Keywords

1 Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) are the most standard conservation tool worldwide, defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as “A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature, with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” [12]. An extensive literature has been generated over the last decades on evaluating the effectiveness of PAs in preventing habitat loss [22, 23], and ensuring the provision of ecosystem goods and services [70]. The literature has also documented that many of these PAs only have legal protection on paper and lack effective management on the ground [52]. According to Aichi Target No. 11 agreed at the tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), signatory countries have the commitment to protect by 2020, “at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% of marine and coastal areas, (…) through effectively and equitably managed systems of protected areas (…)” [7]. Although this commitment was incorporated in the Chilean National Biodiversity Strategy 2017–2030 (Ministry of the Environment [39], in Spanish Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, MMA), assessments to date indicate that protected areas in our country are far from being effectively and equitably managed, reaching only 50% of their optimal level [19, 20, 62].

In a context of increasing environmental vulnerability and anthropic pressures resulting from historical processes of colonization and displacement of native peoples, Patagonian ecosystems have been profoundly transformed and invasive species have been introduced. The establishment of intensive productive activities such as mining and aquaculture in the fjords and channels has generated emblematic socio-environmental conflicts in Chilean Patagonia [11]. The weakness of the Environmental Impact Assessment System and other land use planning and regulation instruments reinforces the importance of PAs in Chile as a tool for biodiversity conservation (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [46]).

Chilean Patagonia, between Reloncavi Sound and the Diego Ramirez Islands (41° 42′ S 73° 02′ W; 56° 29′ S 68° 44′ W), concentrates more than 70% of the total surface of terrestrial and coastal areas protected by the State, and about 28% of the PAs legally recognized nationally. Increasing their management effectiveness is of key importance for the achievement of international species and ecosystem conservation commitments, including the Washington Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity. This chapter offers a historical analysis of the establishment and current management status of the primarily terrestrial PAs administered by the National Forestry Corporation (in Spanish Corporación Nacional Forestal, CONAF) as a contribution to the design of management standards for the National Protected Area System (in Spanish Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas del Estado, SNASPE).

2 Scope and Objectives

In order to contribute to knowledge and public debate regarding PAs in Chile, and especially in Chilean Patagonia, we present an analysis of the establishment and historical evolution of PAs in the region stretching from the Reloncaví sound to Cape Horn, complemented by a description of their main biogeographical characteristics and an analysis of their current level of management. Finally, four typical situations are proposed that reflect different levels of management, along with a general discussion of the needs and opportunities to advance in strengthening the management of the NPWAs. This chapter does not address other key issues contained in other chapters of this volume, e.g. coastal-marine protection within the NPWAs and marine protected areas [24, 28, 65].

Neither does the chapter address ecological representativeness and relations with Indigenous peoples, which are discussed in other chapters of this volume [2, 54]. The Chiloé archipelago is not included here, since the chapter is based on an earlier analysis carried out by the Austral Patagonia team that did not address that subregion.Footnote 1 While our historical and biogeographic analysis covers all official PA categories, the analysis of management status is limited to the NPWAs.

3 Methods

Given its wide coverage in Chilean Patagonia and the greater availability of information, the analysis concentrates on the legal categories that make up the NPWAs, which include National Parks (NPs), Natural Reserves (NRs) and Natural Monuments (NMs), together these are referred to as National Protected Wild Areas (NPWAs; in Spanish Areas Silvestres Protegidas del Estado). Other protected areas, such as Protected National Assets (PNAs) and Nature Sanctuaries (NSs) will be considered in a separate section. These categories are not included in the analysis of the level of management, due to lack of publicly available information. Biosphere Reserves (BRs) are included in the discussion but not in the PA statistics, since they are not yet a legally recognized form of protection in Chile. The review includes a synthesis of information from various secondary sources summarized in Table 1. The compilation of cartographic information presented for the NPWAs comes from the Ministry of National Assets (in Spanish Ministerio de Bienes Nacionales, MBN) and CONAF and for the other PA categories the Ministry of Environment’s National Registry of PAs was used. The geographic coverage calculations include only the terrestrial portions of the areas analyzed, since marine coverage is dealt with separately in [65]. The updates of the Native Forest Cadastre available in CONAF’s Territorial Information System were used for the geographic and resource characterization associated with the PAs. ArcGIS 10.5 software [14] was used for the analysis and processing of geographic information. The historical evolution of the establishment of PAs was generated based on a review of available historical and contemporary literature, including CONAF archives, and other sources, including laws and decrees.

Table 1 Summary of variables analyzed and sources of information consulted
Full size table

CONAF and the Austral Patagonia Program previously evaluated the management of the terrestrial NPWAs in Chilean Patagonia [63]. A management model was developed that represents the main activities, results, inputs, processes, and outputs that form the NPWAs management cycle in Chile (Fig. 1). Subsequently, the main indicators were identified to analyze the level of management achieved for each stage of the management cycle, following international recommendations for this type of protected areas management evaluation (PAME) instrument [35]. Information from the following was collected and systematized from different sources in a single database, using a binary coding system (complies/does not comply) for each of the 38 indicators in the 34 NPWAs units in force as of December, 2017. From a first initial analysis of results, explicit rating ranges (1–4) were established based on an adaptation of internationally accepted methodologies [61]. The indicators were validated through a management effectiveness evaluation workshop with 30 park rangers and NPWAs managers. The information provided by CONAF’s regional protected area administration in the Los Lagos, Aysén, and Magallanes regions for the period 2014–2017 was reviewed, to complement the information on the provision of management inputs and the type of management activities carried out in each unit.

Fig. 1
A chart of the N P W A management cycle in Chile. There is an interrelation between the context, inputs, planning, processes, results, and products.

Flowchart of the NPWA management cycle in Chile indicating the different processes, inputs, activities, and critical products involved in management. OC: conservation objects

Full size image

It is worth mentioning that with the land donation and park expansion agreement signed in 2018 between the collection of NGOs working under the umbrella of Tompkins Conservation and the government, the NPWAs in Patagonia increased from 34 to 36 units, and several NR were reclassified as NP. This analysis addresses the units as they existed prior to that change. Subsequently, a partial update of the data corresponding to the 18 national parks was carried out. These data were not included in the final quantitative analysis, but the main qualitative changes in the management situation of the NPWAs are described in the chapter.

A photograph of visitors at Bernardo O'Higgins National Park. They are climbing a staircase with vegetation on both sides.

Visitors to Bernardo O'Higgins National Park, Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica Region. Photo courtesy of Conaf

4 Results

4.1 Establishment and Historical Evolution of NPWAs in Chilean Patagonia

The history of NPWA creation can be seen as progressing through four main stages: (i) oriented to the protection of State forests during the colonization era; (ii) for scientific, tourist, or sovereignty reasons; (iii) as part of an administrative and territorial reorganization of the system; (iv) as part of an expansion driven by non-State actors. Over the last century many of the current NPWAs have changed their name, surface areas, and objectives. In this chapter the units are identified according to their current names and surface areas.

4.1.1 Stage 1: Forest Reserves and Forest Exploitation (1913–1939)

The oldest NPWA in Chile dates to 1907 and the earliest in Chilean Patagonia to 1913, when the Llanquihue Forest Reserve was created for an area now encompassed in the Alerce Andino NP. This first stage in the creation of NPWA emerged in response to the “ecological disaster” caused by the extensive burning of forests to make way for agricultural and grazing lands [4, 50]. At this time, however, NPWAs established in areas with better access were generally later fully or partially converted and settled as part of the colonization of the region [21]. With the first Forestry Law of 1925, the categories of Forest Reserves and National Tourism Parks were created, with new areas located in territories unsuitable for colonization and with little value for forestry exploitation. In 1931 the 1925 Forestry Law was modified and the former Forest Reserves were reclassified as National Parks, and surplus land was allocated to colonists. The Magallanes Forest Reserve was established in Patagonia in 1932 and the Las Guaitecas Forest Reserve in 1938 (Fig. 3), and given their difficult access, they were not exploited.

4.1.2 Stage 2: Scientific Explorers, Tourism and Sovereignty in Chilean Patagonia (1940–1971)

In the next phase of NPWAs development, scientists and explorers pushed for the protection of various territories in Patagonia for scientific and tourism purposes [21, 69]. The creation of the first national parks in border territories of Chile and Argentina was carried out as a strategy to establish sovereignty in remote and border areas [21, 32, 45, 58]. During the 1940s and 1950s, Carlos Muñoz Pizarro, scientist and Director of Forests within the Ministry of Lands and Colonization, promoted the establishment of a Network of National Parks and Forest Reserves in Chile and the expansion of NPWAs [42]. Patagonia's oldest and southernmost NP, Cabo de Hornos, was established in 1945 as a National Tourism Park and Virgin Region Reserve (Fig. 2). Scientists and travellers promoted the creation of Lago Grey National Tourism Park in 1959. Three years later, Torres del Paine was declared a National Tourism Park, thanks to land donations and the incorporation of public lands. Laguna San Rafael National Tourism Park was created in the same year (Fig. 2). Andean clubs took possession of parts of NPWAs in this period, as in the case of the Magallanes Forest Reserve.

Fig. 2
A timeline chart of terrestrial protected areas. Some of the dates are as follows. 1925, first forest law that defines forest reserves and N T Ps. 1964, Creation of APARFO. 1972, creation of CONAF. 1978, management plan Torres del Paine N T P. 2017, Tompkins Foundation donates 407625 hectares.

Timeline of the establishment of terrestrial protected areas in Chilean Patagonia and significant milestones in the process, as for Decembre 2019

Full size image

The most significant period of growth in terms of number and surface area of NPWAs occurred during the government of Eduardo Frei Montalva (1964–1970). Important land policies were implemented during this administration including the agrarian reformFootnote 2 and the ratification of Washington Convention (1967).Footnote 3 Twenty-six NPWAs were established in Patagonia, of which 10 were National Tourism Parks; some of which were very extensive, covering >1 million hectares (ha) (Fig. 2). The Administration of National Parks and Forest Reserves (in Spanish Administración de Parques y Reservas Forestales, APARFO) was created in 1964 within the Ministry of Agriculture, which at that time managed ca. 3 million ha of terrestrial NPWAs nationally [60]. Subsequently, its functions were transferred to the Agriculture and Livestock Service (in Spanish Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero, SAG), created in 1967.

There was no proposed technical management system for NPWAs until 1965. At this time, many NPWAs were reclassified, merged, degazetted, or reconfigured as part of a significant reorganization of the system. A process of title reorganization and area delimitation began and intensified a decade later [13]. However, the occupation by settlers and burning to clear land for agriculture continued in areas under protection. This created difficulties in expanding or creating new PAs, given that the settlers had interests different from those of the State.

In Aysén, for example, colonists’ resisted the expansion of the Lago Carlota, Cochrane, and Jeinimeni Forest Reserves. They managed to prevent the expansion of the last of these, given that they wanted the land for cattle raising [4]. The State also required extensive NPWA land areas in Magallanes to install police checkpoints and other public offices (Ministry of Lands and Colonization [36, 37]; in Spanish Ministerio de Tierras y Colonizacion, MTC). There was no management for any NPWA in Patagonia until the end of 1960 [59], with the exception of the Llanquihue Forest Reserve, which had an administrator since 1925.

4.1.3 Stage 3: Creation of CONAF and Re-categorization of the NPWAs (1972–1999)

By the end of the 1970s, 41 NPWAs had been declared in Patagonia (15 National Tourist Parks and 26 Forest Reserves).Footnote 4 The vast majority of the NPWAs had no administration or management practices [13, 50], there were only seven administrators and 14 park rangers. Torres del Paine NP was a pioneer in Patagonia with the development of the first management plan and establishment of minimum impact infrastructure (1978), with the support of the US Peace Corps [15]. The first administrator started his duties in 1981, along with seven park rangers.

In 1972 CONAF was created as a private non-profit corporation under the Ministry of Agriculture and it incorporated other units of the ministry such as APARFO, which until then had jurisdiction over protected areas. At that date there were already close to 10 million ha under some form of protection nationally [60]. With the support of CONAF, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) generated a first planning document for NPWAs between 1974 and 1975.Footnote 5 The first technical policies for NPs were drafted in 1975, and in 1988 the first technical policies were established for NR [48].

CONAF undertook an extensive process of reclassification, redefinition of boundaries, and management categories in all the Patagonian NPWAs. The reorganization was based on the categories defined by the Washington Convention and the 1978 IUCN categories. In this process, the NPWAs that did not meet the standards of these categories, or that had been colonized, were abolished [49]. In both Aysén and Magallanes, given the lack of control of the protected territories or the demands for other uses, 11 Forest Reserves were disaffected [21], including four in the Cisnes and Palena areas of Aysén, for a total of 8,606 ha [38]. This process of reclassification and disaffection of NPWAs led to the degazetting of around 1 million ha nationally by the end of 1980 [21].

The designation of new areas began to be oriented towards the protection of ecological values in this period. As a result of the process of national deforestation and reorganization, according to CONAF in 1989 only 5% of protected areas nationally had conflicts with private properties [48]. However, given the lack of administration, this reality was different in Patagonia, where such conflicts were accentuated. In Aysén there were property conflicts with settlers in the Río Simpson, Cochrane, and Cerro Castillo Forest Reserves; and in Magallanes, in the Magallanes, Pali Aike, and Torres del Paine National Tourism Parks. Since 1984 the NPWAs have been administered by CONAF as part of the NPWAs.Footnote 6 During the 1980s a more systematic process of area planning began, with the design of the technical policies for the management of the NPWAs [8].

4.1.4 Stage 4: Creation of Philanthropic, State-Driven PAs and Development of Private Conservation Initiatives (2000–2018)

The last two decades have seen an expansion of protected areas in Patagonia, largely driven by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and various private conservation initiatives (PCIs). These PCIs involve companies, individuals, or Indigenous communities who wish to preserve all or part of their properties, or philanthropists who buy land to protect nature for non-profit purposes. As of 2014, 47 PCIs have been identified between the Los Lagos and Magallanes regions covering an area of 964,000 ha, equivalent to ca. 57% of the total area nationwide [43]. Three of the five largest PCIs were established in Patagonia: Pumalín Park in Palena (now an NP), Tantauco Park in insular Chiloé, and Karukinka Natural Reserve in Tierra del Fuego (Fig. 3). Despite the fact that PCIs have been consolidating their role as a necessary and alternative conservation mechanism nationally, they remain in an institutionally precarious position [64], and generally demonstrate low management effectiveness [43].Footnote 7

Fig. 3
A timeline chart of milestones for other land protection figures. Some of the dates are as follows. 1970, law 17288 of National Monuments creates the figure of the Nature Sanctuary. 1991, Pumalin Establishment. 1994, private P As are recognized in Environment Law. 2003, first national biodiversity strategy.

Timeline of the creation and significant milestones for other land protection figures in Chilean Patagonia, as for December 2019

Full size image

The most emblematic case are those initiatives undertaken by the foundations linked to Douglas and Kristine Tompkins, later consolidated under the name Tompkins Conservation, which purchased a series of properties in Patagonia for conservation. The first was Pumalín, which opened the debate on private conservation policy in Chile [11, 27, 64] and generated a new management model with infrastructure of high aesthetic quality, free public use, and significant presence of management staff. An initiative of donations from Tompkins Conservation to the State of Chile began in 2005 with the creation of Corcovado NP. This concluded in 2018 with a donation of 407,625 ha of land by Tompkins Conservation, and a series of measures by the Chilean government aimed at consolidating a set of NPs denominated as the Patagonian Parks Network. These measures included the creation of Pumalín Douglas Tompkins NP from the private land donation and adjacent public lands, the creation of Patagonia NP from the donation and incorporation of the Lago Cochrane Forest Reserve and Lago Jenimeni NR, the creation of Melimoyu NP, and the reclassification of the Alacalufes Forest Reserve and its expansion with adjacent public lands to create Kawésqar NP. The Hornopirén, Corcovado, and Isla Magdalenad NPs were also expanded with adjacent public lands (Fig. 3).Footnote 8

4.2 Establishment and Evolution of Other Figures of Terrestrial Protection

Other categories of protected areas, which are not part of the NPWAs, are the Nature Sanctuaries (NSs) established under the National Monuments Law No. 17,288 of 1970 and Protected National Assets (PNAs) established by MBN policy and self-designated by decree of this ministry. The first NS to be established in Patagonia was the Punta Pelluco Fossil Forest in 1978 (Fig. 3). Four others have been declared after 1990: Capilla de Mármol and Estero Quitralco in Aysén; Pumalín in Palena, (later reclassified to NP) and Isla Kaikué-Lagartija in the Los Lagos Region. Twenty-four PNAs were decreed from 2003 to 2016 in Patagonia (Fig. 3). Their administration is the responsibility of the MBN, but their management is granted in concession to third parties. Finally, a series of Biosphere Reserves (BRs) have been established that are not legally recognized as PAs in the country, but which can generate a conservation framework for the designated territories.Footnote 9 Four BRs have been established (Fig. 3): Torres del Paine and Laguna San Rafael in 1978, whose surfaces are equivalent to the NPs of the same name [41]; and Cabo de Hornos in 2005, which was the first to integrate marine and terrestrial environmentsFootnote 10 [55] and Bosques Templados Lluviosos in 2007, which incorporates nine NPWAs units, four of which are located in Patagonia [41].

4.2.1 General Description of NPWAs of Chilean Patagonia

The Chilean Patagonian region is eminently a conservation territory, with almost 51% of its surface area under protection. There are currently 63 PAs, distributed in five protection categories, covering 13.6 million ha of land in the study area (Table 2, Fig. 4). The results show Patagonia’s gravitational weight in terms of terrestrial ecosystem protection, covering 71% of the national total of the categories analyzed (19.2 million ha).

Table 2 Number and surface area of PAs in Chilean Patagonia and nationally. In addition, for a more detailed analysis of ecological representativeness, see Pliscoff et al. [54]
Full size table
Fig. 4
A map of Chile for terrestrial protection by legal category. The legends are national park, national reserve, national monument, and protected national asset. Most of the area is under National Park. There are patches for National Reserve in the northwestern sections of Chile.

Terrestrial protection by legal category in Chilean Patagonia

Full size image

The NPWAs contributes the largest proportion of this protection, totaling 13.3 million ha in 36 units, primarily under the category of NP and NR, and to a much lesser extent MN (Table 2). Of note are the following large NPs and NRs (>1 million ha): Laguna San Rafael, Bernardo O'Higgins, Kawésqar, and Alberto de Agostini (Fig. 4). Las Guaitecas and Katalalixar in Aysén are among the NR with areas greater than 500,000 ha (Fig. 4). The other PAs contribute a relatively low area in ha despite their significant number (Table 2).

The NPAs in Patagonia represent 48% of the area in NPAs nationally, and only 5 of the 24 existing units contribute 70% of the area covered by this category: Nalcayec (22,934 ha) and Cerro San Lorenzo (19,400 ha) in Aysén, and Isla Madre de Dios (123,668 ha), Río Serrano Milodón (24,124 ha) and Lote 7 Río Paralelo (15,347 ha) in Magallanes. The NS present in Patagonia, which contribute a smaller area (55 ha), are Punta Pelluco Fossil Forest and Isla Kaikué Lagartija in the Los Lagos Region, and Capilla de Mármol in the Aysén Region (Fig. 4).

Many of the aforementioned PAs and their areas of influence have been recognized by UNESCO as Biosphere Reserves, although this category is not yet considered an official protection category in Chile. The four BRs present in Patagonia cover a total of 4,491,305 ha, that is, 41% of the total national surface area of the BRs (10.9 million ha).

According to the Native Forest Cadastre, the NPWAs represents an important and diverse portion of land use types in Patagonia (Fig. 5). The NPWAs concentrate a large area of snow and glaciers (83% of the total present), mainly in the regions of Aysén and Magallanes, as well as peatlands (68%) in Magallanes. Shrublands and native forest have a similar proportion within the NPWAs (ca. 40%), with greater coverage in the Aysén Region. The greater representation of native forest, snow, glaciers, and areas without vegetation is consistent with the large proportion of steep slopes within the NPWAs (>45%), and therefore soils with little potential for agricultural use. This is the situation for 50% of the surface of the NPWAs in Los Lagos, 32% in Magallanes and 23% in Aysén. These data are relevant in the face of discussions regarding the impact of NPWAs coverage on the development of silvicultural-agricultural industry in the regions. There are also still natural uses with less representation such as the steppes (9%, 59,126 ha), which are primarily represented within the NPWA of the Magallanes Region (with 25,000 ha). Finally, it is important to note that the coastal geography of Chilean Patagonia is predominantly archipelagic and is composed of more than 40,000 islands, islets, and rock outcroppings [65]. Thus it is important to recognize that the majority of the NPWA's land area is archipelagic and therefore presents particular management challenges.

Fig. 5
A horizontal multiple bar graph of land use coverage in the SNASPE of Chilean Patagonia. The land use type coverage is the highest for native forest at 3616769 with the highest proportion of SNASPE Ayesen. It is the lowest for urban area at 27.

Land use coverage in the NPWAs of Chilean Patagonia

Full size image

4.3 Current Management Situation of the NPWAs

4.3.1 Development of Tools for Assessing the Effectiveness of NPWA Management

Interest in assessing the effectiveness of PAs in adequately representing different ecosystems and providing effective protection on the ground prompted the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas to propose a conceptual framework that evaluates PA management based on an analysis of the management cycle [25, 26]. Different tools related to PAME have been developed based on this conceptual framework over the last decades, and are validated by Convention on Biological Diversity as indicators to verify compliance with the commitments of the Parties [6]. Specific tools have also been developed to assess social participation [18], quality of governance [3], equity in management [40, 71] and generation of social benefits [33], among other aspects.

However, use of these self-assessment tools implies a high degree of subjectivity [5], which is why external evaluation processes have recently been implemented with verifiable indicators, including PA certification processes that allow accreditation of compliance with sufficient levels of management effectiveness.Footnote 11 The most important initiative is the IUCN Green List programme, which already has a procedures manual [30] and a global standard based on four principles, 17 criteria and 70 indicators [31]. The Green List standard has already been applied in different Latin American countries, including Colombia, Peru, and Mexico [68].

Different tools have also been applied in Chile to evaluate the effectiveness of NPWAs management. The first manual of operations and technical policies was published in the 1980s, which made it possible to standardize the NPWA management cycle [8]. Subsequently, the first experiences of effectiveness evaluation were implemented in the 1990s [9] and the Management Planning and Control System was implemented in the 2000s; an Institutional Management Information System (SIGI) was adopted based on indicators that represent relevant processes or strategic products related to the objective of the program [10]. Implementation of SIGI No. 14 [44] was initiated in 2018; this is a tool for evaluating compliance with the legal objectives of the NPWAs based on three principles, 33 criteria and 65 PA management indicators that assess the achievement of certain regional and national outputs/outcomes. However, this tool was not designed to evaluate the performance of the units, providing only results grouped by administrative region. CONAF does not currently have a standardized procedure to evaluate the effectiveness of individual NPWA management.

4.3.2 Evaluation of the Level of Management in NPWA

Based on the conceptual model that represents the NPWA management cycle and the selection of 37 indicators grouped into 5 areas and 12 sub-areas of management (Table 3), an evaluation was carried out using official information provided by CONAF's department of NPWA administration. The verifiers available for each of the indicators were identified through a detailed review of procedure manuals, planning instruments, management reports, resolutions, and other background information available at CONAF [63]. A summary of the results obtained for each of the areas evaluated is provided below.

Table 3 Indicators evaluated for effectiveness of NPWA management, by scope and criteria
Full size table

4.4 Context Area

Contextual information makes it possible to determine whether management efforts are consistent with the importance or degree of pressure on the units. Only 12 of the 34 units evaluated (35%) have detailed baseline information and digital cartography that is less than 10 years old, while 11 others have information that is more than 10 years old, and 13 have no biological baseline information. Terrestrial and marine baseline studies are being developed for the planning of only three units at present, so there is no biodiversity database in the NPWAs units based on primary information. Although the NPWAs have been integrated into planning instruments and regional development strategies, especially in the Aysén Region, there is only one unit with a valuation study of the environmental goods and services of the NPWAs. However, in 2017 the first systematic survey of threats to ecosystems was applied to units, and there are also systematized data on the numbers and types of visitors (Table 4), which allows estimates of the degree of public use pressure that each unit receives.

Table 4 Basic data of the NPWAs units evaluated in 2018
Full size table

4.5 Planning Scope

Of the 34 units evaluated, 26 (75%) have some kind of management instrument. Of these, 22 have a management plan while three have management guides, and only one has a resource register. However, only eight management instruments (35%) are less than five years old (Fig. 6). The drafting of Management Guides for Pumalín Douglas Tompkins NP and Patagonia NP, along with three Management Plans under development, have improved this situation. The elaboration of Public Use Plans is much less widespread, with the exception of Aysén, which has completed this instrument for 80% of the units with current management. Only 50% of the units with a planning instrument develop Annual Operating Plans, and less than 25% of the units report having monitoring programs designed or being implemented.

Fig. 6
A multibar chart plots number of protected areas versus region. The regions are Los Lagos, Aysen, and Magallanes. The bars are the highest for Aysen with management plan greater than 5 years the highest. The bars for Los Lagos are the lowest.

NPWA planning instruments in Chilean Patagonia by type and region

Full size image

4.6 Management Inputs

The information provided by NPWA administrators for the period 2014–2017 allows a historical evaluation of the operating budget, staffing, and staff training for each of the units. However, it has not been possible to obtain systematized information on the provision of infrastructure and equipment.

NPWA expenditures in Patagonia were around CLP$ 5 billion annually (about US$ 7 million) for the 2014–2017 period (Table 5).Footnote 12 This figure is very close to the operational income from entrance fees and concession payments (ca. CLP$ 4.5 billion annually), so the net fiscal contribution was very marginal (ca. CLP$ 500 million annually). Although there was a sustained increase in self-generated revenues (Fig. 7), the year-on-year budget increase was very low, following a pattern similar to the national one, although much more evident in Patagonia. There is also a marked difference in the budget between regions, with Magallanes registering the highest ratio of executed expenditures to revenues received.

Table 5 Regional budget of CONAF’s Department of Protected Wild Areas (2014–2017)*
Full size table
Fig. 7
2 stacked bar graphs of distribution of the SNASPE budget in Chilean Patagonia. The first graph for Patagonia plots thousands of Chilean pesos versus year. The trend inclines from 2014 to 2017 with high personnel expenses. The second graph for national level has the highest bar for 2017.

Distribution of the NPWAs budget in Chilean Patagonia in 2014–2017. *Employee expenses: considers per diems and overtime; permanent and temporary wages. **Data obtained from Toledo [67]

Full size image

Spending was concentrated on personnel in all three regions, which represents about 80% of the allocated budget. On average, only 25% of the regional budget was allocated to cover the operating budgets in the NPWA units (Table 5). However, the main source of operational income was visitor entry fees (>80%, Table 5), and this item was proportionally more important for Aysén (97.4%).

In December, 2017, 22 of the 34 NPWAs had their own operating budget (Table 4). The data reviewed shows a huge disparity in this aspect, with an average of CLP$ 36 million per year, and a range from 13 units with no operating budget (38%) to a single unit with more than CLP$ 100 million per year (3%) (Fig. 8). It is worth mentioning that updated budget data per unit could not be obtained following the expansion of the NPWAs in 2018. The percentage of units with enabling infrastructure reached 90% in Los Lagos in December, 2017, 66% in Aysén and only 25% in Magallanes. There are 10 units with universal access facilities, although it has not been possible to access an inventory of the infrastructure and administrative equipment available in each unit.

Fig. 8
A triple bar graph plots distribution of N P W As by operating budget range. It plots number of protected areas versus annual budget range in millions of pesos. The bars are for national park, national reserve, and national monument. The bars are the highest for no budget with national park the highest.

Distribution of NPWAs by operating budget range

Full size image

As of December, 2017 there were 113 people working in various functions (administrators, purchasing assistants, park rangers) in the 24 NPWA for which there are personnel assigned; Torres del Paine NP had the largest number of personnel, with 28 park rangers (Table 4). All these numbers changed considerably during 2019, with the expansion of the system through the incorporation of Pumalín Douglas Tompkins NP and Patagonia NP, which add park guards to the system. The area protected by these 24 units is estimated to average 63,000 ha per ranger, varying from less than 50 ha/ranger in Los Pingüinos or Cueva del Milodón NM to more than 2.5 million ha/ranger in Kawésqar NP. Only 12% or 12 of the 113 rangers in 2017 were women. Most of the staff in these units have completed formal education, although a very low percentage have a technical/professional academic degree. Finally, 55% have more than 15 years experience in the system; 59% of these are over 45 years old.

4.7 Scope of Management Processes

The main sources of information for the management processes developed in Patagonia’s NPWAs are the Annual Operating Plans and the NPWAs regional indicators of effectiveness [44]. In relation to conservation actions, although most of the units report having carried out patrols, the percentage of units addressing threats is very low, or even nil in the case of Aysén. The scope of the conservation actions for fauna species listed in the National Conservation Plan is variable; from 100% of the units in the Los Lagos Region to 37% in Aysén and 66% in Magallanes. Surprisingly, none of the units report conservation actions for threatened flora species. However, the system used by the Annual Operating Plans for recording activities makes it difficult to classify them by type of action. The number of actions taken to monitor impacts of projects licensed through the Environmental Impact Assessment System is very high in Magallanes and Los Lagos; for Aysén it is 36% of the projects licensed.

As of December 2017, a total of nine units (25%) reported having constituted consultative councils for community outreach, especially concentrated in Aysén, which has six consultative councils, compared to two in Los Lagos and one in Magallanes. Although all the regions report other community outreach actions, very few units have established agreements or usufructs with local communities. The Magallanes Region leads the development of six institutional agreements with other public services, compared to one in Aysén, and none in Los Lagos. It has not been possible to obtain information on other participation and consultation procedures, and there is an absence of surveys of perceptions of the NPWAs among the local population.

In relation to public use, a total of 21 units report visitor control and registration procedures, although only 16 charge entrance fees. A total of 28 tourism service concessions have been registered in 11 units, concentrated in Aysén and Magallanes, with 13 and 11, respectively. The number of tour operators is still very low, with Magallanes standing out with 16.2% of the operators making use of the NPWAs. Satisfaction levels among users are around 80% for visitors surveyed. The expansion of the system in 2018 significantly improved this situation, with the incorporation of Douglas Tompkins Pumalín NP and Patagonia NP, although 50% of the new parks lack infrastructure and visitor management actions. The total number of units with administration processes as of December, 2017 is 28 out of 34 NPWAs (80%), with less development in Aysén (11 out of 18) and Magallanes (8 out of 12). Only 5 of the 8 NPs created or expanded during 2018 have administrative processes in place.

Despite the fact that the 34 NPWAs analyzed as of December, 2017 exist in legal terms, at least 11 lack permanent staff in the field, eight do not have planning instruments and 14 have no budget allocation, leaving only 20 units with some level of effective management. Only one new unit with effective management was incorporated with the reconfiguration of the system during 2018, while the other newly created park lacks staff, budget, and management plan. Four type-situations are evident as of December, 2017, representing different management levels. There are 13 units at the initial management level which do not have a management plan, staff, or budget, representing around 2,400,000 ha (20% of the surface area); eight units are at an intermediate level, with a management plan in force, a team of park rangers, and sufficient infrastructure or equipment to carry out basic management activities, representing about 5,800,000 ha (48% of the surface area). The other 12 units are at a basic level, with some outdated management instruments, a minimum number of park rangers and a budget that severely limits management, which represent about 3,500,000 ha (29% of the surface area). Only one NPWA is at the consolidated level of management, with a team of specialized park rangers, specific planning instruments, and sufficient infrastructure or equipment to carry out advanced management activities (Figs. 9 and 10).

Fig. 9
A map of Chile for distribution of terrestrial N P W As in Chilean Patagonia in 2018. The legends are initial, basic, intermediate, and consolidated typology. Most of the region is under intermediate followed by a few patches of initial in the north and west. There are patches of basic in the south.

Distribution of terrestrial NPWAs in Chilean Patagonia in 2018, indicating their levels of management effectiveness

Full size image
Fig. 10
A stacked horizontal bar graph of management in Chilean Patagonia. It plots regions versus percentage of development. The percentage for Torres del Paine N P is the highest with infrastructure the highest at 88. The percentage for Corcovado N P and Isla Magdalena N P is the lowest with context at 20.

Management levels of terrestrial NPWAs in Chilean Patagonia according to the percentage of the optimum achieved in different management subfields (AV: advanced)

Full size image

5 Discussion

As a result of different historical phases of PA establishment, the areas protected and corresponding management capacities are very uneven in Patagonia. The processes of PA establishment in the region show a sustained growth with defined peaks of expansion, the latest being the period 2016–2018 with the expansion and creation of NPs (Fig. 2). The substantial increase in the area protected in PAs in Patagonia during the twentieth century is a consequence of changes in the approach to land use and occupation, new valuations of natural resources (particularly biodiversity), and the creation of public policies associated with pAs. This process has been strengthened in recent decades with the new environmental institutional framework, international commitments assumed under agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, and national biodiversity conservation goals.

PAs represent an important proportion of the Patagonian region (50.5%) which in turn represent a large majority of the national system (87%). This percentage exceeds the minimum targets established in international agreements, and the coverage and representativeness of PAs is optimal in relation to that of other regions in Chile such as coastal Mediterranean deciduous forests, coastal Mediterranean sclerophyllous forests, or coastal desert cactus scrub, among others [53].

Most of this area is protected under the national parks and reserves recognized under the Forest Law. Despite their smaller contribution in coverage, the other forms of protection offer an important complement in protecting specific conservation values such as vegetation formations, water bodies, and habitat for emblematic species. The Protected National Asset is a recent legal category that has allowed the protection of 24 areas widely distributed in the region (Fig. 3). Biosphere Reserves also present an opportunity to complement the protection of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and socio-cultural aspects regionally and nationally [41], but they still lack legal recognition and integration into the policy framework. Private conservation initiatives of great importance in other regions of the country represent a minor contribution in Patagonia, and their surface area is concentrated in a few areas.

PAs harbor resources of great value globally, with a uniqueness that provides a basis for a conservation system without parallels globally [29]. The results show that Patagonia’s NPWAs provide a significant representation of the main ecosystems in the region, including primary native forests and peatlands which are important sources of regulating ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, as well as snow and glaciers that provide cultural services such as recreation and leisure opportunities (Fig. 5). However, there is still a need to protect the steppes, an ecosystem with a high degree of anthropogenic pressure [56]. Finally, it is interesting to note that the vast majority of the protected area affects areas with restrictive soils and slopes (>45%), which indicates a very low potential for extractive and silvo-agro-livestock activities, which are often promoted despite the essential conservation vocation of these lands.

One of the main geographic characteristics of Patagonia's NPWAs is their archipelagic condition, including more than 40,000 islands. A discussion of marine protection is not included here as it is included in another contribution in this volume [65], but it is noteworthy that NPs and NRs include important coastal-marine ecosystems in the fjords and channels located within their boundaries. This highlights the importance of generating integrated terrestrial-marine planning and management formulas, since terrestrial and marine systems are interconnected [1].

The situation of the NPWAs in Patagonia is not unrelated to what has been observed nationally. Although considerable progress has been made in many aspects of management over the 20 years since the first NPWAs evaluations, the results described here are consistent with previous diagnoses of the system's major challenges and limitations [9, 19, 51,52,53, 62].

Differentiating the NPWAs into four levels of management according to the indicators evaluated by CONAF, 13 units stand out as having made no progress in management since their establishment, and 11 have remained for years or even decades at a basic level of management that limits effective conservation actions (Fig. 10). There is no evident correlation between a higher level of management and variables such as the age, management category, accessibility, or proximity of the unit to population centers. Therefore, it appears that the main barrier affecting the effectiveness of the management of the NPWAs in Patagonia is of a systemic order, and in particular an insufficient budget that limits units from developing adequate personnel, infrastructure, and equipment to achieve the planned activities. The current budgetary and personnel deficiency of the NPWAs requires medium and long-term planning to ensure a minimum and stable fiscal contribution for management and administration [67]. This situation, in addition to keeping a significant percentage of the units at an initial level of development–without effective management due to lack of staff or operational budget– generates a marked disconnect between planned activities and actions developed in each unit, as well as a shortage of research and monitoring mechanisms to evaluate and provide feedback on conservation and community outreach strategies.

Other factors must be considered along with budget gaps in order to achieve management effectiveness. This is reflected in those NPWA at intermediate or advanced levels of management, which, despite having a larger budget allocation, still present deficiencies in various aspects of their management (Fig. 10). Among the least developed indicators are those related to social connections, that is, those that evaluate effective governance processes with social participation and that involve communities and other local actors.

The lack of updated management plans and monitoring programs for conservation objectives are also an important gap for the adequate management of NPWAs. These require field information that is still deficient for many Patagonian units, and which must be collected and analyzed in collaboration with different stakeholders such as NGOs, scientists, partners, and agencies working in the area. Such efforts will allow for development of shared visions to optimize procedures and consequently achieve results [52].

Based on the results presented here, there is an evident need for a systematic evaluation of management effectiveness for the NPWA of Patagonia that allows us to measure progress. Many of the indicators proposed through the PAME tools are not considered in the current evaluations carried out by CONAF or are absent in several NPWAs. Thus the scenario facing the NPWAs remains far from meeting the Aichi 11 targets and achieving international management certifications such as the IUCN Green List.

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

The synthesis presented in this chapter is a comprehensive assessment of the processes of PA establishment and management in Patagonia. The current protection system for terrestrial environments shows multiple gaps that require new regulatory frameworks and a new PA system. The current conditions of PAs in Chile and Patagonia place Chile in a scenario that is still far from fulfilling its international commitments to biodiversity conservation and the objectives of contributing to the collective functioning of the global PA network. We present the following recommendations:

  • Public policies: In order to guide the management of Patagonia's NPWAs towards the achievement of international standards, it is necessary in the first place to overcome the barriers and limitations associated with the gaps in and fragmentation of the national legal framework. In particular, this requires the development of modern legislation that defines an institutional and regulatory framework appropriate to the management needs of the different existing PA categories and in accordance with international recommendations [34]. The bill to create the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service, currently in Parliament, could be a relevant step forward in this regard, but greater consensus among the different institutions and political actors is required to finalize this process and thus ensure budgets in line with conservation challenges.

    There is an urgent priority to increase staffing levels and to generate a stable funding system that meets minimum needs, is transparent, and creates appropriate incentives for continuous improvement. Along with improving annual budgets to ensure stability for all areas, new systems for generating revenues are needed that include incentives for autonomous and decentralized management. One alternative to this end is an improvement in the collection of entry fees, and an in-depth analysis of the multiple concession systems that currently operate across different units in order to improve their coordination.

    Given the NPWA limitations in coverage and management, specific policies and regulations should be developed to promote the implementation and management of complementary conservation categories and auxiliary conservation measures, such as the private protected areas recognized in article 35 of Law 19,300 and Nature Sanctuaries.

  • Administration and management: There are two clear priorities for future investment in the NPWAs. One is to establish management plans, minimum monitoring, and budgets for parks and reserves which are still at the initial level of management. Only with the installation of standardized planning will it be possible to evaluate the pressures and needs of the units and thus test different management hypotheses. The second is the need for clear planning, park ranger staffing, and infrastructure in the units that are experiencing a boom in visitation due to favorable access provided by the Austral Highway and links to tourist destinations. As part of the process aimed at approaching international standards, attention should be focused on the human dimension of PA management, generating standardized procedures for information management, consultation, and participation of the different stakeholders that coexist in the territory where each of the units is located.

  • Research and knowledge management: One of the first measures recommended is to focus on standardizing the evaluations of management effectiveness and homologating these to international standards, in order to generate an accurate understanding of the current management situation, both at systemic and individual unit levels, and to determine the priorities for State investment. It is recommended that the State invest in adapting and applying methodologies to quantify the contribution of PA visitation to local economies, in order to document the return on State investment in each PA. A joint investment by State agencies and universities is required to generate a cost-effective methodology that can be replicated periodically for Patagonia.