The Ministry of the Environment (MMA) of Chile announced on September 22nd a statement about suspending the granting of new commercial activities within protected areas that did not have current management plans in place. Several months ago, proponents had proposed this measure, sparking debates and controversies within the salmon industry and legislators.
The measure was based on an interpretation of the law that some considered debatable and appeared to contradict a prior decision of SBAP by Congress. It has once again become a topic of discussion among Chileans. Following the controversy that arose a few months ago regarding more environmentally protective measures, this new statement, as reported by Pulso, aimed to clarify the legal effects related to ongoing processes for granting concessions within these areas.
The primary aspect of this statement involved the suspension of procedures for granting concessions within protected areas that lacked an up-to-date and approved management plan. In simpler terms, if a protected area did not possess a current and approved management plan, authorities could not grant new commercial activities within that area. Additionally, this suspension would be automatic and would persist until authorities approved the plan for protecting the areas.
As explained by the media outlet La Tercera, Ariel Espinoza, the subsecretary of the MMA, emphasized that this measure was necessary to assess whether the proposed concessions were compatible with the conservation objectives of the protected area, as mandated by the law.
Once again, alarm bells rang in regions such as Los Lagos, Aysén, and Magallanes, where the salmon industry holds significant influence. These are also areas where, months ago, there was an outcry to prevent substantial changes that could endanger livelihoods. After massive worker protests expressing concerns about potential job losses due to this measure, it seemed that the issue had quieted down, especially since Congress had rejected the prohibition of salmon concessions within protected areas.
However, this MMA statement appeared to reinterpret the law to achieve a similar outcome to a previously rejected legal reform. This reinterpretation was based on Article 92 of the Nature Conservation Law, which stipulated the need for a management plan and the compatibility of concessions with conservation objectives.
La Tercera reported that the statement was sent to various ministries and government entities, and they also mentioned that the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service (SBAP) was not yet operational but was expected to issue favorable reports when fully functional.
