Erwin Sandoval Gallardo, Codesa
A few weeks ago we read both the main representatives of the salmon industry and former President Eduardo Frei pretending that "[...] the salmon industry has been the engine of growth in the south of Chile for the last 30 years. Without receiving a single subsidy from the State".
Given that other voices have come out to demonstrate the falsity of that statement, showing the role of the State in the establishment and development of this activity since its origins, it is necessary to dwell on what constitutes the greatest subsidy or royalty that this particular industry receives from the Treasury and its public assets: the possibility, exclusively, of developing industrial activities within protected wild areas.
In fact, it has been found that 411 aquaculture concessions granted by the State of Chile are located within protected wildlife areas in Patagonia (national reserves and national parks), thus violating both the conservation objectives of these sectors and the international commitments adopted by Chile, which prevent the economic exploitation of the ecosystems present in these protected areas (Washington Convention, for example).
Fulfilling the presidential commitment to move forward with the exit of the salmon industry from protected areas should be a priority in a scenario of climate and biodiversity crisis that increasingly threatens them. However, as evidenced by the recent publication of Fundación Terram in CIPER, the State continues to act according to the logic of subsidies or royalties to the salmon industry at the expense of our protected areas. This, since in December 2023 the government signed an agreement with Aquachile and Cooke Aquaculture to relocate nine concessions that today operate within the boundaries of the parks Laguna San Rafael and Magdalena Island (Aysén), and Bernardo O'Higgins (between the latter and Magallanes). A paradoxical award: according to information from Fundación Terram, these concessions are in serious legal non-compliance, five of them have expired and four have significantly increased their authorized farming densities, thus evading the Environmental Impact Assessment System (overproduction).
Not only are these companies allowed to develop their industrial activity as a block in areas that should be under protection, but even when they have generated significant environmental impacts in protected areas and unacceptably failed to comply with the regulations that govern them, the State continues to benefit them with the possibility of relocating. Thus evading its responsibility for the infractions committed.
Regarding overproduction, it has been reported that on several occasions the companies have produced thousands of tons more than originally authorized in their technical projects. However, of the four cases, only two are currently under sanction by the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (SMA): Huillines 2 (110228) and Huillines 3 (110259), both belonging to Cooke Aquaculture, located within the Laguna San Rafael National Park.
Moreover, the overproduction of both companies has represented economic benefits -estimated on the basis of the average price per kg of salmon in 2022- of some $450,000 million in sales for Cooke Aquaculture and $171,000 million for Aquachile. In the first case, 50,993 tons of the species were harvested in excess of what was authorized, while in the second, 19,497 tons were harvested in excess. However, the maximum sanction applicable would exceed $3,900 million for each center. Worse still, if the sanction does not include the definitive closure of the cultivation centers, the companies could extend their illegal production.
This situation makes it imperative that the environmental authority, first, initiate a sanctioning process against Aquachile for evasion of the environmental evaluation of its concessions within Magdalena Island NP and, second and imperative, that for all cases the sanction be the loss of the environmental permits of each center. This would not only be an example but also a concrete sign that our protected areas in Patagonia should be protected and not turned into a new subsidy or royalty for the salmon industry.