The recently approved “Mar de Pisagua” Marine Protected Area (AMP) in Chile reflects communities' acceptance of protecting their environment.
The approval process for this marine area located in the large north, one of the five natural regions into which the country is divided, considered the approval of local fishermen, Liesbeth van der Meer, executive director of Oceana Chile, explained in an interview.
Chile has 43% of its marine waters under some scheme for the protection of Marine Protected Areas, making it the sixth country in the world with the highest coverage, according to official figures provided in 2022.
Oceana Chile helped to promote this initiative, and on January 26, Chilean authorities approved 73,500 hectares, or about 80 kilometers of straight-line coastline, under the heading of Multiple Uses, which would allow artisanal fishing, low-impact activities and ecotourism.
In turn, considering a marine area, the impact of incidental fishing carried out by industrial vessels, which catch other species of fish in their search for anchovy, will be limited.
Starting in 2017, Oceana, together with the Arturo Prat University, carried out four expeditions in the Pisagua Sea where they recorded 150 species, including coral banks, manta rays, sharks, crabs, horse mackerel, anchovies, as well as huiro forests, which are home to species such as the fish.
In an interview, director Liesbeth van der Meer explains the relevance of this marine area approval and what's next for a Latin American country that is at the forefront of marine cover protected under these legal figures in favor of ecosystems.
— Fishing communities were an important part of this approval process and I understand that at the end of the day they were also beneficiaries, how do they manage to socialize this proposal and also that there would be acceptance?
Well, indeed, as you say, if there is no community behind this, it cannot be done and that is the principle that we have.
If we go to a place, however beautiful, no matter how biodiverse and however unique it may be, if the community doesn't agree with this, we don't move forward.
From the beginning, we included artisanal fishing because the biggest problem that is happening was that anchovy fishing is done with bowling pins, which is seine fishing (circles where fish are caught)... Then come the big seiners, true, they take not only the anchovy, but the fish from artisanal fishing.
And then that's when we started talking to the fishermen from the beginning. We said. Well, what do you think if we closed this area and that it would only be left for protection, that is, for the sustainable use of fishing.
— What has changed in the way we approach communities for declarations of Natural Areas? In Mexico, it has happened that an agreement is not always reached with the locals.
Before, a long time ago, when we made some proposals, maybe it started backwards, right. Science was being done and then it was a matter of getting the fishermen on the bandwagon, but now we're doing it the other way around.
First we asked in that place, if they would like to do something like that and then we moved on with science, because sometimes a lot of resources have been spent and in reality, as you say, if the community doesn't agree, it can't be done.
— This new Marine Protected Area will somehow reduce incidental fishing, which mainly comes from industrial vessels...
Exactly, and so is all this threat of a megaport. In other words, if a megaport or a desalination plant had been installed there, you know that in Chile we have a tremendous drought, so desalination plants are used to draw water; the water is removed from the sea, extracted and then the brine is returned (rejection of water with concentrated salt that is returned to the sea in this process) and only the water remains.
These suck out 4,000 liters per second. They are monsters that are being put not only for mining, but also for other uses.
So the ideal thing to do is to arrive sooner rather than later, since all the (industrial) projects are already being evaluated, and that's a little bit what we want with Pisagua; to maintain artisanal fishing, to keep that place and also, at best, to promote tourism for the sighting of cetaceans and other species. But protect certain places, so that artisanal fishing continues, because when you put in a lot of industries and that is what is happening along the entire coast of Chile, indeed, then artisanal fishing cannot exist afterwards.
— I read a statement where you commented that Chile had made great progress in protecting oceanic islands, but not in waters off the continental coast. What do you think this difference is attributed to?
Well indeed what was protected are the oceanic islands. They are islands that are very far from humanity. Now Juan Fernández (archipelago) does exist a population of 800 people who are all almost artisanal fishermen, a multi-purpose area was built around it so that the fishermen can continue fishing and they later proposed a large Marine Park (a more rigid figure in the MPAs) that cannot be touched.
But on the coast of Chile there are many interests, especially in the north. Where this area was built I think that is the most emblematic thing that a mining area is, not that mining is bad, but it does cause great impacts, when there is an oil spill, for example, from ships that go to the port. The large desalination plants left a brine that destroys eggs, and everything that life involves.
So it's very important, in Chile we don't have a very explicit territorial order. Along the coast you can do what you want, whatever project you want. And what I think has been our great contribution is to bring science to these places that were not known, perhaps on purpose, so that any project could be installed.
So once you know the richness of certain parts, it is important to continue to document with science, true, what is there in each place. It may be a desalination plant, yes, it can be put somewhere, but that has to be studied by science.
— I understand that last year in Chile there was a strike by park rangers over a budgetary issue. This is also happening in Mexico in terms of expanding areas such as natural areas, but we don't see a proportional change in budgetary terms. How do you see this specific issue in Chile?
There are two things that are different, true, one is how fast the industry is advancing and how slowly we are progressing in protection.
I think we have to be very clear about that we cannot stop protecting because we don't have all the money to do so. That is, the funding to do it. I think that is very important because sometimes they say worse how are they going to continue creating areas because Chile has 44% of its exclusive protected area and most countries do not reach 10%.
So clearly, I think that's also a super pro-industry argument to say let's stop until we have the funding.
There are areas that actually need much more funding to be protected, but unfortunately development and industrialization are going so fast that perhaps we will not be able to save the ecological processes and biodiversity that are needed to maintain other activities such as fishing.
Second, in Chile, work is actually being done on the Biodiversity Service, a law that had been stalled for 12 years and is now moving forward and there the Ministry of Finance, which is the one that distributes the funding, gave it much more funding 10 times more than it had before, so little by little those conversations are, of course, being much more fruitful.
— Chile being a country that is at the forefront of ocean protection. How can effective management be done? What steps do you need to work on?
Well, since you mentioned funding, making sure that these areas are well managed and I think there is something that is a little bit in need, which is how we include people in conservation, the same communities that live in these places.
In the past, the administration thought a lot about it from the State. We have to think that this streak that we have had in ocean conservation has also been for 12 years now, it has been a plan of the State, not so much of each government, now we are already talking about the ecological transition (Boric government). In Chile we have a lot of environmental problems due to the drought, because of the distribution of water.
I think we have to stop thinking a little about the fact that the land and the ocean are separated and I think that what is coming now, in fact, is how we do to continue developing as a country but also to think that there has to be an ecological balance in order to continue and that has been very difficult.
The tensions between industry and environmental movements in Chile have been very difficult, there is a very big question indeed.
The social crisis, part of the social crisis, was also due to these environmental issues, so I think that people are much more aware, but as you say, inflation is suddenly increasing true, the economy is going down and the whole environment is a little forgotten.
How do we make that more permanent, that matters to us whenever the environment is on the agenda of governments.
Comentarios (0)