Sovereignty, Electricity, and the North Face - Parque Pumalin

Well, as most of you are probably aware of, not everyone thinks that nature parks are a great thing. In the West, this seems to be primarily the misguided notion of extraction industry idiots who would like to drill, mine, and clear-cut every possible part of the earth in order to enrich themselves without regard for the loss of natural environment which may or may not be permanent and affects everyone, generation for generation int the future. I think there is little validity to these people's arguments, as they are overwhelmingly selfish. However, in the developing world, there are oftentimes other arguments against preserving land and environmental habitats from human interference. On the one hand, amost always when LDCs (lesser developed countries) consider creating such environmental sanctuaries, they must also consider the impact on indigenous populations that have lived there for hundreds of years, if not longer. Moreover, politicians argue that the West developed due to its exttractionist use of its environmental resources, so it is unfair to expect LDCs to remain in poverty just because the rich want some nature preserveed - after all, they've already destroyed all of theirs. So it might be fair to say that poor countries are at times unwilling or financially unable to create nature parks.

Well thank God for the Washington consensus and the spread of capitalism - or maybe not, you'll have to make up your own opinion:
In South America, there remain a lot of natural environments that are still predominantly intact, though under constant threat of human destruction. With all the corruption and political popularism, it is also unlikely that governments will step in to effetively preserve what reamins of the often unique natural splendor placed under their care. Then there are immensely rich Westerners who are environmentalists. Now I'm sure you've all been asked by an organization, friend, or chain email at one point or another to support the purchase of an acre or two of threatened Amazon rainforest. Maybe you participated; maybe you didn't. Maybe you saw that call for action and thought to yourself "I won't do that, but I'll buy hundreds of thousands of acres of equally threatened land in order to prevent human exploitation. I'll pay for the park rangers and prosecute anyone who dares operate on my land by using my highly paid lawyers. In effect, I'll do what the government can't or won't do." If that quote sounds like you, youmight be called Douglas Tompkins.

Douglas Tompkins first made a name for himself by co-founding an outdoor gear company called the North Face. As you can imagine, he made a pretty penny from that when he sold his stake. He then went on to found Esprit du Corps, netting him some more cash. And then he dicided he would start buying land in order to preserve it. In the early 90s, his now wife - the former manager of Patagonia outerwear, and not too cash strapped herself - joined him in the quest. They have purchased huge tracts of land in Argentina and Chile, some of which they have turned over to the respective governement in return for promises of conservation.

One of the most controversial land purchases Tompkins has been involved in is now the Parque Pumalin, just to the north of Chaiten, Chile (and several hours south of the much larger Puerto Montt). This park sits at the northern end of Chilean patagonia. It is also a contentious issue for the local and national governments: Because the park stretches from the border with Argentina to the ocean, some argue that it represents a threat to sovereignty; because locals are no longer permitted access to the resources within the park, some argue it is a threat to the local way of life; because a huge power company wants to build a massive hydroelectric plant on the Futaleufú river to the south of the park but most the target population lies to the north of it, some argue that it impedes development as Tompkins will not allow power lines to be built across the park. At the same time, the park protects remote mountain peaks down to ragged coastline, in a cold, inhospitable climate where even the summer is rainy and, for the most art, pretty cool as I experienced myself. Nonetheless, this temperate rainforest is full of living creatures and beautiful plants, and no other park exists in this part of Chile. However, the Chilean government, which in principle seems to agree that the preservation of its natural treasures is a worthwhile cause, recently refused the sale of a large tract of land to the Parque Pumalin Foundation, instead selling it for less money to a different bidder. I think this is an interesting case where local, regional, national, and personal interests clash. It is also the conflict between human expansion and environmental protection. Below I will take a look at some of the arguments that are made about this park.

The argument of sovreignty:
Because Parque Pumalin goes from the border with Argentina to the ocean, critics argue that the country has been sliced in two, and that in case of armed emergency (say, a war with Argentina) troop movements would be impossible. I personally think this argument is bogus. While I can understand the sentiment, in an armed emergency martial law would certainly provide the military with the legal authority to cross the area. Moreover, the Carretera Austral, which I've already mentioned, runs through the park already, which means there is the means of crossing from north to south, and vice versa. The weak point in the link is the ferry system, because from the north of the park one must take a ferry to the main part of Chile. I think this argument is just plain xenophobic and has little validity as clearly, it is possible to traverse the park.

The argument of local custom:
Some people say the park has affected locals' abilities to take advantage of resources in the area and has changed the way of life. Once again, I think this argument is somewhat faulty. For one, you need to consider that 15 years ago, when the carretera austral first connected the town of Chaiten to the north, only a few hundred people lived there (now it's somewhere between 6000 and 10,000, people's opinions differed on that matter). Basically, the people would only have been able to access whatever resources for about 2-3 years before the park was opened. Moreover, the same people who argue against the park do not argue against the carretera austral, which had a far more profound influence on the life in Chaiten and surrounding areas than the opening of the park. The only people I can imagine being affected are fishermen, but I don't think that the park includes the ocean-based resources.

The argument of development:
A large power company wants to build a dam on the Futaleufú river and run the power north to Puerto Varas and surrounding areas, some of the fastest growing parts of Chile. I think this idea is flawed in two major ways: For one, the Futaleufú (or Futa) is considered South America's best rating, and already supports a solid economy based on that, although it remains small compared to other places because it is so remote. To undermine this local economy - which is environmentally sustainable - in order to help an already quickly growing area grow even faster seems unjust to those who have invested in the Futa. Secondly, even if the company were to build the dam, it could run the electricity through Argentina: Futa is only a few miles from the border, and there are ample crossings further north between the Bariloche area and Puerto Varas area. Once again, the only argument against this is sovreignty, because the Chileans don't feel they can trust the Argentines due to their history of animosity. I think they should both just get over themselves and sign a long-term peace deal, demilitarize their countries (seriously, who's going to give them trouble? Evo Morales or Chavez? The US has tons of "military advisors" a.k.a. special forces units in Bolivia and Colombia, and would love a reason to intervene in either country...) and invest in their human capital.

As you can probably tell, I side with Tompkins, although I don't think I'd particularly like him in person. I think he has every right to invest in property and manage it as a nature reserve if he wants. That's the result of opening the local markets to capitalism and foreign investment - foreigners have the same rights as locals. Chile chose this path for itself, and I don't think Tompkins should be treated any differnetly than foreign franchisees of fast food chains which are ubiquitos in downtown Santiago. And here's the real clicher for me: He has offered to turn the property over to the Chilean government if they recognize it as a national park and protect it as such. They don't want to do that, so the property stays in Tompkins hands. When they are ready, he'll return it to Chileans, but if they don't want to protect it, don't fault him for trying to do so.