Valerie Pruc

Professor Emily Wakild

Challenges and Promises of Patagonia

02 May 2018

Conservation in Chile: For Chileans, by Americans?

In January of 2018, the Tompkins Foundation, run by the American philanthropist

Kristine Tompkins and her late husband Doug Tompkins, made their twenty year collaboration

with the Chilean government official by creating a ten million acre addition to the Chilean

national park system. Through this unique partnership, the Tompkins Foundation donated over

one million acres and the Chilean government chose to protect an additional nine million acres of

federally-owned land. These newly-protected ten million acres have allowed for two new

national parks and increased the size of three established parks, with national parks now

accounting for eighty-one percent of Chile’s protected areas, whereas before they accounted for

thirty-eight percent of protected areas (Royte). The couple was inspired by the beauty and

pristine nature of the southern region of Chile, ultimately dedicating their lives to protecting the

land from mining, logging, hydropower, and damaging agriculture practices, which have

increasingly threatened the local forests and ecosystems in recent years. This type of

collaboration was practically unheard of in the mainstream media before the case of Chile and

the Tompkins Foundation. Although, the donation did not set the precedent for public-private

conservation, as this type of conservation move has become a worldwide trend in recent years

with growing concerns of climate change and a greater desire to protect the environment.

However, the Tompkins Foundation donation is certainly the first of its kind in terms of

size, likely leaving an impact on the Chilean people and their land, whether it be positive or
 Pruc 2

negative. As with any foreign involvement in how a country’s land should be used, it is

important to address the perception of the Chilean people towards this large-scale land use

decision. Between visits of early European explorers, the invasion of the Spanish, European

settlements in the south, and United States involvement in the implementation of neoliberalism

and the dictatorship, Chile, in addition to its indigenous groups, has maintained a complex

relationship with foreign players in its development, even before its statehood. For this reason, it

seems necessary to thoroughly evaluate the consequences of any foreign involvement in Chile’s

development from here onward, in order to prevent further ethical catastrophes. According to

Ex-President Michele Bachelet, “The parks are not only good for Chile but for the planet. It

shows that you don’t have to be a rich country to make these kinds of decisions. It only requires

will and courage” (Franklin). Although the addition of national parks may appear to be a

harmless and overall beneficial move for Chile’s development, it is important to gauge the

perception of Chilean citizens towards this recent public-private collaboration, including them in

the conversation about conservation. By addressing the opinions of Chileans, it certainly reveals

the potential impact that this massive conservation move will have on the country, its people, and

its development.

After examining a number of local, national, and world news sources, in addition to

conducting a survey with a diverse group of Chileans, I was able to gain greater insight into the

thoughts that many Chileans have surrounding conservation, as well as their opinions towards

foreign involvement in Chilean conservation efforts. Initially, I felt it necessary to ask the

general question, “Is the conservation of of natural resources and biodiversity important for the

future of Chile?” Ninety-two percent of survey participants responded that they agreed that

conservation is important for the future of Chile. Additionally, when asking whether or not the
 Pruc 3

expansion of protected land is beneficial for Chile, eighty-seven percent responded that they

believe it would be beneficial for the country (Pruc). When asked to explain their answers to this

question, survey participants responded in a number of ways. Referring to the Tompkins

Foundation as a catalyst that helped move the initiative along, one participant responded,

“Anything that will take care of the environment, the flora, and the fauna of the country is

always good, and someone must create awareness that we have to take care of what we have”

(Pruc). Another participant responded in a similar tone, “The conservation of biodiversity and

nature consist of an important heritage for a country…it can be adopted as a challenge that needs

the support of both public and private entities” (Pruc). These particular responses, in addition to

several others, helped to clear up the question of whether or not Chileans felt comfortable with

the role that the Tompkins Foundation played in the parks expansion, with the common response

being that if the foundation had not proposed the initiative to the Chilean government, a

conservation operation of that size would likely not have taken place.

Not only is it important to Chileans to protect these lands, but the economic development

and personal benefits that come with this conservation appear to be extremely valuable to

Chileans. “It means more jobs for Chileans and more possibilities for eco-tourism,” said one

participant about the parks addition (Pruc). This is expected to be true, as the government

initiative to build a route visiting seventeen national parks from Puerto Montt to Cabo de Hornos,

called the Ruta de los Parques, will be in development as a part of this ten million acre addition

(Franklin). It is predicted that this parks expansion will potentially generate two-hundred and

seventy million dollars and employ forty-three thousand people due to increases in ecotourism

(Bonnefoy). Despite the major boost to the ecotourism industry that the parks will provide,

Chileans are also excited to experience the parks for themselves. One participant shared, “It
 Pruc 4

allows the conservation of a space for all Chileans, particularly for the enjoyment and education

of future generations” (Pruc). Another participant stated, “Green spaces positively affect the

quality of life of a population” (Pruc). These responses show that there is a consensus among

Chileans that there is great value in the work that both the Tompkins Foundation and the Chilean

government have done, particularly in terms of economic development and quality of life.

Although it is evident that conservation is important to Chileans, I was surprised to

discover that forty-four percent of people that participated in the survey were not aware of the

recent addition to the national park system. Despite the many positive responses that were

received in the survey, there are certainly groups within Chile that disagree with the actions that

the Tompkins Foundation has taken over the past twenty years. According to Pascale Boonefoy

of The New York Times, “Politicians and the military argued that Pumalín Park, which crosses

the narrow space between the Pacific Ocean and the Argentine border, cut the country in two,

jeopardizing national sovereignty.” Not only are politicians and the military concerned, but

many business leaders and landowners have accused the Tompkins Foundation of interfering

with economic development in the region, especially in relation to the logging, mining, and

ranching industries. Many Chileans residing in Cochrane, which is one of the closest towns to

the new parks, also disagree with the decision to expand the parks system. When the mayor of

Cochrane, Patricio Ulloa, was invited to the opening of the new park, he rejected the invitation

and said, “They have erased our history and there is no pardoning that. That’s what we who

were born and raised in this land of pioneers feel. They have never shown any evaluation that

truly shows how this is going to benefit the community” (Franklin). Not only is it clear from

media reports that there are some groups who are deeply opposed to the addition to the national

parks system, but there were also two participants in the survey that responded negatively to
 Pruc 5

involvement by the Tompkins Foundation and to conservation, in general. One participant

shared, “It creates problems when foreigners decide for Chileans how Chilean land should be

used” (Pruc). Another participant claimed the motive of the Tompkins Foundation is, quite

simply, “pure greed” (Pruc). These types of responses are justified, given the lasting damage

that Chile has endured due to its long history of foreign intervention in state affairs and the major

land and power grabs that took place during Spanish colonization.

However, the majority of Chileans still recognize this foreign involvement in

conservation efforts as beneficial to the Chilean people and the future of the country in terms of

development, well-being, and protection of biodiversity. Despite Chilean appreciation for the

lands, Chileans are willing to recognize that without the assistance of the Tompkins Foundation

and their willingness to collaborate with the Chilean government, those ten million acres may

never have been placed under protection. Although there is a minority that feels that it is an

invasion and potential impediment to Chilean development, it is important to remain cautious in

an endeavor such as this because it is now the responsibility of the Chilean government to

manage this land in a way that is accepted by the Chilean people, while also following the

original intentions of the Tompkins Foundation. Overall, it is clear that it is the hope of many

Chileans that this new addition will ultimately bring economic development, public enjoyment

and education, and vast protection of the country’s diverse lands.

 Pruc 6

Works Cited

Bonnefoy, Pascale. “With 10 Million Acres in Patagonia, a National Park System Is Born.” The
New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Feb. 2018.

Franklin, Jonathan. “Chile Creates Five National Parks over 10m Acres in Historic Act of
Conservation.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 29 Jan. 2018.

Kunze, Karl. “Biodiversity in Chile.” Cornell University, Cornell University, 1 Dec. 2016.

Moss, Chris. Patagonia: a Cultural History. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Pauchard, Aníbal, and Pable Villarroel. “Protected Areas in Chile: History, Current Status, and
Challenges.” Natural Areas Journal, 2002.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 25 March 2018.
 Pruc 7

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 27 March 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 23 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 24 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 24 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 25 April 2018.

Pruc, Valerie. “Conservación y los Parques Nacionales De Chile.” Survey. 25 April 2018.

Royte, Elizabeth. “Chile Adds 10 Million Acres of Parkland in Historic First.” National
Geographic, National Geographic Society, 29 Jan. 2018.

“Protecting Patagonia.” The Nature State: Rethinking the History of Conservation, by Emily
Wakild, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.