Keywords

1 Introduction

The geography of the Chilean Patagonian coastline presents an unusual situation of marine conservation and sea‒land interface, with a much greater conservation potential than has been recognized and achieved to date. The Patagonian continental coast of Chile extends for approximately 1,600 linear km, with a succession of fjords, channels and archipelagos between Reloncaví Sound and the Diego Ramírez Islands (41° 42′ S 73° 02′ W 56° 29′ S 68° 44′ W). The Patagonian inland sea (maritory), delimited by these archipelago systems, is exposed to constant and diverse flows of water, nutrients, and energy between terrestrial and marine systems, which produce a great heterogeneity of coastal-marine environments and an important associated marine biodiversity [19, 23, 37].Footnote 1 At the same time, this geographical configuration of the coastal zone gives rise to a unique institutional, sociocultural, and economic situation in Chile. South of the Reloncaví Sound, most of the fjords along the continental coastline are adjacent to public lands (tierras fiscales) or to national parks and reserves that are part of the National Protected Areas System (in Spanish SNASPE). The large Patagonian archipelagos also largely fall within the SNASPE. Despite their remoteness and the sparse coastal population south of Chiloé Island (ca. 42° S), these archipelagos represent ancestral maritories of Indigenous peoples that have been inhabited and used by humans for thousands of years [4, 35]. Currently, these coastal-marine environments, particularly in northern Patagonia, are subject to multiple uses and pressures from fishing, industrial aquaculture (salmon and mussels), and tourism [5, 17, 27]. In this context, public policies and explicit marine conservation efforts are relatively recent.

A broad and holistic vision of the scope of marine protection in the region has been lacking to date. Studies, reports, and agency communications related to marine protection tend to be limited to marine protected areas (MPAs) such as the marine reserves and marine parks that are established under the General Fisheries and Aquaculture Law No. 18,892 of 1991Footnote 2 (in Spanish LGPA), and the Multiple-Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (MU-MCPAs) and Nature Sanctuaries recognized under the General Environmental Framework Law No. 19,300 of 1994 (in Spanish LBGMA). A few publications have recognized the existence of marine areas within national parks and reserves administered by the National Forestry Corporation (in Spanish Corporación Nacional Forestal, CONAF) in Patagonia [3, 18, 30], but generally the literature tends to take for granted that national parks and reserves are only terrestrial in nature.

Without detracting from the fundamental contribution of MPAs to Patagonian marine conservation, in this chapter we propose broadening the perspective of marine protection to integrate all existing legal categories that contribute, or could contribute, to the protection of Patagonian coastal-marine ecosystems. Taking this broader view than has been used to date, this analysis serves to evaluate the scope of legal protection and provides perspectives for consolidating an effective coastal-marine conservation system in Patagonia.

2 Scope and Objectives

The main contribution of this chapter is the compilation, updating, and analysis of information regarding the creation and current distribution of coastal-marine protection in Chilean Patagonia. An important objective is to highlight the major opportunity to configure an integrated coastal-marine conservation system that is widely distributed across the region. To this end, we review progress in the creation and establishment of MPAs and other legal categories that contribute to marine protection. Finally, we discuss the principal challenges, needs, and opportunities that arise from a more integrated paradigm of marine protection.

3 Methods

Our review of the coastal-marine protected areas of Chilean Patagonia is based on an exploration of official documents and secondary information, as well as geographic analysis using official cartographic information analyzed in a geographic information system (GIS) using ArcGIS 10.5 [13]. Within the geographic area of Chilean Patagonia, analysis is circumscribed to the inland coastal zone as it is defined in the country's legal framework, which establishes that the coastal zone coincides with Chile’s territorial waters, thus extending from the highest tide line to 12 nautical miles. With respect to the limits of Patagonia’s biogeographic ecoregions and the geographic spaces known as northern Patagonia and southern Patagonia, we rely on Hucke-Gaete et al. [23].

To assess the potential level of marine protection, we used as the unit of analysis all protected areas (PAs) with marine representation and/or scope. This includes Marine Parks (MP), Marine Reserves (MR), Multiple-Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (MU-MCPA), Nature Sanctuaries (NS) and Ramsar sites, as well as the coastal-marine portion of the National Parks and National Reserves of the SNASPE. In addition, the analysis of complementary forms of conservation included the Benthic Resources Management and Exploitation Areas (in Spanish Areas de Manejo y Explotación de Recursos Bentónicos, AMERB). This is a category of coastal-marine administration that includes fishing and conservation management objectives. It also included Indigenous Peoples Coastal Marine Spaces (in Spanish Espacios Costeros Marinos de Pueblos Originarios, ECMPO)Footnote 3 that have been decreed or are under review. In the latter case, the ECMPO requested and accepted for formal review as admissible by the Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (in Spanish, Subsecretaria de Pesca y Acuicultura, SUBPESCA) as of January 2020 were included. ECMPO requests not yet declared admissible at that date (Chaitén-Desertores and Yagán), but for which official cartography was available, were also included. For some ECMPO requests, for the purposes of this analysis we grouped together different sectors or portions of an ECMPO that have been requested by the same organization but are individualized in the official databases for various administrative reasons.

Official information from the SUBPESCA data viewer and the National Register of Protected Areas of the Ministry of the Environment (in Spanish Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, MMA) was used to review the spatial coverage of the MPAs (Table 1). There are no official cartographic data for the marine portion of the SNASPE, since its reports and statistics only count its land area. Official maps from the Ministry of National Assets (in Spanish Ministerio de Bienes Nacionales, MBN) were used to address this limitation. We identified 3 NRs, Katalalixar, Las Guaitecas, and Kawésqar, and 4 NPs, Isla Magdalena, Laguna San Rafael, Bernardo O'Higgins, and Alberto de Agostini as including coastal-marine areas. Cape Horn NP was excluded from the calculations for this study because, although its creation decree indicates that it includes coastal-marine areas, its perimeter could not be specified. We also analyzed the potential complementary contribution to marine conservation from ECMPOs and AMERBs. For this purpose, we counted only the net contribution, excluding areas of overlap with existing PAs (SNASPE and MPAs).

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

To complement the area analysis of each category, we also calculated the extension of the shoreline included in each area. We used the National Institute of Statistics map (in Spanish Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE) of regional limits and measured the linear extent of islands, islets, and the continental coast. The sources of primary and secondary information are summarized in Table 1. This mainly includes national maps and decrees, management reports, articles, and other gray literature sources. Similarly, the historical evolution of the establishment of MPAs based on a review of legislation, area creation decrees, and available bibliography.

4 Results

4.1 Creation and Evolution of Marine Protected Areas in Chilean Patagonia

The designation of MPAs in Patagonia has been much more recent and institutionally heterogeneous compared to terrestrial PAs. The first Patagonian MPA, Estero Quitralco Nature Sanctuary, was decreed in the municipality of Aysén in 1996. The creation of areas grew from then on, with the declaration of 11 MPAs under different categories (Figs. 1 and 2; Table 2). The first legislative framework to explicitly include the protection and conservation of marine areas was the General Fisheries and Aquaculture Law of 1991. This legislation originated in response to fishing management problems and is focused in part on the sustainability of artisanal fishing. However, it also establishes a framework for marine protection through the categories of MPFootnote 4 and MR,Footnote 5 that are intended to safeguard hydrobiological resources and protect reproduction areas,Footnote 6 and whose declaration corresponds to SUBPESCA and administration to the National Fisheries Service (in Spanish SERNAPESCA) [38]. SUBPESCA is thus a key entity in determining marine conservation policies within the national public institutional framework. Despite multiple studies and proposals to establish a network of MPAs in Chile (e.g., [36]), this has not materialized to date.

Fig. 1
A timeline chart highlights the evolution of coastal-marine protection from 1950 to 2020. The administrator includes CONAF, SERNAPESCA, DIRECTEMAR, indigenous community, academic institution or research center, ministry of environment, delegated to third parties, and not defined.

Evolution of coastal-marine protection in Chilean Patagonia. The marine-coastal protection area is indicated. For ECMPO, total = number of applications; decreed = number of decreed areas

Full size image
Fig. 2
Two maps of Patagonia highlight the marine park, marine park outside the study area, marine reserve, M U marine, and coastal P A, nature sanctuary, Ramsar site, regional capital, international boundary, and regional boundary.

Marine protected areas declared in Chilean Patagonia as of December 2019

Full size image
Table 2 List of areas with coastal-marine protection in Chilean Patagonia, indicating the total area of maritory within 12 nautical miles (own elaboration)
Full size table

The first MR and MP were declared in Chilean Patagonia in 2004 (Fig. 1). Francisco Coloane MP was declared that year in the Magallanes region with the goal of preserving the feeding sites of humpback whales and other aquatic communities present in the area [26]. Two coastal MRs were declared in the province of Chiloé in 2004: (i) Pullinque, with the purpose of safeguarding a natural shoal of Chilean oyster (Ostrea chilensis), and (ii) Putemún, to conserve a natural shoal of giant mussel (Choromytilus chorus) [29]. In Chile, the importance and attention given to MPAs grew with the establishment of the country’s national environmental institutions (Fig. 1), in particular through the General Environmental Framework Law, which created the National Environmental Commission (in Spanish Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente, CONAMA) and its subsequent modification in 2010 through Law No. 20,417, which transformed this commission into the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). The MMA has responsibility for generating policies and standards for PAs, including MP and MR, although the management responsibility for these areas varies according to the legal category (National Biodiversity Strategy years 2003 and 2017).Footnote 7 The new environmental institutional framework particularly reinforced the figure of MU-MCPA, a category whose management corresponds to the MMAFootnote 8 [34]. However, as the MMA has not had the capacity to administer and manage MPAs to date, this has been delegated to third parties in the form of agreements or concessions over PAs.

The first stage of the declaration of MPAs in Patagonia was driven primarily by government actions within the framework of the project “Conservation of Globally Important Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast” (GEF-Marine Project). In 2004, this project led to the declaration of the Francisco Coloane MP as the first MP in the country, and around which the Francisco Coloane MU-MCPA (in Spanish Area Marina Costera Protegida de Multiples Usos, AMCP-MU) was also established (Fig. 1), both of these MPAs are located in southern Patagonia. The subsequent stages in the creation of MPAs were largely promoted by conservation non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The first relevant initiative, which established a pattern in terms of geographic and institutional approaches, was promoted for the Chiloense marine ecoregion in northern Patagonia [23]. Here, in 2003, several NGOs led by the Blue Whale Center (CBA), the Austral University of Chile (UACh) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF-Chile), with support from the Regional Government of Los Lagos, promoted the creation of an MU-MCPA for the Gulf of Corcovado, the exposed coast of Chiloé and the north of Las Guaitecas, under the concept of a “large maritory with general zoning and regulation of uses” [22]. Although the area was not finally decreed, the initiative generated baseline research and a proposal for core protection areasFootnote 9 in Patagonia. In 2015, the Pitipalena-Añihue area was finally decreed as an MU-MCPA (Fig. 1), with support from the Raúl Marín Balmaceda community, the Melimoyu Foundation and other NGOs. In the same year, a MP was declared for the area from Tic-Toc Bay to the west of the Gulf of Corcovado.

Between 2016 and 2018, there was a last phase of MPA creation with the designation of three new conservation areas: (i) Tortel MU-MCPA in the Aysén Region, promoted by the Municipality of Tortel, with support from the NGO Oceana [28], (ii) Seno de Almirantazgo MU-MCPA in Tierra del Fuego, with support from the Wildlife Conservation Society [41], (iii) the Islas Diego Ramírez y Paso Drake MP south of Cape Horn, presented by SUBPESCA with technical support from the Subantarctic Biocultural Conservation Program of the Puerto Williams University Center [32, 37]. An important antecedent to the designation of the Islas Diego Ramírez y Paso Drake MP, was the earlier establishment of the Cabo de Hornos Biosphere Reserve with a maritime area of 29,727.9 km2, which is of particular relevance as the first Biosphere Reserve to integrate marine and terrestrial areas [33].

4.2 Marine Protection in National Parks and National Reserves in Chilean Patagonia

Beginning in 1938, with the Las Guaitecas NR, but primarily in the 1960s, most of the large Patagonian archipelagos were designated as NP or NR (73% in the Aysén Region and 86% in the Magallanes RegionFootnote 10). However, due to the precariousness and ambiguities in the legal framework of the SNASPE and because it is under the administration of CONAF, an institution historically focused on terrestrial management, the recognition of the marine portion of these protected archipelagos has not been consistent or widely accepted by public institutions. However, in legal terms, over the last decade, the coastal-marine waters contained in the NPs and NRs have been increasingly recognized through a series of administrative and legislative acts [18, 30]. This recognition was first reinforced by the 2002 modification (Law No. 19,800) of the General Environmental Framework Law, which established in Article 158 the prohibition of “all extractive fishing and aquaculture activities in the NPs”, while also noting that these activities are exceptionally allowed in the NRs with the appropriate authorization. However, the marine scope of NPs and NRs was more clearly established with the 2010 amendment to the General Environmental Framework Law (no. 19,300), which establishes in Article 36 that PAs include the “portions of sea, beach lands, sea beaches, lakes, lagoons, glaciers, reservoirs, watercourses, marshes and other wetlands, located within their perimeter.” This recognition is of great relevance to Chilean Patagonia, where the large archipelagos were designated as parks or reserves with perimeters that encompass the islands along with their channels and fjords. Such areas include, from north to south, Las Guaitecas NR, Isla Magdalena NP, Laguna San Rafael NP, Katalalixar NR, Bernardo O'Higgins NP, Kawésqar NR, Alberto de Agostini NP, and Cabo de Hornos NP (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
Two maps of Patagonia highlight the marine portion S N A S P E along with the category of protection as follows. National Park, national reserve, regional capital, and international and regional boundaries.

National parks and reserves with marine portions in Chilean Patagonia as of December 2019

Full size image

Despite this legislation, the protected nature of the SNASPE marine area has not been fully supported by the other State agencies, an issue that is beginning to be clarified through a series of rulings by the Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR) for disputes over the expansion of salmon farming in Chilean Patagonia. The first ruling (No. 28,757 of 2007) followed protest by environmental organizations in Aysén regarding the granting of salmon farming concessions in Las Guaitecas NR [18]. The CGR recognized the protected nature of the waters of the NR but allowed the granting of concessions in the reserve. Additional jurisprudence in support of the protected nature of these maritories began to emerge in 2012. This was the result of a controversy between CONAF and SUBPESCA regarding the feasibility of granting salmon farming concessions in Bernardo O'Higgins NP and Alberto de Agostini NP. The Regional Comptroller's Office of Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica, through Ruling No. 1,326 of 2012, affirmed the relevance of the coastal-marine portions of the NPs and the prohibition of aquaculture in them. This controversy originated in the opposition of the Kawésqar Community of Puerto Edén to the installation of salmon farming in Bernardo O'Higgins NP, which triggered the administrative confrontation.

In 2013, the Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism requested the reconsideration of Ruling No. 1,326 of 2012, but the CGR reaffirmed the regional decision.Footnote 11 In 2019, the legal feasibility of protecting the maritory within the SNASPE was further reinforced with the establishment of the Kawésqar NR (26,284.29 km2) over the entire inland waters of the former Alacalufes Forest Reserve, thus creating the first 100% marine NR under CONAF’s administration. This declaration had its origin in the Indigenous consultation with Kawésqar communities for the reclassification of the Alacalufes Forest Reserve to NP, which documented the communities’ interest in effectively protecting the inland waters of a future National Park and led to a government commitment to evaluate this option [25].

4.3 Complementary Conservation Areas in Chilean Patagonia: Indigenous Peoples’ Marine Coastal Spaces

Law No. 20,249 was enacted in 2008, creating the category of Indigenous Peoples Marine Coastal Spaces (EMCPO). Also known as the “Lafquenche Law”, this legislation’s objective is 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 coastline” (Article 3).Footnote 12 Although ECMPOs are not recognized as MPAs, Article 5 of the law states that the administration of the ECMPO “must ensure the conservation of the natural resources included in it.” Since its enactment, Indigenous organizations have used the law for various purposes [2], and it lies with the organization requesting the area to propose the degree of protection to be assigned to each ECMPO.

While this issue remains the subject of debate, we consider ECMPOs as comparable to multiple-use MPAs when they are requested with explicit conservation objectives that are then included in a management plan.Footnote 13 The ECMPO Law establishes a formal administrative review process for evaluating requests from Indigenous communities, but in practice, review have taken much longer than stipulated by the law. Since 2010, 62 ECMPOs have been requested in northern Patagonia (Los Lagos and northern Aysén regions) and three in southern Patagonia, but to date, only four of the areas requested have been decreed, all of which are in Los Lagos Region (Figs. 4 and 5). The potential role of ECMPOs in conservation has been increasingly highlighted in the literature, although to date, this has not been echoed in public policy [2, 4, 20, 21, 27, 40] .

Fig. 4
Ten horizontal bar graphs plot the total area occupied by E C M P Os in each administrative region within the study area. The administrative regions include Los Lagos, Aysen, and Magallanes.

List and total area of ECMPOs requested in Chilean Patagonia between 2010 and 2019 by administrative region. ECMPOs with more than one zone are indicated in the 2nd column, those lacking acceptance for formal review as of January 2020 with an (*) and those decreed with a (Dec)

Full size image
Fig. 5
Two maps of Patagonia highlight the indigenous people's coastal marine space and the state. The state includes in process, decreed, regional capital, international boundary, and regional boundaries.

Distribution of ECMPOs requested and decreed in Chilean Patagonia to 2020

Full size image

4.4 Total Coverage and Distribution of Coastal-Marine Protection in Chilean Patagonia

The total area of the coastal zone of Chilean Patagonia is 183,073 km2, with 41% of this area under some form of legal protection (75,151 km2, Table 2). The SNASPE represents 35% of the total coastal-marine area of Patagonia, while MPAs represent only 6% (Fig. 6). With regard to the proportion of protected area in Patagonia, the SNASPE represents 85%, and MPAs 15%. The most important of the latter are the MU-MCPAs and MPs, with 11 and 3% of the total protected marine area, while the MR, NS and Ramsar Sites account for 1% of the total protected area (Figs. 7 and 8).Footnote 14

Fig. 6
A horizontal bar graph has the following values in kilometer square. S N A S P E, 63,621. E C M P O requested, 69,933. No protection, 44,387. M P A, 11,218. A M E R B decreed, 349. A M E R B requested is 172. E C M P O decreed, 31. The percent decrease is also marked.

Distribution of the coastal zone of Chilean Patagonia by protection or administration. The surface areas calculated for AMERB and ECMPO exclude areas that overlap with PAs (SNASPE and MPA)

Full size image
Fig. 7
Two maps of Patagonia highlight the marine park, marine park outside the study area, marine reserve, M U marine and coastal P A, nature sanctuary, Ramsar site, marine portion S N A S P E, regional capital, international boundary, and regional boundaries.

Marine protection was decreed in Chilean Patagonia by 2020

Full size image
Fig. 8
A bar graph has the following values. S N A S P E. N R, 39,398.3. N P, 24,535.2. M P A. M U M P A, 8,362.1. M P, 2,075.6. RAMSAR, 589.5. N S, 176.0. M R, 15.3.

Coastal-marine protection area according to legal figure for Chilean Patagonia

Full size image

4.5 Protection Applied to the Coastline of Chilean Patagonia

To complement the analysis of coastal-marine water surfaces, we calculated the complete length of the coastline of Chilean Patagonia (100,627 km) and the coastline included in each category of coastal protection and management. The SNASPE represents 79% (79,365 km) of the Patagonian coastline, and 97% of the coastline under official protection. The MPAs cover 2.2% (2,187 km) of the Patagonian coastline, and only 2.7% of the protected coastline (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
A horizontal bar graph has the following values. S N A S P E, 79,365. E C M P O requested is 9,697. No protection, 8,597. M P A, 2,187. A M E R B decreed, 478. A M E R B requested is 256. E C M P O decreed, 46. The percent decrease is also marked.

Distribution of the coastline of Chilean Patagonia according to protection and administration figures

Full size image

4.6 Potential Complementary Protection by Other Categories of Coastal-Marine Administration

The current decreed area of ECMPOs in Chilean Patagonia covers 30.7 km2 (Fig. 6), and the largest of these areas is Caulín with ca. 26 km2 (Fig. 4). There is also 62,931 km2 of requested ECMPOs, most of which is concentrated in the Magallanes Region (Figs. 4 and 5). A portion of these ECMPOs already have regional and national approval but with decrees pending. Existing requests overlap with six established PAs: Las Guaitecas NR (with an overlap of 4,874 km2), Kawésqar NR (3,871 km2), Alberto D’Agostini NP (7,643 km2), Bernardo O'Higgins NP (143 km2), Islas Diego Ramírez y Paso Drakes MP (2,060 km2) and the MU-MCPA Fiordo Comau-San Ignacio de Huinay (2 km2). The total ECMPO area that does not overlap with existing PAs is 44,368 km2, which is a remarkable additive potential in terms of marine protection. Therefore, if the ECMPOs are considered protected areas, they would contribute 24% of the marine protected area.

There are 344 decreed and pending Benthic Resource Management and Exploitation Areas (AMERB) in Chilean Patagonia, covering 735 km of the coastline and 521 km2 of coastal waters (<1% of the total in both cases). We have not analyzed them in this chapter because of their reduced presence in the region, however, there is evidence of the important role played by these areas at the national level both for biodiversity conservation and for the development of fishing communities [6, 8, 10, 16].

4.7 Level of Protection and Restrictions Applicable to Marine Areas Under Protection in Chilean Patagonia

Legal protection (on paper) is a first step toward conservation, but its real effect on conservation in decreed areas is highly variable. Current legislation and its application by the authorities generally allows multiple uses, including extractive fishing in the vast majority of the protected area (Table 3). The presence of strictly protected areas is reduced in the Patagonian coastal zone; it only includes the Francisco Coloane MP (15.06 km2) and the Islas Diego Ramírez y Paso Drake MP, of which only 2,060 km2 of its total 144,390 km2 correspond to the coastal zone. MU-MCPAs have no a priori restriction on any use (due to the lack of a regulation in force). However, to date, their creation decrees have prohibited intensive aquaculture, except for those farms that were installed prior to the declaration of the Pitipalena-Añihué and Fiordo Comau MU-MCPAs. Environmental legislation establishes that in PAs (but not in ECMPOs or AMERBs), the development of economic activities, such as the establishment of salmon or mussel farms, requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); however, this requirement has not been respected in NR.Footnote 15 In addition, in Quitralco NS the installation of salmon farms was permitted without requiring an EIA.

Table 3 Level of restriction applicable according to legal categories for the coastal zone of Chilean Patagonia ( ) activities permitted with management plan, ( ) activities prohibited
Full size table

The SNASPE situation is even more complex and differs between NPs and NRs. The 2002 modification (No. 19,800) of the General Environmental Framework Law establishes in Article 158 the prohibition of “all extractive fishing and aquaculture activities in the NPs”, while this is permitted in the NRs with the appropriate authorization. The Washington Convention, an international treaty ratified by Chile, prohibits aquaculture in NP and at least restricts it in the NR, although the environmental agencies have not complied with such restrictions.Footnote 16 Since 2013, the authorities have effectively prohibited aquaculture in NPs; however, such measures do not affect concessions granted prior to that date, allowing, for example, 19 salmon farming concessions previously granted in Alberto de Agostini NP to remain in effect. It is important to note that artisanal fishing is compatible with NR status. In the NPs, despite the general prohibition established by the General Environmental Framework Law, the CGR’s jurisprudence (Ruling No. 41,121 of 2014) indicated the need to evaluate the situation on a case-by-case basis, as artisanal fishing is considered a “consolidated” use in Bernardo O'Higgins NP, i.e., that it could not be prohibited because the use was installed prior to legal recognition of the park’s inland waters.Footnote 17 While the law allows aquaculture activity in the NR, this must demonstrate compatibility with the objectives of the NR and its management plan, and these latter conditions should also be applied to extractive fishing [24]. However, due to the ambiguities described above, 319 salmon farming concessions have been granted in Las Guaitecas NR. In addition, in Kawésqar NR there are 68 salmon farming concessions granted and another 62 applications under review, in addition to 53 concessions in process for mussels and algae [38]. Table 3 summarizes the legal restrictions applicable to uses in the different categories of marine protection. It should be noted, however, that several of these activities could also be prohibited or regulated through management plans for individual areas.

A panoramic view of an island surrounded by other islands in the distance with lush vegetation.

Scientific expedition in Kawesqar National Park, Magallanes Region. Photo by Nicolás Muñoz (UACh-CBA)

5 Discussion

The evolution of marine protection in Chilean Patagonia has shown important advances both through the declaration of MPAs and the legal recognition of the marine portion of the SNASPE’s large parks and reserves. There is also growing harmonization between MPA and SNASPE planning due to the adoption by both the MMA and CONAF of planning methodologies based on the Open Standards for Conservation [12, 39]. However, the accumulated progress in the declaration of areas is not the result of a coordinated public policy to optimize efforts but rather of an accumulation of independent efforts, many of which required 5–10 years, and today, the vast majority of these areas exist as “paper protected areas”.

The contribution of the SNASPE units to the total area protected, in addition to their wide latitudinal distribution and concomitant diversity of environments, is particularly noteworthy. However, this has not been recognized in public strategies and policies. Similarly, attention should be given to the advances in the recognition of Indigenous rights in Chilean Patagonia and the rapid growth of ECMPO applications, whose contribution to marine conservation could be significant, both in the coverage of threatened marine ecosystems that are underrepresented in the current system and in generating new local management models. At the same time, a general regulation for the integrated management of the system of marine and terrestrial PAs is still pending, as is the regulation of the figures established by the LGBMA. Our emphasis on integrated management refers, first, to the need for greater recognition of the various forms of coastal-marine protection in use; second, to their integration with terrestrial PAs; and finally, to the search for ways to articulate marine-terrestrial protection with other conservation and local development strategies promoted by civil society in each Patagonian region. The Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service Bill was introduced in the National Congress in 2011 and could contribute to this end. If approved, it will consolidate the management of marine and terrestrial PAs under the MMA, but this legislative process remains incomplete. Therefore, economies of scale are not taken advantage of in the designation and management of areas, and each area requires major efforts to define the governance arrangement, management plans, and financing.

A detailed analysis of the level of effective management of the different forms of protection and specific units is beyond the scope of this chapter, but, with few exceptions where public‒private efforts have advanced in setting up local management structures, Patagonian marine protection remains only in legal terms (on paper). In general, management plans have not been established, no budgetary resources have been allocated, and therefore, field activities, such as monitoring and enforcement, are practically nonexistent.Footnote 18 In budgetary terms, MPAs suffer from large financial gaps that jeopardize the viability of the conservation objectives for which they were created [7].

A specific line item of $200 million Chilean pesos for MPA management was established for the first time within the MMA’s national budget in 2018.Footnote 19 Moving forward, MPA implementation could be supported by the goals for management of MPAs in the recently adopted national climate commitments (National Determined Contributions, NDC) within the Paris Agreement [11]. To date, there is no coordinated effort in the marine management of the SNASPE. While this lack is perhaps somewhat less critical in NPs, due to their higher level of restriction, the two largest NRs (Kawésqar and Las Guaitecas) currently suffer from intense pressures due to aquaculture uses (e.g., salmon farming). This situation represents a critical gap that requires regularization through the planning and management tools available for the SNASPE and the cooperation of other sectoral regulatory authorities, in particular SUBPESCA and the Navy’s General Directorate of Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine. This is not trivial, considering that Chilean Patagonia still has relatively pristine conditions, maintains an important capacity as a carbon sink and can be considered a biodiversity refuge in the face of climate change [15, 22]. Marine protection in Patagonia must be understood in an integrated manner when establishing MPAs or “refuges” that can buffer the multiple threats to species and their need to migrate/adapt, but especially, that allow the maintenance of coastal ecosystem functions. Well-implemented and managed MPAs help marine ecosystems adapt to various types of impacts and, therefore, increase their resilience [31]. This is the challenge we must solve as a society before thresholds or points of no return are exceeded.

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Chilean Patagonia is a region with a high potential for coastal-marine conservation that is unique in the country and the world. A combination of factors explains this situation: the particular geography of the Patagonian coastal zone, with its extensive archipelagos, inland seas, and marine-terrestrial interconnections; the advances in the establishment of MPAs during the last two decades; the recognition of the marine portions of the NPs and NR that are part of the SNASPE; the development of proposals for ECMPOs by Indigenous organizations; and the growing involvement of diverse local and national stakeholders in proposing protection measures for the coastal zone. However, there is a gap between the current scenario and many public and private conservation strategies and policies, which still focus exclusively on conventional MPAs. Based on this scenario, we recommend four priority strategies:

  • The effective management of the marine portion of the SNASPE should be strengthened. In the short term, ensure the completion, with the appropriate phases of citizen participation and Indigenous consultation, of the management plans for the coastal-marine portions of the NPs and NRs that contain inland waters in Patagonia. Over the long term, ensure an appropriate management formula for the large, protected areas located in archipelagos, supported by newly available technologies and co-management between CONAF and other public and/or local entities with authority over coastal-marine space or resources.

  • Develop a protocol and legal procedures to recognize the MPA status of ECMPOs when their proponents request it and generate a system of governmental support for their management, as well as for the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of their management plans.

  • Generate public and public‒private financing and technical support mechanisms for the installation of management systems for all categories of marine protection, including conventional MPAs, SNASPE, and ECMPOs. Considering the scope of the challenge, it is crucial to seek economies of scale through equipment and management capabilities that can serve multiple units.

  • Encourage integrated planning and management between terrestrial and marine environments to optimize conservation efforts and promote the transfer of capacities from terrestrial to marine environments.