The rise of private protected areas in Chile

Land grabbing and conservation in
southern Chile
George Holmes
University of Leeds
• What is the role of private protected
areas, and other land purchases, in landgrabbing?
• What are the social and environmental
consequences?
• High endemism under threat from
primary industry
• Chile as a classically neoliberal country
– Very strong private property rights
– Environmental laws as “market enabling”,
not “market regulating”
• 315 PPAs, of up to 300,000 hectares
• 1,604,195 hectares in total (2.12% of Chile)
– 10 biggest PPAs (>40,000 ha) are 81% of total area
– 49 biggest (>1,000 ha) are 98% of total area
PPA purchases by individuals
• Doug Tompkins, founder of The North Face
and Esprit
• Created Pumalin park (275,000 ha) in 1994
Four controversies
• Sovereignty and security
• Ulterior motives
• Criticisms of industry
• Treatment of colonos
1997 agreement to not buy more
land, and to allow infrastructure
Now owns 635 kHa
donated 77 kHa to state
Tantauco
180 kHa property, established by
billionaire Sebastian Piñera in
2005
Inspired by Tompkins
Some conflicts with local
communities and Mapuche
• Since 2007, a “fashion” for Patagonian land
purchases by wealthy Chileans
• Up to 35kHa
• Largely for recreation or speculation
– 20% annual land price increases
• Conservation neutral
Corporate/organisational purchases
• “For-profit conservationists”
• Created by social networking entrepreneur
Warren Adams and Chilean lawyers
• 6 properties, totalling 26,000 hectares
– Income from tourism, real estate development,
carbon credits
• Huilo Huilo
• 60 kHa former forestry
project
• More money in tourism
• The Cliffs Preserve
• 7 kHa luxury tourism
• Plus some forestry company
properties
• Huinay (34 kHa) research station
• Owned by electricity company
• Cuts Pumalin in half
• Plus hundreds of small family properties (<1
kHa)
• Indigenous community PAs (<60 kHa)
• Sustainable use areas
• Cultural and economic autonomy as much as
conservation
• Forestry project created in 1993 – 272 kHa
– Opposed because of impact and because of flow
of benefits
• Collapsed in 2003 – Goldman Sachs as
creditors, donated to Wildlife Conservation
Society
Valdivian Coastal Reserve
• 60 kHa forestry project
• Bankruptcy and buyout by conservation NGOs
• Self-financing through trust fund from felling
plantations
Conservation-harming land purchases
• Massive hydro-electric development
• Forestry development with substitution of
native species for exotics
• Land price inflation
• State PAs cover 19% of Chile (84% of area is in
far south)
• Private PAs cover 2.12%
– But more extensive than state PAs in the three
most threatened biomes
– (though critical areas like Mediterranean remain
under-protected)
• Serendipitous, not
planned
Efficacy of Private PAs
• Skills, knowledge, economic resources?
• New national association
• No legal status!
• New easement law
• Social impacts not necessarily worse than
state PAs
Is it a land grab?
• Tompkins and NGOs are going native
• Questions of international colonisation
• Issue of willing sellers?
• Socially progressive cases (e.g.
Indigenous/community PAs)
Questions?
Reloncavi Fjord,
Chile