to Quirico Jimenez, one of Costa Rica’s most respected forestry experts. In 1990 he was part of the cadre of experts who identified the flora and fauna of the proposed lands for Baulas park and researched the socioeconomic issues of the egg poachers and the fishermen in the area as well as land use and ecotourism possibilities.  All of these joint investigations were included in the document presented to the Ministry of the Environment and Energy of Costa Rica in 199,1 under Peter C.H. Pritchard’s authorship: LAS BAULAS DE GUANACASTE A NEW NATIONAL PARK FOR COSTA RICA.

Dr. Peter Pritchard continues in his role as the internationally recognized authority on the delicate habitat of Las Baulas. His letter below should put to rest the governement’s contention that this park is simply about protecting a few turtles. At the bottom is a fascinating piece of satellite imagery that provides a visual context for Dr. Pritchard’s analysis.

“The area included in Las Baulas de Guanacaste National Park is by no means large and certainly not pristine. However, the diversity of its ecosystems and conspicuous fauna, constitute a counterpoint for its small size. In the same manner, the location of the National Park along the western coast of the Nicoya peninsula together with its terrestrial and estuarine ecosystems includes a large portion of the ocean, as it is a marine park. Is simply about protecting a few turtles.

At the extreme northern side stands Morro Hermoso, a spectacular peninsular bluff harboring a variety of littoral ecosystems and promontories, with an abundance of column cacti and frangipani trees, remnants of the dry forest of Mesoamerica. The regeneration of this redoubt is evident as it pertains to the tiny legacy still viable of this critically endangered habitat. To the north rocky cliffs are battered by frantic waves, counterbalancing other very different sceneries found along the more protected lands to the south, and a series of ponds attracting a large variety of storks, African white herons, jacanas, common pink billed spoonbills and fishing hawks.

The largest coastal portion of the National Park is constituted by four beaches: Carbon, Grande, Ventanas and Langosta. These beautiful places are threatened by plans for massive development lacking environmental controls. Baulas National Park is the most important place globally where the critically endangered leatherback sea turtle of the Eastern Pacific (Dermochelys coriacea) comes to nest. Leatherback sea turtles are the largest worldwide and they can be 2 meters long and weight 1000 pounds. The peak of the nesting season evolves during the months of November through February.

When the National Park was created in 1991, more than 5,000 nests were laid every season during the nesting peak, by a population of approximately 500 nesting females. These nesting numbers deserved to include the beaches of Baulas National Park among the most important worldwide for the species, and without a doubt, the most important in the entire eastern Pacific. Sadly the spoilage of the leatherbacks eggs evolving during several decades finally rendered its nefarious outcome and at now only a handful of leatherback females nest in Baulas Park. Despite the above, we trust in the good results of the conservation work that has been conducted in Baulas Park during more than 20 years. Recent investigations regarding the time for sexual maturity of the species indicate that these neophytes, the result of the aforementioned conservation work, are not yet sexually mature to nest along the beaches of Baulas Park. More time is needed to cast a final verdict.

An estuary is located behind each one of these beaches, the Tamarindo estuary behind Playa Grande and the Ventanas estuary behind its namesake, which, despite being lawfully public lands, both the Ventanas estuary and its mangrove forest were filled for urban purposes of northern Playa Grande during the 1970s. The San Francisco estuary is located to the south behind Langosta beach. Since 1997 these wetlands, particularly Tamarindo’s estuary and mangrove forests, are considered RAMSAR sites of global significance. Each one harbors extraordinary characteristics deserving of protection in their entirety. The elusive American crocodile is found herein, in reduced numbers but thriving. And the mangrove forests are extraordinary including six species of trees and abundant fauna such as howler monkeys and red mud crabs clinging to the mangrove trees. There is no doubt that Baulas is so much more than its namesake the leatherback sea turtle.”