News

Controversial Article in New Climate Change Framework Law Prohibits Incentives for Forest Monocultures

Sponsors

Chile's environmental policy has been characterized as ambitious and decisive in the face of global sustainable development challenges. This path began with the Human Environment Conference held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972 and continued at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, followed by Johannesburg, South Africa, at the Sustainable Development Summit in 2002, where a series of protocols and agreements aimed at achieving this type of development were signed. However, the most significant commitment on this path is the Paris Agreement, adopted at COP 21 in 2015 and signed in 2016 alongside 195 countries. This agreement seeks to keep the global average temperature increase below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.

In the context of this commitment, the Climate Change Framework Law was enacted this past June after a swift legislative process.
Julio Torres, executive secretary of the College of Forestry Engineers, explains that this framework law is instrumental because it establishes a set of tools such as national and regional mitigation plans and assigns responsibilities to different ministries to implement actions they must report on, all led by the Ministry of the Environment. "Basically, this law organizes and outlines what the country will do to fulfill Chile's commitments under the Paris Agreement, but it does not enforce," he explains.

The concerning point identified by this association once the framework law was enacted lies in Article 5, which outlines the Long-Term Climate Strategy—a tool recognized in the Paris Agreement. Subsection (c) explicitly prohibits incentivizing forest monocultures as an emissions reduction strategy. "It caught our attention because it is the only mention of a prohibition on any activity in the law's 60 articles. They could have referred to landfills, livestock farming for methane production, or other activities."

Additionally, through this restriction, the state is limiting itself by discarding incentives for forest monocultures, which is inconsistent with Article 1, where it commits to respecting international agreements. These agreements, through the Nationally Determined Forest Contributions, establish a target of 200,000 hectares of plantations by 2030 as a CO2 mitigation strategy, of which 100,000 will be permanent cover, and 70,000 of those will be native species. This prohibition goes against that commitment."

Another inconsistency Torres points out is that the same law states that mitigation actions must follow principles established in Article 2. One of these is cost-effectiveness (subsection b)), considering that the cost of a hectare of native species monoculture is much higher than that of plantations.
Subsection (c) of Article 5 was not part of the bill introduced to the Senate in 2020. It was in the Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the Chamber of Deputies where Deputy Félix González of the Ecologist Party requested its inclusion: "The guidelines shall not incentivize the planting of forest monocultures."

"This committee is extremely hostile toward forestry activities. Reviewing the recordings, I found the moment when the deputy, in his argument, made the typical criticism of plantations—partly true but largely inaccurate and distorted—and from there, he claimed that monocultures cannot be a climate change mitigation tool because, among other things, they consume water and do not capture carbon since they are harvested in short cycles, which is not true," explains the secretary of the Forestry Engineers' association. He adds, "What’s concerning is that when the deputy defended his proposal, the Minister of the Environment, Javier Naranjo, was present in the committee and let this flawed argument pass, stating that monocultures had never been part of mitigation strategies—showing ignorance of the afforestation commitments under the Paris Agreement."

Monoculture: A Resisted and Ideologized Concept
For Julio Torres, there is a lack of understanding, bias, and hostility that fails to recognize the role of forest plantations in carbon capture. "They argue without knowledge; they don’t believe a raulí plantation is a monoculture, but it is. The term 'monoculture' is a forestry concept, not pejorative—it means a crop of the same species and age. For this proposal to be considered, all it took was for one deputy to say it, but there was a minister who didn’t do his job. Then it went to a Mixed Committee, where neither deputies nor senators did their part to recall Chile’s international commitments."

Sergio Donoso Calderón is a Forestry Engineer, Doctor of Forestry Engineering, and professor of Forest Policies in Chile. This academic from the Faculty of Forestry Sciences and Nature Conservation at the University of Chile has several interpretations regarding Article 5: "This article is linked to Article 4, which outlines the instruments through which this law will be implemented, and Article 5 follows with a sequence of fundamental aspects these instruments must include for their execution."

Regarding the controversial subsection (c) (Art. 5), Donoso states, "It provides very clear guidelines on reforestation, restoration processes, among others, and at the end comes a key phrase: 'The guidelines shall not incentivize the planting of forest monocultures.' This means, essentially, that these instruments should not be used to encourage the establishment of forest monocultures—it’s very clear. So, mixed plantations where species that aid in restoration can be used are not limited. This proposal, however, was accepted by all other legislators. I think what will be interesting is the law’s regulations, which will clarify the scope of this subsection." He adds, "These are clear signals about the perception—not just Deputy González’s but widespread—regarding industrial monoculture plantations and the possibility of using this law as an incentive. Now, why was such a specific aspect included? For me, it has a relatively simple explanation: the lack of regulation for some forest monocultures in southern Chile. In other regions, monocultures do not face the same level of controversy—for example, in Coquimbo, there are extensive atriplex and acacia plantations integrated into shrubland formations with community participation."

Donoso explains, "If we were in another country, there would be no issue with plantations as a tool, where a landowner in a deforested area could plant cherry trees, walnuts, or pines, as long as other aspects like water, soil, biodiversity, and landscape are considered. The obstacle isn’t the species—it’s how it’s done, and the big problem is how it has been done. Today, there should be a much more sophisticated approach than what we’re used to. Managing existing and developing new plantations is complex, closely tied to land-use planning, its vocation, and capacity to accommodate them, the landscape. There should be a law that properly regulates this, focused on its development—as expected in a country with clear forestry potential. This happens in other countries, in areas with defined functions and considerations."

Torres reflects on the past replacement of native forests with plantations, which generated rejection toward these crops, to the point of considering them intrinsically bad. He notes, "Deputy González does not understand the concept of the forestry cycle, and the deputies on the Environment Committee are unfamiliar with the sector. No one was there to explain what it really is—to understand it correctly, without prejudice. That was the problem. There was no openness to the idea that plantations can be beneficial if established and managed properly. No one was there to tell the deputy that his claims were incorrect, jeopardizing international carbon neutrality commitments with this proposal. No one did that."

When asked about the Paris Agreement’s reforestation commitments, Donoso states, "In this specific case, I believe it will be very difficult to fulfill them, regardless of this framework law. For this to happen, there would need to be a reforestation and afforestation law, which will be very hard to implement because it would reveal tensions intersecting with various aspects—social conflicts, land-use planning, the need to meet environmental commitments, water production, biodiversity protection, community expectations, etc. These are the reasons that complicate compliance."

A brief historical analysis of different afforestation bills introduced over the last decade shows an evolution, as afforestation begins to be seen more as a process to restore ecosystems rather than with a productive emphasis. This is because it is increasingly difficult to explain and understand how this practice fits into such a complex scenario.