Conservation and Indigenous People in Chilean Patagonia

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter, which was prepared by an interdisciplinary and intercultural research team, was to analyze the tensions and challenges associated with biodiversity conservation in Chilean Patagonia as it relates to the Mapuche- Williche, Kawésqar, and Yagán Indigenous peoples that have historically inhabited this vast territory. We describe how Indigenous people settled and occupied this territory over time, then identify the specific forms and scope of relationships between these peoples and protected areas through seven case studies. The chapter confirms the existence of clear overlaps between protected areas and the ancestral lands of Indigenous people, as well as their current use by these peoples. It also documents the absence of free, prior, and informed consent in the establishment of these protected areas, as well as the current exclusion of Indigenous people from their governance. We verified the lack of awareness and recognition of Indigenous people's own initiatives for the protection and conservation of this territory, as well as their contributions to the conservation of biodiversity. Finally, we provide recommendations based on international standards concerning Indigenous rights and emergent conservation guidelines, in order to promote a respectful, collaborative, and synergic relationship between public, private, and Indigenous people's conservation strategies in Patagonia.

1 Introduction

Nature conservation models and protected areas (PA) have their origins in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, in the processes of consolidation of the states that created them, ignoring the native peoples, their lands and territories of customary use [42]. The first PAs created in the Americas were conceived as spaces administered by states whose objective was to preserve and strictly protect nature from any human intervention [18]. This model generated the exclusion and displacement of numerous native communities that had inhabited and preserved their ecosystems for centuries, impacting their ways of life and cultures [41]. Chile was no stranger to this trend. Efforts began to create PAs under the name of “Forest Reserves” at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, a time of expansion of state borders towards the north and south, and most of these were established on lands of ancestral use and occupation by Indigenous people.¹

2 Scope and Objectives

The objective of this chapter is to identify the key issues in the relationship that has existed historically between the Indigenous peoples of Patagonia, inhabitants of the region, and the territories where the current PAs have been progressively established.

3 Methodology

An interdisciplinary and intercultural work team was formed to draft this chapter, composed of academics and professionals, together with representatives of the different Patagonian Indigenous people that occupy this territory. The analysis was based on bibliography, interviews with members and representatives of Indigenous communities, and available spatial information on PAs, Indigenous people and communities, and their conservation initiatives, contrasting this with industrial activities, particularly in the marine area.²

The study begins with the identification of the Indigenous people that historically inhabited and still inhabit this part of Chile, their history and current situation together with their practices, uses, and traditional knowledge of their ancestral lands. Then the evolution of conservation and human rights standards is presented, in particular those referring to Indigenous people and their relevance to the emergence of new conservation approaches. Subsequently, the public and private situation of various PAs in Chilean Patagonia is reviewed. The spatial overlap of these protected areas with the lands and territories of ancestral occupation of Indigenous people is examined, as well as their forms of participation in PA management and governance. It then analyzes the reception that these standards have had in Chile, in particular the applicable legislation, including the law that establishes Indigenous People’s Coastal Marine Spaces (in Spanish Indigenous Peoples’s Coastal Marien Spaces, ECMPO), the bill that creates the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service (in Spanish SBAP), and the National System of State Wild Protected Areas (in Spanish Sistema Nacional de Areas Silvestres Protegidas del Estado, SNASPE).

4 Results

4.1 Indigenous People in Chilean Patagonia

The vast terrestrial and maritime territory known today as Patagonia was inhabited by different people since the late Pleistocene (Fig. 1; [20]). The earliest dates for South America are about 15,000 years before the present (BP); they indicate a settlement route that followed the Pacific continental coastline [8]. Settlement dates of the southernmost areas of Patagonia are more than 10,000 years BP [32]. In historical times, that is, since the use of writing to describe the distribution of native peoples in the national territory, the Indigenous people inhabiting the regions coastline included, from north to south: the Williche (or Veliche), Chono, Kawésqar (or Alacalufes), and Yagán (or Yámana). In the continental steppe zone this included the Aónikenk (or Tehuelches) and in Tierra del Fuego, the Selk'nam (or Onas) and Haush (or Mánekenks). However, these identities were complex and included a diversity of sub-identities with their own mobile borders [4].

Fig. 1

Source own elaboration

Indigenous territories in Patagonia before the European colonization.

These native people generated a heterogeneous way of life, given the nature of the territory they have inhabited since ancestral times. These ways of life balanced between subsistence practices and their cosmogonic universes [1]. Their acts of provisioning, hunting, fishing, and gathering were strongly influenced by taboos, beliefs, and rituals, which operated at the moment of entering the hunting and gathering spaces, together with their daily practices. This cosmogony, and territorial occupation persist to the present day, mixed with new cultural elements (Fig. 2). Hence, one way to understand the biodiversity of Patagonia is through the languages and knowledge of its oldest populations and those that inherited and crossbred this heritage.

Fig. 2

Lands and territory occupied and under current use by Indigenous people in Chilean Patagonia

4.1.1 Williche and Chonos

The Williches inhabited the archipelagos of Chiloé and the continental coasts of the current provinces of Llanquihue and Palena and shared with the Chonos significant nautical mobility [26]. The wide biodiversity of edible species in the austral area, as well as the enormous variety of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), are due to these peoples and their horticultural knowledge. European contact with the Williches occurred during the first millennium of the Christian era. This Indigenous people had an agro-pottery tradition,their language is Mapudungun [11].

The Chonos were nomadic fishermfolks, hunters and gatherers [35]. Their routes extended between Chiloé and the Gulf of Penas. However, the strong pressure exerted by colonial authorities and missionaries led to their cultural dismantling as an ethnic group [37]. During the eighteenth century, under pressure from the authorities and the Church, the last Chono nomads settled in Chiloé, gradually integrating into Williche society.

The archipelagos of Chiloé and Calbuco were occupied by the Spanish in 1567, establishing a regime of slavery during the sixteenth century, and of feudal estates (encomienda) and missionization of the entire Williche population in the following centuries [48]. At the beginning of the colonial period, as a consequence of slavery, forced labor, and epidemics, the Indigenous population in the Chiloé area decreased considerably. Later there was a demographic recovery that went hand in hand with the founding of small coastal villages. Around 1823, the Spanish Crown recognized part of the Indigenous property in the south of Chiloé, through the figure of royal estates (known as potreros realengos, [33]. In 1826, after the forced incorporation of Chiloé into the Republic of Chile, and although these titles were initially recognized, from the beginning of the twentieth century their lands were alienated and transferred to third parties.

Today, most Williche communities are on the coast, with a way of life that combines small-scale agriculture with shellfish gathering and artisanal fishing, which was also adopted by the region's non-Indigenous population, giving rise to the culture known today as “cultura chilota” [40]. The sea has always been a fundamental source of food and health for these people. Beaches in particular are spaces of socialization loaded with cultural significance. The Williche communities of the Aysén coast and southern Chiloé retain cultural traits of the ancient Chono navigators, especially their spatial occupation patterns that have led them to inhabit the entire marine area between Chiloé and the southern channels (to the municipality of Cape Horn and the Chilean and Argentine Patagonia). This group has been strongly affected by extractive commercial logic [39]. They were used as labor in the fur industry and the Guaitecas cypress industry during the nineteenth century, and later in the extraction of shellfish and fin fish for the fishing industry, which is still the case today. Many families belonging to this group lives in small villages on the Aysén coast and are highly dependent on marine resources.

During the twentieth century, the descendants of this people made several requests to the State for land regularization claiming a status as settlers in the Aysén Region, which to date have been ignored or rejected. This situation has not changed since the creation of the National Corporation for Indigenous Development (in Spanish Corporación Nacional de Desarrollo Indígena, CONADI) in 1993, since this entity has not recognized the existence of Indigenous ancestral territories in the Aysén Region. This is expressed in the refusal to accept and review Indigenous land claims, as well as in the responses from the Ministry of Education to requests by several Indigenous representatives request to implement intercultural education in the region.³

4.1.2 Kawésqar

Further south, the Kawésqar inhabited the channels between the Gulf of Penas to the north and the west coast of Tierra del Fuego to the south more than 6,000 years ago [27], settling in transient stopovers in relatively large family groups. They obtained their subsistence mostly from the sea, transiting seasonally between the sheltered islands of the interior and the exposed coasts of the Pacific. They built boats that allowed them to move around this vast territory to capture their food and collect materials, leading a nomadic life [25].

Although the initial contacts with European navigators date back to the end of the sixteenth century, by the end of the eighteenth century, the expeditions of foreign sea lion hunters and, above all, Chilotes [19], had a negative influence on the life of the Kawésqar, who were affected by disease contagion, abuse, and aggression, and even the capture of boys and girls who were sent to Chiloé as “striplings”.⁴ This had serious demographic consequences, producing a drastic reduction of their population, as well as affecting the physical and psychological health of the survivors.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, during the colonization process promoted in Magallanes by the Chilean State, many Kawésqar were taken to the Salesian mission of Dawson Island and Río Grande where they died (Historic and New Deal Commission, 2003; in Spanish Comisión de Verdad Histórica y Nuevo Trato, CVHNT). At the end of the 1930s a radio station of the Chilean Air Force and the San Pedro lighthouse in charge of the Navy were installed in Puerto Eden in Kawésqar territory. The population was concentrated around these two centers, which produced a forced sedentary life with the consequent changes in their traditional ways of living. The population of Puerto Eden was estimated at less than a hundred people in the mid-twentieth century [19]. At the beginning of the 1990s the Kawésqar population numbered around 100, only 12 of whom lived in Puerto Eden, while the majority of the population lived in Punta Arenas and Puerto Natales in marginal housing and social conditions, generally subsisting on fishing and service industries [7].

Artisanal fisherfolks in El Manzano cove, Hualaihue, Los Lagos Región. Photograph by Jorge López

The Indigenous Law No. 19,253 of 1993 recognized the existence of the southern canoe peoples and established the State's duty to ensure their protection and development, providing support for health and social security, job training and subsistence (art. 72 and following). Policies have included the purchase of land for families residing in Puerto Natales.⁵ In the 2017 Census, (National Institute of Statistics, 2018 (in Spanish Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas, INE) 3,448 people self-identified as Kawésqar, living mostly in the cities of Puerto Natales and Punta Arenas, in precarious social conditions. Information on the complexity of the Kawésqar world and territory and their current challenges as a people are beginning to be uncovered by recent research, including that carried out by their own members, who question the prejudices with which traditional literature has referred to them.⁶

4.1.3 Yagán

The Yagán inhabited the channels and coasts located in the southern area of Tierra del Fuego between the Beagle Channel and Cape Horn [38]. Their life and culture were very similar to those of the Kawésqar. Distributed in family groups, they led a nomadic life in the seas and channels of the territory, moving in wooden bark canoes and living by fishing, hunting, and gathering in the rich ecosystem they inhabited, developing a long canoeing tradition and a refined traditional ecological knowledge of their territory [9].

Although contact with European navigators began early, it was the Anglican missions of the nineteenth century that had the greatest impact on their way of life.⁷ An important part of their population was forced to settle in the Ushuaia mission, generating serious health consequences and resulting in a critical decrease of the population. In the twentieth century, the missionaries settled in Mejillones, on Navarino Island, where in the 1950s many Yagán families settled until their transfer to Villa Ukika, on the edge of the Puerto Williams naval base [13]. By the 1920s, their population was estimated at 70 people [22].

Today, the Yagán population lives in Villa Ukika and Puerto Williams, as well as in different cities throughout the country and in Argentina. This peoples’ main economic activities include fishing, construction, and for women, the sale of handicrafts [7]. The State has transferred around 4,000 hectares (ha) to the Yagán community since the enactment of the Indigenous Law, including the lands they occupied in Mejillones Bay on Navarino Island, Douglas Bay, and Dientes de Navarino Lagoon.⁸

An Indigenous Development Area (ADI Cabo de Hornos) was established in the area in 2010, but only began operating in 2016. The Yagan population has experienced a significant recent increase. A total of 1,600 people self-identified as Yagán in 2017, most of whom live in poverty.⁹ As in the case of the Kawésqar, there is now a new and growing scientific production on the Yagán territory and culture, which offers a different view of their archipelago, considering the threats that affect them, including aquaculture development, privatization of water and land, and the deconstruction of the image of an extinct people.

4.1.4 Aónikenk, Haush, and Selk'nam

The Patagonian steppes were inhabited by the Aónikenk in the continental portion and by the Haush and Selk'nam on the island of Tierra del Fuego [12, 28]. These nomadic land hunters moved in family groups in search of food and shelter, hunting animals such as guanaco, rhea and other species of birds, small mammals, and marine fauna.

The founding of Punta Arenas in the mid-nineteenth century, European colonization, and the granting of extensive land concessions for sheep farming to large foreign companies fomented after 1880 by Chile and Argentina, had serious consequences for these peoples. Far from being guaranteed their traditional lands, they were victims of displacement, poisoning by the ranchers, and genocide.¹⁰ At the same time, the few surviving Haush were decimated by sea lion hunters. To this was added the agreement between governments, ranchers, and the Catholic Church, by virtue of which about 1,500 Selk'nam were transferred to the Salesian missions of Dawson Island in Chile and Rio Grande in Argentina in the last decades of the nineteenth century. There, as noted, most died from uprooting and disease [13].

The remaining Selk'nam population is currently settled in communities in the province of Santa Cruz in Argentina. The official literature reported the death of the last Selk'nam woman in 1974 [12], but in recent years there has been a reorganization of the descendants of this people, who live in the town of Tolhuin in Tierra del Fuego in Argentina.¹¹ Migrants displaced to Santiago, Chile during the twentieth century have formed the Covadonga Ona community, which was constituted in 2015, in order to work for the rescue and valuation of their cultural identity, obtaining legal personality as a private law corporation.

4.2 Conservation Standards and Indigenous People

4.2.1 International Human Rights and Biological Conservation Standards

New conservation approaches have emerged in recent decades that recognize the virtuous relationship and influence of human communities, particularly Indigenous people and their cultures, on the biological diversity of the ecosystems they inhabit.¹² The recognition of these virtuous relationships, as well as of the rights of Indigenous people, has led to profound changes in classical conservation approaches, and the importance of biocultural conservation is increasingly recognized [6]. In parallel, various international instruments, including International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (1989), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people (UNDRIP, 2007), and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people (DADPI, 2016) have progressively recognized the rights to participation and consultation,free prior and informed consent before measures are taken that affect them; self-determination and autonomy; as well as rights over their lands, territories, and natural resources of traditional use and occupation. The ILO Convention 169 recognized the right of ownership and possession of Indigenous people over the lands they traditionally occupy, including those of nomadic peoples and shifting cultivators (art. 14.1). The UNDRIP has recognized the rights of these peoples to the natural resources in their territories, which cover the totality of the habitat they occupy or use in some way, including waters, coastal seas, and other traditional resources (art. 25 UNDRIP). These rights, in accordance with ILO Convention 169, include participation in the use, administration, and conservation of such resources (art. 15.1). Both the UNDRIP and the standards developed by the bodies of the Inter-American Human Rights System have gone further, recognizing the right of ownership of Indigenous people over their resources by reason of ancestral ownership or other traditional occupation or use (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2009). This framework has been progressively taken up by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN (in Spanish Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza)). Since the 2003 World Parks Congress, which approved the Durban Accord and its Action Plan, the IUCN has promoted, along with respect for the rights of Indigenous people, the recognition of their contributions to conservation. It also developed guidelines that recognize the diversity of types of governance of protected areas by different actors, including state, co-managed, private, and governance by Indigenous people and local communities (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013).

The IUCN has made an explicit call to conservation actors to apply the aforementioned UNDRIP, an instrument that includes the duty of States to restitute the lands, territories and natural resources that have been confiscated from these peoples (IUCN, 2008). It coined the concept of “Indigenous conservation territories and local community conserved areas” (ICCAs) to refer to a diversity of areas that are collectively conserved by communities [6]. ICCAs have been defined as “natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values, ecological benefits and cultural values voluntarily conserved by Indigenous people and local communities, both sedentary and mobile, through customary laws or other effective means” (Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., 2010). Both the IUCN and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have encouraged governments and conservation organizations to recognize and support ICCAs as examples of effective collective governance of biocultural diversity.¹³

The IUCN recently urged the development of good practice guidance in identifying, recognizing and respecting ICCAs that overlap with PAs, “before including any protected area on the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas or before recommending inclusion in the World Heritage List.”¹⁴ It has also urged parties to “…promote the establishment of appropriate approaches, including fair and equitable access to information and meaningful participation of Indigenous communities in decision-making processes, to avoid negative impacts, especially from unsustainable externally-driven developments and other forms of land and ecosystem degradation.”¹⁵

4.2.2 Implementation of International Standards in Chile

Terrestrial and marine PAs in Chile are regulated by numerous laws and regulations [43], many of which promote conservation approaches that do not adequately address their relationship with Indigenous people and local communities. As of 2011, the country had more than 20 laws and regulations on PAs (Ministry of Environment, 2011,in Spanish Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, MMA). The only law referring to Indigenous people is No. 19,253 of 1993 on the Protection, Promotion and Development of Indigenous people, which states that the participation of Indigenous people and local communities will be considered in Indigenous Development Areas (MMA, 2011) and in the administration of state protected areas, which must be determined in agreement with the National Forestry Corporation (in Spanish Corporación Nacional Forestal, CONAF, art. 35). In addition to these regulations, numerous international conventions ratified by Chile are currently in force (MMA, 2011), which have resulted in 13 PA categories administered by different bodies under various ministries [36], which do not have technical competency for the relationship between conservation and Indigenous people.¹⁶

The administration of protected areas in Chile is still exercised by CONAF, a private law entity created in 1973 under the Ministry of Agriculture.¹⁷ Law No. 20,417 was enacted on January 12, 2010, as part of a reform of the country’s environmental institutions, which created the MMA, the Environmental Evaluation Service, and the Superintendence of the Environment. In 2011, the government of President Sebastián Piñera sent a bill to Congress (Bulletin n°7487–12) for the creation of the National System of State Protected Areas, which would be under the supervision of the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service. However, this initiative did not advance significantly. In June 2014, former President Michelle Bachelet sent to the Senate a new bill for the creation of SBAP and SNASPE (Bulletin No. 9,404–12), that suffered from a series of limitations from the perspective of human rights and biocultural conservation guidelines referred to above, and which in 2016 was submitted to a consultation process with Indigenous people.¹⁸ In November, 2017, the Senate Environment Committee approved a second version of the bill, which incorporated some proposals that emerged from the consultation, such as the recognition of biodiversity conservation practices of local communities and Indigenous people (art. 50); the creation of a new category of protected area specifically for Indigenous people called “Indigenous peoples’ Conservation Areas” (art. 67); and empowering the SBAP to enter into management agreements with local authorities, organizations, and Indigenous communities (art. 71). Although important, these advances are far from the international guidelines referred to, particularly in terms of land restitution and recognition of territories of traditional Indigenous occupation and governance. After its approval by the Senate, the bill passed to the Chamber of Deputies in August 2019, where it is currently being analyzed.

Another important piece of legislation for the Indigenous people of Chilean Patagonia is Law No. 20,249, which created the ECMPO, known as the Lafkenche law. This law aims to “safeguard the customary use of these spaces, in order to maintain the traditions and use of natural resources by the communities linked to the coast” (Art. 3), and is considered by coastal Indigenous communities as a tool for the recognition of marine spaces of ancestral occupation and use, as well as for the protection and conservation of ecosystems linked to their ways of life and cultures [49].¹⁹ However, the implementation of this law has been slow and arbitrary. As of September 2020, only 13 of the 98 ECMPOs requested by Indigenous communities²⁰ have been decreed, all after long processing periods exceeding 4 years²¹ [29]. There are currently more than 79 applications in process in Chilean Patagonia,only 12 have destination decrees. Indigenous communities have encountered various obstacles to the use of this law as a tool to protect marine spaces and their customary uses [29, 49]. Such obstacles are fundamentally the result of the overlap between ECMPO areas and the interests of the aquaculture and fishing industry (Fig. 3), whose adverse impacts on marine biodiversity are recognized [10, 34].²² This is due to the fact that requests for the creation of ECMPOs by law have preference over any other request to affect these areas for other purposes, such as aquaculture concessions. In addition, the Indigenous communities have found little support from the State and conservation organizations in their ECMPO applications and have had to face these processes with their own means and by generating alliances between communities.²³ In spite of all this, ECMPO applications have had the practical effect of halting the expansion of the salmon industry into the fjords and canals of Chilean Patagonia.²⁴

Fig. 3

Original Indigenous People’s Coastal Marine Space (in Spanish Espacios Costeros ECMPOs; Salmon Concessions (in Spanish Concesiones de Salmonicultura); Management and Exploitation Areas for Benthic Resources (in Spanish Areas de Manejo y Explotación de Recursos Bentónicos, AMERB). September 2018

4.3 Case Analysis

This section reviews seven cases of terrestrial and marine protected areas, both public and private, that are closely related to Indigenous people in Chilean Patagonia. These cases were identified through spatial analysis (Fig. 4) and interviews with local experts.

Fig. 4

Source own elaboration

Protected areas and Indigenous communities.

Table 1 shows the overlaps between PAs and Indigenous communities. It shows that there is a total overlap between the area that today forms part of the identified PAs and the lands of current or traditional use and occupation of the related Indigenous communities in six of the seven cases. There are different types of claims by the communities involved, ranging from the restitution of lands occupied by PAs to shared governance. The last column shows the type of governance of each protected area according to IUCN guidelines: state, shared, private, Indigenous people, and local communities. It is noteworthy that according to CONAF five of the 7 cases identified have state-only governance types, one has private governance, but none has community governance and only one case, with modifications in 2018, has shared governance, which however is restricted to the terrestrial area without including the maritime area. Below, we describe and analyze each case.

Table 1 Protected areas (PAs) and indigenous people in Chilean Patagonia

4.3.1 Williche Communities of Hualaihué and Hornopirén National Park

In the municipality of Hualaihué there are at least two Williche communities that face overlapping conflicts between their ancestral territories and Hornopirén National Park, which was created in 1988 without their consent.²⁵ These are the Rüpü L'afken’ and Mapu Peñi communities, both from the Paillan-Peranchiguay family lineage, communities that for decades have demanded the lands of the former Colimahuidan estate ranch, which surrounded Lake Cabrera. The estate was subdivided during the military dictatorship and the part corresponding to the lake was sold to a private company.²⁶ However, the Pillán family, historically linked to this territory, maintained its occupation. In 2007, the company installed a barrier that was removed by the community, the family was sued for this act as an invasion of private property. The family’s countersuit requested free access to the lake, since it contains places of cultural significance, a reminder of the families buried by a landslide, and economic values associated with summer tourism, with facilities and thermal water rights. The right of use was recognized in the judgement; however, ownership of the land was not restored. In exchange, the government offered to give them lands of the same Colimahuidan estate ranch, not beside the lake, which were later incorporated into Hornopirén National Park, ignoring the customary property rights.

As part of the State's commitment to establish a National Parks Network (RPN) in Chilean Patagonia, an administrative process began of donations of land, belonging to foundations and/or companies related to ecologist Douglas Tompkins, the integration of state property into existing National Parks, and the reclassification of protected areas. Supreme Decree n°2 of the MBN was issued on January 15, 2018, which expanded Hornopirén NP, locating it in the municipalities of Cochamó and Hualaihué, in the Los Lagos Region.²⁷ Although the communities do not oppose the declaration of part of their territory as a National Park, they do demand to participate in its administration and governance.²⁸ At present, the community continues to use Lake Cabrera and request its ownership, while also demanding the administration of the area recently incorporated into the National Park.

4.3.2 Williche Communities and Chiloé National Park

Chiloé NP was created in 1982.²⁹ It currently covers an area of 42,567 hectares (ha) located in the municipalities of Ancud, Castro, Chonchi, and Dalcahue.³⁰ Williche presence in the area is ancestral,³¹ and the establishment of the NP on historically Williche lands included episodes of repression and violence (Correa, 2003, unpublished: “El Parque Nacional Chiloé y las comunidades huilliches”, paper presented at the seminar Taller Áreas Protegidas y Comunidades Humanas, Chiloé, August 24–26, 2003). After its creation, around 80 Williche families remained inside the park as occupants [17]. In 1995, during the government of President Eduardo Frei Ruiz Tagle, an agreement was signed between the Chanquín and Huentemó communities to exclude the land they occupied from the NP [17]. In 2000, these lands were transferred to CONADI in order to grant 2,765 ha to the Williche communities (Decree 368 of the MBN,2000). Another 1,841 ha were then added to the NP, In total, 4,727 ha were granted in individual and communal titles. This concluded in 2015 and benefited a hundred families from these communities as well as Chanquin Palihue.

The NP's Management Plan, which dates back to 1997, was only supposed to be in effect until 2007, but it has not been updated. The plan recognizes the historic settlement of the Williche communities, and one of its objectives is to “promote and encourage interaction with neighboring communities as a factor contributing to their development” (CONAF, 1997; 128). However, it did not consider the inclusion of these communities in its administration. After the titling of the communities, CONAF created a consultative council for the NP with the inclusion of the Williche communities. However, this plan is not operational. During the same period, an administrative agreement was signed for the NP visitor center that involved the communities.³²

The Williche communities carry out tourism initiatives in the area, including work as trail guides, horseback riding, and cabin rentals.³³ However, to date there is no community participation in the governance of the NP, despite the growing influx of visitors, totaling nearly 50,000 in 2015 (CONAF, 2017), nor do they participate in the benefits that the NP generates.³⁴ The Williche communities maintain their claim over NP lands, as well as their participation in the governance of the NP.³⁵ The same communities, together with four others bordering the NP (Cucao, Quilque, Chaique Cole Cole, and Montaña Chonchi) submitted in 2016 an ECMPO request for an area of 203,154.26 ha of adjacent marine area, to carry out seaweed harvesting, hunting, diving, and fishing activities.³⁶ The approval of this ECMPO is pending.

4.3.3 Williche Communities of Southern Chiloé and Tantauco Park

In the municipality of Quellón in the south of the large island of Chiloé the Williche communities of the territories of Weketrumao, Yaldad, Coldita, and Inío, have varying degrees of overlap with lands that currently form part of the 118,000 ha Tantauco Park, owned by Fundación Futuro (belonging to former President Sebastián Piñera) and declared a private conservation initiative in 2005. These communities claim areas that are currently within the park and recognize its entire area as a territory of ancestral use.

According to CONADI, the communities claim an area of approximately 18,000 ha corresponding to the old royal title (in Spanish Títulos de Realengo) granted to them. This title was registered for Yaldad in the Castro land registry in 1889, but ownership of the land was not recognized by the State, which gave it in concession to natural resource exploitation companies at the beginning of the twentieth century. As for the use of the rest of the territory, Lonko Cristian Chiguay of the community indicates that “[…] our people have made use of it far beyond those limits, they have made spiritual use of it, hunting, gathering l'awen’ and medicinal plants, to the west towards the Pacific, and also from Lake Chaiguata north […]”. Elías Colivoro of the Cocauque sector points out that towards the west side of the community there is no territory boundary, and that ancestral use extends to the Pacific Ocean, where until a few decades ago otters and sea lions were hunted and quilineja, a fiber used to make rope, was collected.

Most of the current Tantauco Park had no ancestral use or occupation except on the coast, because the communities assign this space a high spiritual value, since the forests and mountains are inhabited by the ngen’ that sustain the balance and good health of the territory.³⁷ There is currently no dialogue between the Foundation that manages Tantauco Park and the Williche communities in the territory, with the exception of the Inío community, which signed an agreement for the loan of half a hectare per family. For the leaders of the Yaldad communities, the ideal would be for the communities to be able to administer the protected areas that are part of the ancestral use territory.³⁸ These communities are currently working to apply for ECMPO status for the entire southern part of the large island of Chiloé, including the coast of Tantauco Park.

4.3.4 Williche Communities of Melinka, Puerto Aguirre and Protected Areas

Most of the inhabitants of the towns of Puerto Aguirre and Melinka, in the Aysén region, identify themselves as Williche,³⁹ and are currently organized into five Indigenous communities, one in Melinka and four in Puerto Aguirre. The territory of ancestral use and occupation of these communities includes the Chonos Archipelago and the Guaitecas Islands. A large part of this territory is protected by the Las Guaitecas Forest Reserve (FR), created in 1938⁴⁰ and the Guamblin Island NP, created in 1967.⁴¹ The creation of the Las Guaitecas RF was carried out with the objective of protecting and regulating cypress extraction, which meant the confiscation of lands and forests of ancestral use of the Williche and Chono communities of the archipelago. However, these protected areas have not been able to avoid the intense pressure from the salmon industry to develop aquaculture in the area,⁴² affecting both marine biodiversity and the main livelihoods of Indigenous and local communities [10, 23]. Given this situation, the communities of Melinka and Puerto Aguirre have submitted applications for the creation of ECMPOs, in order to safeguard their customary use rights and pursue their development priorities.

To date, the communities have not had any conflicts with CONAF because neither the Guaitecas NR nor Guamblin Island NP have specialized personnel or infrastructure in situ. Daniel Caniullan, Lonko of the Pu Wapi de Melinka community, notes that there is no CONAF presence and that the community has complained about the contamination produced by the salmon farms in the channels. Nelson Millatureo, an Indigenous leader from Puerto Aguirre, says the same. Both communities claim rights of use and administration of both the sea and the land. The communities of Puerto Aguirre have stated the need for co-management of these protected areas and have agreed with the conservation objectives, but have allowed the use of, and in specific cases effective occupation of some areas. The history of the Williche people of southern Chiloé and the Aysén coast is strongly linked to this territory, which is why both protected areas, Las Guaitecas RF and Guamblin Island NP, overlap with the ancestral territory of these communities.

4.3.5 Kawésqar Community Residing in Puerto Eden and Bernardo O'Higgins NP

In 1969, the Bernardo O'Higgins NP was created in Kawésqar territory, without the consent of the community, with an initial area of approximately 1,761,000 hectares and with the objective of conserving the area and protecting it from various threats, as it is “[…] land exposed to occupation, forest fires and because its flora and fauna are threatened with extinction⁴³”. In this extensive area included in the SNASPE, hunting and gathering of natural goods is prohibited thus depriving the Kawésqar of their main means of livelihood, affecting their ancestral practices as nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Since its creation to date, this National Park has undergone important modifications through two different decrees,⁴⁴ reaching its current area of 3,525,901 ha of land and 1,025,902 ha of sea, making it the largest state protected area in Chile and the second largest in Latin America. It contains the Southern Ice Fields and important channels of western Patagonia, extending west to the Pacific Ocean and south to Puerto Natales in the province of Última Esperanza. In the 1985 modification, it is stated “to protect by all possible means the anthropological values such as the remains of the human communities of the channels (Kawésqar), recognizing the presence and importance of this ancestral community. Then in 1989, together with the expansion of the park to its current area, some land within the NP and adjacent to the town of Puerto Eden was exempted in order to regularize the ownership situation of lands occupied in the “Villa Puerto Eden”, mostly belonging to Kawésqar families, who would have a space “to meet their firewood needs” (DS 392). During the 1990s, in the face of political changes in Chile, the Kawésqar of Puerto Eden began a process of vindication and exercise of their rights, using the tools provided by Chilean and international laws. The Kawésqar community residing in Puerto Eden was recognized in 1994. One of the community's main strategies has been to form alliances with researchers and scientists to demonstrate the ancestral occupation of the territory by the Kawésqar. Several archeological studies and collaborations with botanists, biologists, and linguists have made it possible to produce an Ethnogeographic Guide [2], identifying channels, fjords and bays with Kawésqar names, as well as funerary, birth, and taboo sites that were used ancestrally, demonstrating the deep knowledge of this vast territory by the Kawésqar community resident in Puerto Eden.⁴⁵

CONAF commissioned a baseline of the NP which was developed between 2009 and 2011 to provide information for the management plan and a tourism development plan, which “included the active participation throughout the project of the Kawésqar Indigenous Community Resident in Puerto Eden [5]. However, this management plan has yet to be approved and is still under review by CONAF. In parallel to this planning process, the possibility of establishing Areas Apt for Aquaculture (AAA) emerged within the framework of the coastal uses zoning process for the Magallanes Region between 2008 and 2014 in the framework of the zoning of the coastal border of the Magallanes Region, opening a controversy as to the legality of granting aquaculture concessions within the coastal zone of terrestrial National Parks. As a result of the requests for an official response on this issue by the Kawésqar Community of Puerto Edén, in 2013 the Comptroller General of the Republic confirmed that the marine areas located within the perimeter of this NP are protected and that aquaculture may not be developed in them, applying the commitments assumed by the State of Chile when it ratified the Washington Convention in 1967 [21], see also [43].⁴⁶

In 2013, the community drafted and made public the Jetárkte Declaration, which states that its territory, called Kawésqar-wæs, extends from the entrance of the Gulf of Penas in the north to Diego de Almagro Island in the south, where the Bernanrdo O’Higgins NP, the Katalalixar NR, the Archipelago Madre de Dios National Protected Asset, and the northern area of the Alacalufes Reserve (now Kawésqar NP and NR), including the Southern Ice Field, are located. The Kawésqar community of Puerto Edén recently indicated that CONAF urgently needs to make official the Management Plan that was jointly elaborated over five years ago.

4.3.6 Kawésqar Communities and the Kawésqar National Park and Reserve

An agreement was signed between then President Michelle Bachelet and the Tompkins family foundations in 2017, formalizing the transfer to the Chilean State of 407,625 ha and the commitment of 949,000 ha of public lands for the creation of a network of eight NPs in Patagonia. This included the decision to expand and reclassify the Alacalufes National Reserve⁴⁷ as a National Park. Given that this area “[…] is located in a territory that has been declared a National Park and is located in a territory that has cultural and symbolic significance for the Kawésqar people, since it corresponds to navigation areas ancestrally occupied by this people and that surround the protection area”, the MBN n Indigenous people.⁴⁸ The communities that participated in the consultation accepted the proposed measure on the condition that its name be changed to Kawésqar NP. They also demanded co-administration of the future NP, including its waters, through the creation of a consultative and decision-making Kawésqar Indigenous Council.⁴⁹ The consultation process concluded with consent regarding the need to reclassify the Alacalufes RF to NP and the expansion of its area. The communities also rejected that the future Kawésqar NP would exclude interior waters and channels.⁵⁰

In January 2018 the decree was issued to replace the Alacalufes RF with the Kawésqar NP and NR,⁵¹ the former covering the terrestrial area of approximately 2.3 million ha and the latter on the adjacent maritime territory with an approximate area of 2.6 million ha.⁵² The decision not to apply NP status to the maritime area of traditional occupation and navigation by the Kawésqar people generated frustration in the area’s Indigenous communities. In response to the government's refusal to fully protect the marine territory,⁵³ the communities As Wal La Iep, Atap, Residentes del Río Primero, and the Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar initiated an ECMPO application process in order to protect the sea, continue with their ancestral activities of fishing, hunting, and gathering, and protect their ancestral right to access and use the sea.⁵⁴

4.3.7 Yaghan Communities and Protected Areas

Cape Horn NP and adjacent islands were created as a Virgin Region Reserve in the Wollaston Archipelago, Navarino municipality in 1945 (D.S. 995/1945 Ministry of Agriculture), with an approximate area of 63,093 km². In 1965, the Alberto de Agostini NP was established on the islands located to the west of Navarino Island, with an approximate area of 480,000 ha and with the purpose of protecting the channels, fjords, fauna, and forests of the area (D.S. 80/1965 Ministry of Agriculture). The Holanda FR and part of the Hernando de Magallanes NP were incorporated into this NP in 1985, with an area of 1,460,000 ha. Finally, in 2013, Yendegaia NP was created in the southern part of Tierra del Fuego adjacent to the Beagle Channel, with 1,118 km², which includes part of the coastline of traditional Yagán use.

The creation of these conservation units did not consider the traditional occupation and use of the area by the Yagán, reducing them to settlements and generating human concentrations in small spaces. However, for the Yagán community this is still a territory that belongs to them, and which they warn is obstructed by multiple regulatory restrictions that prevent their customary use (Martín Calderón, in Serrano and Azócar (2016); Documentary Tanana Ready to set sail, 74 min). The Yagán Community of Villa Ukika and its members demand a landscape that goes beyond conservation (strict or multiple uses) and that allows them to manifest freely their economic, relational, and cultural practices (from the collection of reeds for basketry to the capture of crab for commercial purposes, combining both customary and non-customary uses) and to project their life plans and their own development priorities. In this context, they consider the ECMPO Law (No. 20,249) referred to above as an option to protect the maritime coastal space of traditional use and to maintain, in collaboration with other local actors, their own way of life in accordance with their culture.

5 Discussion

These case studies of the relationship between PAs and Indigenous people in Chilean Patagonia indicate that: (i) There is an evident overlap between the PAs analyzed here and the lands and territories traditionally occupied and currently used by communities of different Indigenous people. In several cases the overlap is produced because the areas now considered PAs have been occupied by Indigenous people since ancestral times. In most cases, as pointed out in interviews with stakeholders from these communities, the overlap is total, determined both by their permanent or temporary use of the geographic spaces where the PAs are located, and by the relationship, both material and spiritual, that their members continue to have with these territories. Thus, in most cases the communities have claims for the restitution and/or use of all or part of the lands and territories of these PAs. (ii) The establishment of PAs, both public and private, with the exception of Kawésqar NP and the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, has been carried out without consultation with potentially affected communities, and therefore without their free, prior, and informed consent. Although this is a right established by ILO Convention 169, in force since 2009, the creation of most PAs by the State or private parties have occurred without consultation processes, which weakens their legitimacy, and in some cases, generates conflicts that have not been adequately addressed. It is of concern that in one of the cases where consultations were conducted with Indigenous people prior to the establishment of a PA—the Kawésqar NP—the communities have questioned both the form and results of the process. The same communities question the fact that the maritime space of traditional use and occupation has not been protected in the same way under the NP category, as was done with the terrestrial space. (iii) The PAs analyzed do not have up to date management plans and are administered by the State or private entities, with minimal or no participation of Indigenous people. Initiatives to include Indigenous people in the management of these areas have been limited to consultative spaces that are not maintained over time (Chiloé NP) or to the design of tourism development and management plans that have not yet been implemented (Bernardo O'Higgins NP) and lack mechanisms for their effective participation in the governance of the PAs. (iv) Nor are there initiatives that allow Indigenous people to participate directly in the economic benefits that some of these PAs generate, and benefits received are only secondary in nature (sale of handicrafts, marine tourism, minor services). Thus, in most of the cases analyzed here, there is an unsatisfied demand for shared governance of PAs by the Indigenous people and communities that inhabit these areas.

As a consequence of this exclusion, and in contradiction to international conservation guidelines applicable to Indigenous people, particularly the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, PAs have not considered or integrated ancestral practices, uses, and knowledge that can contribute to biodiversity conservation. Except in the case of Bernardo O'Higgins NP and the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, it was not possible to identify research or documentation in this regard. The scarce existing information does not come from the entities in charge of the governance of these areas, but from the communities themselves (such as the Kawésqar community of Puerto Edén), from academia or from environmental organizations such as the Omora-UMAG Ethnobotanical Park. The restrictions in current legislation regarding the use and exploitation of natural resources in PAs have contributed to biodiversity conservation. However, they have also limited the sustainable use and practices that local communities make of these areas and their natural resources. Practices such as navigation, fishing, and gathering are limited due to general restrictions, without considering the ways of life and culture of the Indigenous people. In contrast, PAs such as Bernardo O'Higgins NP and Kawésqar NP have been affected by major threats, especially the granting of aquaculture concessions within their maritime areas, threats that have only been counteracted by the intervention of the Kawésqar communities themselves.

The PAs analyzed, particularly those belonging to the State, lack adequate governance and care, both because they do not have management plans in place and because in most cases, they do not have sufficient human and financial resources to provide adequate in situ protection. This is particularly critical in the case of the largest and most isolated areas (Las Guaitecas NR, Katalalixar NR, Bernardo O'Higgins NP, Kawésqar NP and NR, and Agostini NP), which is paradoxical considering that in all of these areas there are local communities with a clear interest in their protection and preservation.

Except for the public and private entities in charge of the governance of PAs, there is a lack of knowledge of the conservation initiatives that Indigenous people are developing in both their terrestrial and marine environments in Chilean Patagonia. A case of special interest is that of the ECMPO applications made so far by Indigenous people in Patagonia, which have purposes fundamentally linked to the sustainable management of resources and the conservation of these areas of traditional use, whose processing by the State has been extremely slow and bureaucratic. It is worth noting, however, that various conservation NGOs have begun to support the communities’ requests for ECMPOs, as well as the few management plans that have so far been granted, which is indicative of the understanding that these organizations have gained regarding the conservation potential of these areas.

Linked to this, we found that there is no regulatory framework in the country that guarantees the protection of Indigenous people’s rights in relation to public or private conservation initiatives that are promoted in their lands and territories. There is also no regulatory framework that recognizes Indigenous initiatives that contribute to the protection of biological diversity and their relationship with PAs, in accordance with the international guidelines on Indigenous people's rights and conservation referred to here.

The lack of a regulatory framework and a policy to process the demands of Indigenous people and communities in relation to public or private PAs located on their lands and territories of traditional and current use and occupation, ranging from the restitution of lands and territories to shared governance, generates a growing conflict that must be addressed. Together with the need for a regulatory framework that is appropriate to the aforementioned Indigenous rights and conservation guidelines, dialogue processes must be promoted that result in constructive agreements with each people or community in order to overcome this conflict.

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Among the primary results case studies presented here, there is a clear overlap between the PAs decreed and the lands of ancestral occupation and current use by Indigenous people in Chilean Patagonia. There is a general absence of processes of consultation and free, prior, and informed consent in the conformation of PAs, as well as the exclusion of Indigenous people from their governance. There is also a lack of recognition and understanding of Indigenous people’s own conservation initiatives, as well as of their practices, uses, and traditional ecological knowledge that contribute to conservation. There is an absence of legal frameworks and public policy using a rights-based approach that could promote synergies between public, private, and Indigenous stakeholders in favor of conservation strategies in Chilean Patagonia.

In order to strengthen the respectful, collaborative, and synergetic relationship between public and private strategies and those of the Indigenous people themselves that promote conservation in PAs in Chilean Patagonia, we make the following recommendations:

• The MMA, CONAF, academia, and private conservation entities, should carry out research and analysis with active Indigenous participation, to identify the nature and scope of this relationship in each PA, including the total or partial overlap between PAs and the lands and territories of ancestral occupation. These studies should identify the practices, uses, and traditional knowledge of these peoples and their contributions to conservation, as well as analyze compatible forms of governance.

• Promote dialogue between stakeholders in each PA, bearing in mind the IUCN guidelines and recommendations regarding the types of governance and the rights of Indigenous people over their lands and territories, in order to analyze together and define proposals for solutions to current and potential conflicts. These proposals may consider, among other modalities: (i) the definition of forms of shared governance; (ii) recognition of these PAs, or some of them, as Indigenous and Community Conservation Areas (ICCAs) under the governance of Indigenous people; (iii) establishment of agreements and mechanisms that regulate the uses of PAs so as to guarantee Indigenous ways of life and culture; (iv) agreements to share the benefits generated by activities in PAs; (v) total or partial restitution to Indigenous people of PAs when this is a demand based on demonstrated traditional occupation and is consistent with conservation purposes.

• Consideration of the international guidelines on Indigenous people and conservation referred to above by the competent public entities in the creation of new PAs in Chilean Patagonia. In particular, to consider the development of studies on potential spatial overlaps or other forms of impact on Indigenous people and communities, as well as the promotion of a consultation process with a view to achieving the agreement or consent of these peoples and communities.

• Prompt approval by the National Congress of the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service bill, which establishes a regulatory framework for PAs and biodiversity in the country that considers the rights of Indigenous people and enables the protection and promotion of their conservation initiatives.

• Related to this, consideration should be given by the competent public and private entities that manage PAs in Chilean Patagonia to the potential of ECMPOs as conservation initiatives of native peoples in their coastal marine spaces, that are often adjacent to protected areas. To this end, we recommend that: (i) the political and administrative obstacles that limit the approval of ECMPOs within the deadlines established by law be documented and analyzed by academia, with the participation of the communities involved; (ii) CONADI and the Undersecretariat of Fisheries and Aquaculture provide support to the communities in the ECMPO application processes for purposes compatible with conservation; (iii) there be a reform of the review and evaluation processes for management and administration plans in order to reduce their processing periods; (iv) SUBPESCA provides support to strengthen the communities’ capacities for the collective governance of the ECMPOs and the sustainable use of their resources.

• Promote, through the competent entities, a public policy of recognition and support for ICCAs in Chilean Patagonia, thus promoting compliance with the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Targets for the Strategic Plan 2011-2020, particularly Targets 11, 14, and 18⁵⁵

• Grant through the competent public entities, particularly the MMA and the future Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service, effective and financed public protection in accordance with the international guidelines outlined above for the PAs and ICCAs in Chilean Patagonia, in the face of the threats to which they are currently subject. In particular, this should address the threats from industrial fishing and aquaculture projects, mining, road building, and other projects causing environmental impact, as well as real estate projects.