You are on page 1of 16

Mapuche Struggles for Land and the Role of Private Protected Areas in Chile

Laura E. Meza
Consultant for tbe Eoacl c^' Agiiciilttinil Orgeini^ation of the Í 'niteá ¡Nations (HAO) Multidisciplinary Team for Sotith Ameiicu Santiago, Chile

Abstract The Chilean system of public protected areiis (Pl'As) has several pniblcms thai restrici its capacity in the process of biodiversity conservation. Since A large portion of the territory is privately owned, private protected areas are increasingly considered an important element to address national conservation goals. International and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), companies, communities, and private landowners have created more than 5(H) private conservation projects in Chiie in the last decade. This research describes the conflicts to extend private conservati<in on indigenous territories. Using interviews with experts from academia, NGOs, business, imügenous communities, and public agencies, the research reveals that conservation is not a "tension-free" terrain and that certain policies could exacerbate conflicis of interest related to Mapuche territory. Indigenous communities can assume control over natural resources tor conservation purposes and by creating ot indigenous parks. However, the ability of these communities to conduct conservation projects is limited by the lack of funds which compromises the sustainability of the projects. Two questions follow this debate: Is there political resistance to the indigenous parks idea, and what is ihe role of conservation organizations in sponsoring the creation of indigenous parksP
Keywords: public protected area.', coruervation, parks, indigenous land, conjlicts, Chile

El sisicma público de áreas pnncgidas en Chile tiene varios problemas que restringen su capacidad para conservar la hiodiversidad. Debido a que gran parte del territorio es privado, las áreas protegidas privadas son cunsideradas, cada vez más, como un elemento importante para alcanzar las meias de conservación en el país. Organizaciones no gubernamentales, nacionales como internacionales, propietarios individuales, comunidades y empresas privadas han creado cerca de 50(1 provectos de conservación privada en ios últimos diex años. Sin embargo, en territorios indígenas donde existen conflictos territoriales agudos, la creaci<)n de PPA ha sido limitada, tista investigíición describe los conflictos que extender la conservación privada a territorios indígenas trae aparejado. Mediante el uso de entrevistas con expertos de la academia, ONCís, empresas, comunidades indíi;enas y agencias públicas, esta investigación evidencia que la conservación no es un terreno lilire de tensiones y que ciertas políticas pueden exacerbar conflictos de interés relacionados a! territorio Mapuche. Las comunidades indígenas pueden asumir el control de ios recursos nattiralcs para fines de conservación creando parques privados. Sin embargo, la habilidad de esas comunidades csiá limitada por ia falta de recursos ecoiiiimicos, lo cual compromete la sustentabüidad de dichos proyectos. Dos preguntas se desprenden del debate: ;F.xiste una resistencia poli'tica a la creación de parques indígenas?, y ^Cuál es el rol de las organizaciones de ccinservación en auspiciar la creacicin de dichos parques?

journal of ] ^itin American Geography. S (1), 2l)(")9

the Chilean government has granted land to the Mapuches via a program of land acquisition. Chile Introduction Despile important environmental protection measures taken by the Chilean government in the past decade. 2(H)3). IX. On the other hand. private protected areas (PPAs) constitute both a complement to. Ungholz. conservation strate. XIV and X) (I'ij^re 1). followed by a debate about the appropriate mechanisms to promote conservation and the role of the private sector in conservation. cmflictos. only a few private reserves have been established in the Mapuche territory (mainly regions VIII. I")'>8. and conservation NGOs. In the last decaiie. and the conservation of natural resources. the indigenous communities claim those lands as their own. some indigenous communities are showins. The Mapuche territory brings together several stakeholders and their Cijntlicting interests. private conservation can be both part of the problem and the solution. natural resources and biodiversity remain threatened. covering roughly 1. NtiOs. This study reviews how nature governance is conducted in Chile by drawing on cases of PPAs that are situated in indigenous territ{)ry. in order to improve the condition of indigenous communities. Patagonia I ^md Trust (PLl^. large forestry companies. The following questions are addressed: What happened when conflicting interests chumed indi^iienous lands? What is the role of PPAs in solving (hose conflicts? . including corporations. Worldwide.S). There is an ongoing violent conllict between forestry companies and Mapuches that had caused n< only economic H loss. The Nature Conservancv iTNC). Conservation Land Trust (C:LT). While private businesses legally "own" a large proportion of ancient Mapuche land. The Chilean challenge is to conserve unique ecosystems while growing an economy based on natural resources. because both are competing for the same land. consen'ación. but also human lives. interest in creating their own conservation projects. and were created by philanthropists and international conservation NGOs such as the World Wild Fund (W^'F). and an alternative for. and to rest)ive current conflicts between them and the forestry sector. SmaUer-sized PPAs have been established by a variety of stakeholders.tiies in many countries. research institutions. Kramer et al. indigenous peoples' cultural preservation. In the balance between economic development. despite the laek of incentives for the involvement of local communities in conservation projects. tierras indigenas. private conservation initiatives continue expanding. indigenous land claims are in conflict with private conservation efforts. tourism entrepreneurs. There are 500 PPAs in (^hile. including indigenous interests. parques.5 million hectares (2"/. The ten largest PPAs cover I million hectares. numerous private conser\'ation initiatives have been undertaken. The challenge is to rectify historical injustices against this indigenous peopie. and indigenous communities. 2000.ISO journal of Latin American Geography Palabras cla\-e: áreas públicas protegida. Due to the difficulties with establishing new public parks. and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). although they remain largely unrecognized by the academic community (L'phoff and Langholz. Despite the promotion of PPAs in (^hile. of the totai land area) (CONAiNU 200. A 2005 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows the inadequacy of nature conservation in the country fCONANlA 2005). On the one hand.^.

Indigenous communities can assume control over nattiral resources for conservation purposes by creating indigenous parks. There is not an inherent conflict between indigenous demands and consei^'iition prerogatives. Two questions are central to the debate: How to overcome political resistance to the indigenous parks idea. "Open-ended" interviews were applied with experts from tüffereni kinds ot organizations related tu PPAs. forestry companies. Nature conservation is not a "tension-free" terrain and it is clear that certain policies can exacerbate conflicts of interest related to Mapuche territory. and an indigenous organization.000. second.000 500.000" assigned to one of these demands. Two lines of investigation arc presented: first.000 200.000 0 I g. ConHict appears only when a priority. Distribution ot protected areas per region in hectares.000 D 700. trom academia.000 300. internati(3nal and national NGOs. a description of the historical processes that explain conflicts in indigenous lands. there are genuine doubts about the ability of these communities to conduct conser\'ndon project without resources and incentives.000 100.000 400. the emergence of PPAs as a potential solution to those conflicts. XV II IV RM VI VII VII! IX X&XIV XI XII n Public Protected Areas • Private Protected Areas Figure I.Sl 8. and what IS the role of conservation organizations in sponsoring the creation of indigenous parks? . However.Private ProtectetI Areas in Chile l.

the return ot democracy opened a new scenario for political activism. In the l'WOs. the current precarious condition ot the Mapuche communities. The Mapuche are on ihe lowesi social caste strata in a highly unequal Chilean society. 2(. which is usually degraded. Statistics indicate that the incidence ot poverty is 2') percent among the indigenous. Mapuche means "people thai belong to earth. Armesto ct ai.2 years belmv the average of non-indigenous individuals.X)4). It has generated the marginalÍ7. a policy which offered incentives to ['European settlers resulted in thousands of new settlers occupying their land. 2001. compared to 20 percent among the non-indigenous population of Chile (MIDEPL. a policy promoting forestry expansion (Decree Law 70!) again dispossessed ihe Mapuche in favor of Iarge forestry companies. However.I.iÍl properties and local communities have a marginal representation (Silva. which also includes the Pehuenche and Huilliche people. 2002). which has often resulted in violent disputes between indigenous communities. Silva. and the permanent exclusion of the group in the national political structure explain tlie emergence of conflict in the Araucania region. indigenous families receive almost halt the income of non-Indigenous families. The expansion ot forestry farms still occurs in areas where settlements ot indigenous people exist. Because of these problems. this is the starting point of the Mapuche ethnic revival. the forestry companies. With the passage of the lntligenous l^iw.. Thus. Mapuche conflict The historical process ot land dispossession. which make them more likely to obtain unskilled jobs.and productivity of the land. On average. stress that more than a half a million people of indigenous ancestry still live in "elose association with forests" in centnil and southern Chile. In (erms oi education. . the chance of being poor is 56 percent greater if one is indigenous. who have been obliged to sell their land. however. and because of the inadequacy of technical assistance offered to support tlie communities. the average amount of time spent in school among indigenous peoples is about 2. 20()2). Sm. The historical transformation of the land tenure system and the implementation of liberal policies in Chile have resulted in the formation of a rural landscape that is mostly privately owned {W'^u) and predominantly in the hands of medium to large-si/ed entrepreneurial landowners. During the l')8()s there was no room for political action.aiion of the Mapuche .\N 2003).'\merican Cieography T h e People of t h e L a n d In the native language. According to Vergara et al." The Mapuche people are the largest and most organized Indigenous group in Chile. During the 1980s. Since Mapuche territory was incorporated into the Chilean state at the end of the nineteenth century. Mapuche were the native inhabitants of central and southern Chile before the Spanish conquest. the Mapuche have systematically been deprived of their ancestral territory (Aylwin. the Chilean government establisheil a program to return land to indigenous eommunities. {2001). In the early twentieth century.S2 Journal of Latin . and 65 percent of the indigenous families are within the lowest two quartiles of income distribution. which makes it difficult for them to sustain themselves (Kay. "l'heir original territory is believed to extend over two mtllion hectares. They are concentrated in areas of poor soil qualitv' and low ctiltivation productivity. the program has been criticized because of the low fertility. considered poorer than the poorest rural individuals. 2tH)4). and the government (Armesto et al. For generations the Mapuche have been subjected to racial discrimination. (2004). the Mapuche have noi been able lo take advantage of the law to rebuild their communities and to protect their natural environment .

The forestry companies have openly . observe that the post-dictatorial governments' attempts to improve this relationship have failed. and international donors. The Mapuche declared themselves victims of these large economic entities who are in close alliance with.ipuche people maintain possibilities of political maneuvering. have denounced the Chilean state on behalf of the Mapuche. suggesting that a technocratic and elitist Chilean government is predisposed towards addressing economic development. These Chilean consortia have great influence in national politics. The relation between the Mapuche . damages to private properly. land invasion. while it postpones the political integration of the Mapuche and completely avoids the subject of autonomy.Mapuche land disputes are concentrated primarily in tbe Araucania Region. They have even taken legal action against the Chilean state at international levels. W'hül cire the Mapuche denmndsí Not only is it imperative t<j overcome material povert)' and economic marginalisation of indigenous communities. Silva. Contesse (2004) classifies ihe Mapuche protest as a "new social movement". 2004). which includes theH'''. i'ontessc (20O4) emphasizes that the relation between Mapuche and the state remains contentifius and ambiguous because the State continues to disregard their territorial demands. These companies bought large portions of land at very low prices during the 1980s. funds a significant number of grassroots organizations and Mapuche NGOs in an effort to empower the Mapuche.' The government. Furthermore. Sw{)rd (2001) observes that there is not one unified "Mapuche Movement". 1999. the Chilean state. she points oui thai there are many movements and many changing demands.Private Protected Areas in Chile 153 . 2004). NXIiile democracy increased Mapuche expectations. whether successful or not. The Angelini group {ARAUCO) and the Matie Family (CMPC:) are listed on the 2005 Forbes World's Richest People list. (~MPC and Arauco. and supported by. and human rights NGOs. Such disputes involve violent protests.ind the ('hilean state has historicaUy been unfriendly. the response of the state was limited to the constitutional recognition of Mapuche people as the original inhabitants of Chile. such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 1^1wher Companies verstis Alapuche Lumber companies are the largest landholders throughout most of southern Chile. This suggests that. but also to overcome their political marginalization and exclusiíMi from the decision-making process. and absentee landowners. and criminal prosecutions. Nonetheless. mostly by purchasing privaie plots from small farmers in economic difficulties. indigenous communities. the Mapuche have gained some political representation dtiring the democratic period. Forest companies have ctintinued to acquire iantl throughout the I'l90s. the Constitutional Court closed the possibilities of the recognition of collective rights by declaring that "|Mapuchesj do not constitute an autonomous collective entity" (Vergara it al. though still in an imperfect transitional democracy. by taking advantages of the attractive incentives fashioned by the government tt) promote the logging industry (Altieri and Rojas. iis well as advised and directed government programs to assist the economic development of indigenous people. There are two major lumber companies controlling the timber market. the M-. (X)NADl includes dircctly-elecied indigenous representatives. Vergara et al. According to Mapuehe opinion they have priwoked contiiets tbat have led to the miLtarization of Mapuche villages (Coordinadora Mapuehe 2(K)3). such as the Ford and Avina Foundations. based on ethnic identity. 9''' 10'''and 14''' national regions (I igure 2).

which has been trapped for a décatie in the (Congress. the State declares that it is a problem between private entities. The interviewee of Mininco forestry company (CMPC) declared: Did we commit a sin? No. we are close to them [indigenous[ and we are the first to suffer the attacks. Silva (l'W7) argues that "(Zhile is a cctuntry lead by ecotioniically powerfui conglomerates that are capable of defeating the bill. arguing ihai ihe state should do more. 20(12). And when the indigenous communities claim their ancestral rights and things like that. "annexing Mapuche territory and exploiting the vulnerability that these communities and small scale peasants are suffering from" (Coordinadora Mapuche. criticized the governmental intervention related to Mapuche conllicts. Numerous NGOs have expressed their concern aboui the potential negative social im- .154 [oiimal (if Kaiin American Geography l'igure 2." His skepticism regarding the legitimacy of the bill and the infiuence of big corporations in the final version (»f the forest law is shared by some interviewees. f lowever. 2W3). The crjmpanies have lobbied for the Native Forest Law. Should we have cared about everything related to this? No. probably nci. It is an asserticjn against the State. The Mapuche organisations feel that ihe policies to protect the Native Forest Law would serve to continue the expansion of plantations. Araucania repi'in (afier Torreji>n y ("isternas.

" Redford (2OO. that new conservation fashion has not been promoted. 2(tU2). however." The performance of these companies is cltisely observed by international agencies. 2003). indigenous participation. )eanrenaud (2002) points out the shifting paradigm in conservation away fVoin exclusive protected areas and towards more people-centered approaches ami community-based ccmservation projects. but against forestry companies' interests" (Coordinadora Mapuche. On the other hand. competition for land creates tension between conservation groups and indigenous groups. The 'Golden Spring Lumber' project in Chiloé. are two examples set in indigenous lands where the opposition from indigenous communities to the projects was strongly supported iiy conservation NGOs. Mapuches declare that "they are not again. In some cases conservation interests have c<iincided with indigenous community interests and a coalition has been formed to confront a menace tt» biodiversitv and livelihiKids. Due to forest certification standards Forestal Mininco (part of CNfPC holding) has implemented a so-called "Good Neighbor Program" to improve its relation with the indigenous communities. because we have other conservation projects. The conservation literature agrees on the vital role of local people in the conservation of biodiversity. Moreover. and the 'Highway in Valdivia'. and regulated by international standards with regard to social and environmental concerns.Private Protected Areas in Chile 155 plications of this Law. in conservation projects. and vice versa.' CMPC and ARALICO and a number of Chilean and US environmental NGOs signed an agreement whereby lhe companies agreed to conserve the areas of native forest existing on their properties . It is not our case. In 199*). In (Ülúle. the commitment of the international eommunity to the Millennium Development Goals has set a new challenge to find ways for protecting nature along with reducing poverty. Conservation and the Mapuche Movement After being censured ft»r their lack ot promotion oF local peoples' participation. The representative of the Chilean NGO CODiÀFI-" ( Comité Nacional Pro Defensa de la l''iora y Fauna) declared that: "There are a lot of organisations that don't want to work there |Araucatiia region) because of indigenous conflict. where indigenous interests serve conservation interests. and recognition of indigenous peoples' rights to use their lands and territories (Jeanrenaud. Even some forestry companies have sold their land and left because they don't want problems. As a result of that opposition. It is true that international . it has become difficult to ignore the interests of local or indigenous communities. In Chile.)s have aided the Mapuche movement by denouncing the situation facing Mapuche communities because of forest plantation expansion. either by governmental aj^encies or by conservation NGOs. The formation of this kind of partnership has mutual benefits. agreements between indigenous peoples and conservation bodies. the projects were halted and the areas are now being privately protected. international and national conservation NG(. international conservation bodies are now paying more attention to the social impacts of their projects.8yn of the total surface of the native torests in the country . In a successful international campaign promoted by NGOs toward native forest conser\'ation. particularly indigenous communities.and not replace them with plantations of exotic species.'i) stresses that in the politics (jf conservation.representing 2. By the same token. the World Commission on Protected Artas (IUCN) implemented guidelines emphasizing co-management of protected areas.

Mapii l^hual netii'ork of hidigemmsparks The indigenous association "Mapu Lahual" of Butahuillimapu has a community-based conservation project in Huilliches' lands in Region IX. it means that sanctuaries cannot be created in these lands. The V N T interviewee highlighted the CO fact thai this initiative was spontaneously initiated from within the community. The community is committed. are here selected (lügure 3) to illustrate the outcomes of divergent interests over indigenous lands. (2002) mention that the initiative was greatly encouraged by a change in the way the Chilean government engages with communities. "this aspiration |for conser\ing nature] should be shared by the communities beyond their leaders. the dark side is that today the community' agrees to conserve. Private parks on Mapuche land Three cases of PPAs. The indigenous land cannot be burdened pabeled as protected]. The community' has implemented a network of six pn)tected areas covering mort' than 1." Accortling to this interviewee. [Fhrough this process| sophisticated and interesting initiatives have been created. The tirst case is a small project conducted by various indigenous communities. One of the most motivating or surprising things to me is that many grassroots organizations are initiating and innovating in conser\'ation. because you don't know what will happen. but only one case is located where indigenous land claims exist: the Chauhin-Venecia project in Region XIV. The Mapu Lahual Network of protected areas is an example in that direction. Now there are many activities initiated by communities or third parties that work with communities. due to the legal status of intligenous lands. Nevertheless.000 hectares of coastal tempérale rainforest. set in indigenous territories. The third example is a large private park created by an entrepreneur that had generated conflict with neighboring indigenous communities." Inicrvicv. According lo the interviewee.' data provided an excellent evaluation of Mapu Lahual as a conservation project conducted by an indigenous commutiitj'. The project has been supported by the W'Wr who on its Web page (2CH16) declares: "Mapulahual demonstrates thai it is possible to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and achieve conservation go. It is difficult to consider these areas . Then it creates doubts about the conservadon in the long term.ils in the snme areas. the spokesperson for 'Parques para Chile' revealed that in the Mapu Lahuai area there are communities that "do not believe in conservation." The CODFiFl' representative highlights [he impossibility of giving legal protection to PPAs in indigenous lands. The second example is a medium sized project organized by an international NGO. The idea was born there and it is growing because of a group of leaders who are highly prepared (W>X'F representative) On the other hand.136 journal of Latin American Geography conservation NGOs have created the largest PPAs in Chiie. There is some pro\nsion in the indigenous law to avoid these lands being sold or traded. Many of them have ideas related lo conservadon and afterwards they request technical support. but tomorrow they can change. the long-lerm commitment for conservation is a du!)ious point: Mapu Lahual is a fantastic experience. The idea is to increase family income and to diversify (heir economic activities in areas where many communities live below the poverty line. Oviedo et al.

has two objectives. they will know what a \anttd ox ^monito del monte' is. all of which is part of our biodiversity. Instead. we will not need to tell stories of what was once here. he continues: So the park -the indigenous park. and it has . He argued that tourism should be a means to learn and to protect Huilliche culture. The tirst is to conserve for future generations. And when we are grandfathers. the relation bet-ween nature conservation and ecotourism being viewed as an opportunity. The I luilliche spokesperson believed that conservation is good for future generations as welJ as tor the development of a socially responsible ethic in tourism. this is here now.Private Protected Areas in Chile 157 Mapu Lahual Chahuin-Venecia 'CHILE Map Area Indigenous communities want to create and implement their own protected areas.

whicli has no race or frontier. Huilliche communities living in the area have questioned the project since the idea was presented to public opinion in 2(KI4." C/jûhti/n-1 In 2003 TNC acquired 60. and the (Chilean environmental agency (CONAMA). W ^ T and TNC buy Chahuin-N'enecia property where the highway is planning to go through. because it is important Ut conserve to maintain a socially responsible tourism.(K)0-hectares nature reserve on Chiloé Island." In 2006 the VCWF web page declaretl that the designation ot the property as a reserve is part of a larger partnership among the Conservancy. there are only a small number of concrete initiatives conducted by indigenous communities with Mapu Lahual being the most commented upon. referring to this case. Pinera carried out a contest to name his private protected area in Chiloé. but reluctance remains in local communities. he declared that "we also plan to have future parks in al! ot our communities. and therefore does not force others to do so. is a lack of support from the government Nonetheless. Iiut the most emblematic will be south of the Chiloé National Park. Taiitcituo Pctrk Sebastian Pinera.158 Journal ot Latin American Geography been here alwavs.000 hectares at public aucuon following the bankruptcy ot a forestry company. The reason why most of the projects are in the 10"' region is because of a low anthropological intervention that allows finding pristine areas particularly in the coastal mountain range. And that is the reason why the highway project aroused contlict. Interestingly. the Nature i-onservancy and WWF' have been managing the Valdivian Coastal Reserve site (named C^bahuin-Venecia). iis only condition is to respect human digtiiiy. The leader of the MuiUiche Federation expresses opposition to the project: . a subgroup of Mapuches. local organizations. international conservation NGi^s should comply with these norms and should Iranster these rights to the indigenous communities. Since then. a businessman and presidential catididate in the election of lanuary 2006. argues that even if Chile does not comply with international norms regarding indigenous rights. According to the TN(~ web page (accessed 2009): "we are working closely with neighboring fishing villages and indigenous communities to maintain traditional land uses and encourage compatible local economic development as part of the reserve's overall conservation strategy. according to the Huilliche spokesperson. claim indigenous land use and ownership. developed a I30.declares that they are evaluating ways to integrate the participation ot communities living off the management of the area. And second. One of the reasons that only a few indigenous commutiities are involved in PPAs. Cooper (2003). because we had enough intelligence to keep it. The project is one of the largest private reserves located on indigenous land. WWT. There are indigenous land claims in the vicinity of the Chahuin-Venecia Protected Area. Tlic interviewee from CONAMA observes that this PPA was created because there was a development project that constituted a menace to biodiversity. it had generated conflicts because the Huilliches people. World Vi'ildlife Fund. I hnvever.

both groups . Indigenous parks In Mapuche territory. For the academic interviewee Piñera's interest in conservation is seen as a positive sij. Yet the solutiiin for the indigenous demands for land is not res(j!ved. as Langholz (2003) argues. and conservation needs. T h e representative oPParques para Chile' declared that Pinera is an enigma. The experts interviewed opined that it is possible for indigenous communities to conduct conservation projects. However. Asked about this contlict. as long they have sufficient resources. though he recognized that ntnal! indigenous cotnmunities have the same princtples: . And from morning to night to see them in the h:inds i>t one person.S9 With regard tt> Pinera our feebng is thai there is a big injustice because these lands are essentially fluilliche. 7 June 2(1(15). T h e interviewee from the government (CONAMA) thinks that the motivation of Pinera to conserve is because of economic profit." The interest ot the entrepreneurial class to create l*PAs is seen as positive signai and something that need tf> be promoted. Indigenous groups are using a discourse abou! the indigenous inherited aptitude toward nature conservation lo reinftirce their identity as "people of the land" and to assert land claims and governance over the land. However. PPAs could allow large landowners to keep their landholding while maintain the status quo with indigenous communities. Moreiwer. due to the reluctance to establish new parks. provoking the »question: should conservation have priority over indigenous demands or \ice versa? Finally. Today the scenario has changed and she is now working for the park." Huilliches had questioned the participation of Adriana Hoffmann. a very well-known environmentalist. a shift in environmental concern by an important member of this social group. indigenous demands. The case of the Chahuin-Venecia protected area is an example of an alliance between indigenous groups and conservation NCit )s as away ot gaining legitimacy in tcrritoriesin which they are confronting a threat to their livelihood or existence.nal from the traditional entrepreneurial class in Chile.M a p u c h e and conservation organi^iations— reciprocally influence their narratives. there are some exampies that illuminate the possibility oí expanding conservation prtijects in the region. in supporting Pinera's project by declaring that: . Tantauco illustrates a clash between Mapuche tntercsts and conservation's interests. Mapu lahual is an option trying to address economic development.Private Protected Areas in Chile 1. The three cases illustrate what happens at the intersection of conservation prerogatives and indigenous demands. otherwise il will be very difficult to work there. the I luilliche delegate believed that they are better suited to conduct conservation projects because of their commitment to developing their own communities. the establishment of public and private protected areas is limited. T h e interviewee from the Forest Company questioned ihe legitimacy of philanthropic motivations ot Pinera declaring that "he can play being a philanthropist. I'm not judging his inteniions. she commented: "I told Pinera to include indigenous peoples.. They stress that indigenous peoples understand nature better than the rest of society and therefore the abf>ve scenario is feasible. |a few| years ago. but because he has money some would say he can afff>rd this big luxury. In ihis relationship.. she supported us against the C¡olden Springs project. who certainly mighi have good intentions. which means that she is now denving OUT indigenous rights {El ¡nsular.

. (. Mapuches. I or indigenous peoples. and particularly in indigenous territories already involved in conflicts. it is improbable that the indigenous communities will take a leading role in conservation projects if they are not granted land and the necessary resources to develop. and insist upon their autonomy from the (Chilean state.) Our principle is to be respectful towards the environment and to have social commitment. if they are designed using eeologieal criteria. Most indigenous territories are private properties owned by an indigenous person. indigenous land does not mean communal land necessarily. The declaration acknowledges the rights of indigenous peopie to own. it means that only rich people do conservation. Indigenous parks (t>n indigenous land own collectively by a communin' or by indigenous people privately) offer affinity. In fact. private reserves are a source of income and their (»wnership is a way to validate their legitimacy over the land. the land-back program implemented hy the government transfers land to both individuals and communities. would necessarily reduce the control of indigenous groups over their natural resources. They declare themselves to be the ancient forest inhabitants. The interviewee from 'Parques para Chile' adds an ideological consideration. stating that: "A lot of private landowners think of conservation in an exclusionary way. contrf>!. Other international organizations had also adopted spt-eifie policies for their engagement with indigenous communities. Forestry companies are the major landowners and potential private park creators. More and mtire. (hooper (2005) suggests that these organizations should be the ones who take on the task of transferring rights of use to indigenous communities. because of their urgent economic needs."' The responses linked conservation and poverty reduction by rwo mechanisms: eco-tourism and sustainable forest management. to gain legitiniacv on nature governance. Nonetheless." By using this criterion indit. indigenous autonomy wotUd neeessary fit in with conservation prerogatives. However.enous landowners are at a clear disadvantage. and indigenous communities need them most. Some interviewees refer to the need for including smaO proprietors. however. This idea requires incentives for cultural promotion and environmental protection.. It may be to the benefit of indigenous .between conservation interests and indigenous interests. particulariy the Huiliiehes. develop. It is very utilikely that indigenous communities will create relevant PPA because they i3wn relatively small pieces of land with low ecological value. the WWF' adopted specific policy regarding indigenous groups." In I')•>(). have included ecological concepts in their arguments. Mapuche groups seek to strengthen their legitimacy to access the forest and to occupy land through discourse about authenticity. The PPAs.)(jurnal of Latin American Geography We indigent)us people have a playful and ancient relationship with the forest. rural communities. In this scenario. some responses show reservations about the feasibility of implementing conservation projects by small farmers. by extension demanditig control over land and resources in their territory. as a mean of reducing poverty. and by stressing their ancient relationship with nature. Some interviewees mention the point of subsidies by stating that small landowners. and to transform eonservadon as an alternative to development for the rural world. In benefltdng both nature ctinservation and indigenous rights something must be given by both the indigenous groups and the conservation groups. An NGO representative referring to their work in the Araucania region declared to prefer the biggest landowners because "the biggest areas imply the largest protected areas. (Conservation NGOs play an important role in rural development. Mapuche communities want to create conservation projects. and use the land and territories. Therefore.

was not approved by the Congress.'^) to recognize indigenous people in the (constitution and mandate indigenous representation in the Congress and local governing bt)dies. and Rojas. Development and SnstainabiHty. the campaign was executed in the USA targeting the consumers. Despite the debate. however. A. It is necessary not only to recognize the legitimacy of indigenous communities to create their conservation projects. Nature conservation is used in t^hile as a political tool to gain territorial control. but aiso to promote their involvement in extending nature conservation and diminishing conflicts. conservation in the Araucam'a region m. in Chile and beyond. ' In 2003. the designation is not useful by itself it it is not closely related to mechanisms that guarantee the long-term sustainabiiit\' of such projects.. International conservation NCíOs have an important role to play regarding the indigenous issue.l Mù. ~ In August 20(6. However. NGC )s. while at the same time increasing conservation in the Araucam'a region. It plays a decisive role in the country's development and is a fundamental element in the eradication of poverty. I^Î'W. it promotes a lack of public and private interest in protecting such areas." References Altieri. Second. The famous writer Isabel Allende participated appearing in The New York Times ana saying: "Don't buy wood coming from Chile. both by big landowners and indigenous groups. Forestry companies. limiting discussion about alternatives. one of the demands presented by the coalition of NGOs called "Native Ft»rest Network" (F. I'irst. conservation is being used politically. Third.. M.untains its status quo. Environment. August 2005). It is destroying the native forests. the government compromised to reduce bureaucracy and to give flexibility to small landowners to obtain benetits from the Native Forest Law. . Ecological Impacts of Chiles Neolibenil Policies.^5-72. with special emphasis on agroecosysiems. Therefore.!trador. looking for ways of sustainable use of the resources. ami the ('hilean state should acknowledge the legitimacy of these communities to be part of nature governance. ". International conservation NGOs and philanthropists are new actors expanding their actions in indigenous lands. it is necessary to create a category of private protected areas specific to indigenous lands. A designation ot "Indigenous Park" shouid include the study of the legal aspects of such designation due to the legal nature of indigenous lands. competition for land between conservation projects and indigenous claims is exacerbated." *' The Chilean Biodiversity Strategy (CONAMA 2003) acknowledges the importance of conservation as means to overcome poveriy. in order lo assert rights lo iheir traditional land. There is a need to respects indigenous rights.Privaie Protected Areas in Chile 161 groups to agree lo use restrictions in favor of nature conservation. Notes ' The recommendations ot the "Commission for Truth and New Treatment'" (200. I: . Conclusions The ongoing confiici over indigenous territories creates ihree problems.

van Schaik. The Rebel Democracy: A Look inio the Relationship between the Mapuche People and The Chilean State.). Los Conflictos en el Territorio Mapuche: Antecedentes y Perspectivas. Background Paper judicating/session. 7.zi. |odi. Forests and Politics in Costa Rica and Chile: The struggle . CONAMA. 3(2): 277-300. Available at http://islandia.A'Vl. Presented at Seminar: Adjudicating Culture. C. Organización de Cooperacifin y Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y Cínnisión Econí'imica para América Latina y el Caribe (ÍH'^. M (4): 865-S71. Politicizing Law: Legal Strategies for Black and Indigenous Land Rights Struggles in the Americas. L. National Biodivenity Strate^ of the Republic of Chile. C. 2(K15. The Role of the Private Sector in protected area establishment and management: A conceptual tramework for analyzing effectiveness. Revuta ihrspectivas (Universidad de Chile). In: Contested Nature.iaw. R. http://www. Davenport. Silva. ]. December 2(Ht3. and Conservation.. pp. Eduardo. Privatizing Conservation. Guest speaker presentation ai " N G O s in Latin America Speaker Series". DC: Island Press. Aylwin.html April 28-29. i'eopk-Oriented Approaches in Global Coiuermtion: is tht i^-opard Changing //. 2005. Official document. S. antl M. Philanthropy. 2000. The Limits of Largesse: International Environmental NtîOs .162 journal of Latin American Geography Armesto. In Making Park works: Strategies for preserving tropical forest.Agrarian Change. 2003. 2l)0I. Wilshusen. Estanislao. 2003. 1997. Cooper. Contesse.\/)o/. Jorge. leffrey. 20(12. pp. E-mluaciones del desempeño ambiental: CHUE.). 2002. indigenous Peoples m Chile: Current Situation and Policy Issues. Conservation strategies for biodiversity and indigenous people in Chilean torest ecosystems. ¡ournal of the Rir^alSociety of New Zealand. Kay. 20(M).117-136.rf'London: International Institute tor Environment and Development (IIED) and Brighton: Institute tor lîevelopment Studies. Indigenotis Land Issues and Private Protected Areas in Chile: an Opportunity' tor International Conservation Organizations. Cristobal. C. 2(4): 464-501. Kramer R. leanrenaud. P. Chile's Neoliberal Agrarian Transformation and the Peasantry. \ournal of .utexas. Wbdd Bank. 2005. West ( SI':i. )osé. National Commission of Environment (CONAMA) and United Nation Development Program (UNDP). 20tt4. People.yale. lirechin S. OECD/CEPAL. Washington. |. Vol. SmitlvKamirez. Bailey.r .P.2ü20l)4/ContessePaperEnglishSELA2004.pdf Gacitúa-Marió..'XL). A. J Terborgh. Langholz. Rao (eds. Salafsa. Syracuse I'niversity Fidl 2004. Albany: State Llniversity of New \'ork Press. 335-351. 2004. Langholz and N. Fortwangle and P. and Ro?. 200(1.

Uvin. Revista Chilena de I listona Natural 75: 729-736. Polis. 1.conservation 75) (. 2002. (Santiago. Enrironmental(. Foerster and Ii.. 9-29. y Cisternas.'\pril. 20th International Congress. M. L'phott. and Langhíjl/. The Role of NG(. J. Ten More Rise Up! How Mapuehe autonomists confront timber companies and the Chilean government in the Mapuche-timber contlict (1997 to 2001).).a Conadi. Peter. Cornell Ihiiversity.3): 251—261.Sc. 2000. 2004. 199H. 2001. . Incentives for avoiding die Tragedy of the Commons. Revista de la Universidad Holivariana. pp. R.)s in International Relations. Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association. l¡i ley indígena y el pueblo mapucbe (1989-2004). Alicia. Stiles (ed. Gtiadalajara. Kendal. ). thesis. New \'ork: St. Global Institutions and \ Mcal E. Chile) No. N. Vergara. Alteraciones del paisaje ecológico araucano por la asimilación mapuche de la agro-ganadería hispano-meditcrránea (siglos XVI v XVII). Sword. Mexico. y. F. Más acá de la legalidad.mpowermunt. (¡iindermann. 17-19 .Private Protected Areas in Chile 163 for grassroots development-friendly initiatives. In. Torrejon. M. Martin's Press.