42 162. However, the State did not provide the proceedings before the IACHR with evidence backing those assertions. It only provided an EIA conducted by ECOMAC-CINSA, which regards the Triunfo de la Cruz Community as an “area of major impact” of the project because, like other Garífuna 206 communities, it is located in the adjacent area. With respect to this EIA, the IACHR has received a technical report prepared by the “Protection of Lancetilla, Punta Sal, and Texiguat Foundation” (hereinafter, “PROLANSATE”), a nongovernmental organization responsible for managing the Punta Izopo National Park, dated September 28, 2005. The IACHR notes that, according to that document, PROLANSATE considers that there are serious shortcomings in the EIA and questions the viability of the project due to the grave environmental damage it could wreak. As regards the “participation and sharing process with affected sectors,” the report states that: There has been little transparency in the consultation process and scant dissemination of information, so that the citizen participation process has been deficient. The brief and irregular information process (rather than consultation) conducted in April 2004 in a number of workshops which, with no transparency, the affected sectors were invited to attend separately (because the PROLANSATE Foundation was not allowed to attend the meetings held in the communities), was the only ‘participation moment,’ which is insufficient and demonstrates a lack of respect for the 207 population of Tela Bay in general and the communities neighboring the project, in particular. 163. Likewise, information provided by the petitioner shows the Triunfo de la Cruz Community’s opposition to the project, as well as the lack of information regarding its implementation. Here the IACHR underscores the “General Assembly public communiqué” of May 22, 2009 which states that “the Community resolutely opposes the Tela Bay project, repudiates the environmental disaster it is 208 creating, and rejects the 7% share because we do not even know what is involved.” 4. Creation of the “Punta Izopo National Park” protected area 164. The State of Honduras has adopted legislative measures to establish protected natural areas designed to “conserve those natural areas that, in addition to their scenic beauty are essential for the sustained development of human settlements and the survival of wild species of both flora and 209 210 fauna,” pursuant to Article 340 of the Constitution. According to information provided by the parties, there are 107 protected areas in Honduras, each of which is generally divided into three zones: a buffer zone, a cultural zone, and a central zone; with economic activity only being allowed in the first two zones 206 According to that study, the project’s service area is divided into two parts: “(1) the communities adjoining the project site (area of most impact); and (2) the communities that, although they are not adjoining, could easily provide manpower or other services or goods to tourism enterprises or, in some cases, services directly to tourists. The adjoining communities include, from the far eastern side, Miami, Tornabé, San Juan, Tela and Triunfo de la Cruz. As these will be the communities most directly impacted, all of them will be included in the study and surveys.” Annex 118. Environmental Impact Assessment Study of the Los Micos & Golf Resort, produced by ECOMAC-CINSA. p. 29. Annex of the petitioner’s written communication in the precautionary measures proceedings dated August 1st, 2005, received by the IACHR on October 21, 2005. 207 Annex 119. Technical report produced by the Protection of Lancetilla, Punta Sal and Texsiguat Foundation on the environmental impact of the Los Micos Beach & Golf Resort Project dated September 28, 2005. Annex of the petitioner’s written communication dated October 13, 2008, received by the IACHR on October 15, 2008. 208 Annex 120. Public Communiqué of the General Assembly of the Management Board of the Community Council, dated May 22, 2009. Annex of the petitioner’s written communication in the precautionary measures proceedings dated June 2 nd, 2009, received by the IACHR on June 3rd, 2009. Likewise, according to a communication in the IACHR’s file, the Community Council reported that it disavowed the signature allegedly provided in Roatan on April 12, 2008 by the person who heads the “parallel Council,” given that the Community had not been consulted on the matter. Annex 121. Communication from the Community Council to the Fraternal Black Organization of Honduras on June 5, 2008. Annex of the petitioner’s written communication dated June 10, 2008, received by the IACHR on June 12, 2008. 209 210 Executive Agreement No. 1118-92, of June 1, 1992, published on August 7, 1992. Article 340 of the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras - The technical and rational exploitation of the natural resources of the Nation is declared to be of public utility and necessity. The State shall regulate their development in accordance with the social interest and shall establish the conditions for their grant to individuals. The reforestation of the country and the conservation of forests are declared to be of national convenience and collective interest.