News

The Disincentive for Managing Native Forests in Chile

Sponsors

A recent publication by the Alliance for the Development of Native Forests describes the main problems of Law 20.283 on the Recovery of Native Forests and Forestry Promotion, which has not increased management rates despite existing incentives for this purpose, and proposes solutions.

The Alliance for the Development of Native Forests was formed over ten years ago with the College of Forestry Engineers, APROBOSQUE, and CORMA's Native Forest Department as members. Its objective is the promotion of sustainable management and the protection of Chile's native forests. To this end, it has issued a series of documents related to forestry law projects, along with general proposals to improve the conditions under which sustainable management operates. One of these is the recent publication of the book "Forest Management of Native Forests: A Development Opportunity."
The document was prepared by Julio Torres, Helmut Keim, Jan Koster, José Miguel Maiz, Rodolfo Tirado, and Gloria Vargas, diagnosing the current reality of native forests in areas such as institutional frameworks, research, market development, collaboration, incentives, and communication, seeking to answer the question: why are native forest management rates so low, despite state incentives?
Gloria Vargas, a psychologist and forestry engineer from Aprobosque—a guild representing 50 native forest owners from the Valparaíso to Los Lagos regions—and one of the authors, explains: "Chile has a vast area of native forests, but their management is stagnant. The supply chain around native forests is broken, and rebuilding it requires competitive resources and much more flexible control tools that ensure sustainability and certainty for owners."
To reverse these trends, the author explains, silvicultural measures must be applied. Due to the widespread state of degradation, this necessarily requires high-cost management, which is why state participation is needed—something that has not materialized under Decree 20.283 of 2008 on forest recovery and promotion.
José Carter, president of Aprobosque, highlights three major problems for native forest owners: "In the institutional sphere, we are convinced that CONAF has focused on increasing the area of native forests under management plans, but this has little correlation with the area actually managed. This is compounded by the high risk perception owners have when entering the system. In fact, many have management plans but do not implement them. We believe this can change with a more active role for CONAF—one that, while maintaining its oversight function, prioritizes support so owners feel they can overcome challenges before facing penalties."
Additionally, "incentives are important, but they are not everything. We must also simplify processes and delegate more responsibility for work plan execution to forestry engineers and technicians."
Finally, "we must debunk many myths society holds about native forests. A strong communication plan is needed to highlight the benefits of sustainable forest management—this is vital," Carter explains.
Of Chile's over 14 million hectares of native forests, just over 4 million are privately owned. Many belong to small and medium-sized family landowners in rural areas who, for the most part, seek economic sustenance from their land—whether through livestock or land sales—rather than managing forests due to the high costs involved.
In this regard, Gloria Vargas states there must be incentives to ensure long-term forest management: "The old 701 system included payments for planting and for not cutting forests prematurely. This is absent in Law 20.283. We must incentivize livestock exclusion—paying to plant, not cut, and restrict animal access. Focusing incentives strategically is key."
For co-author Jan Koster, owners perceive high risks in native forest management. "Whether for preservation, tourism, or sustainable production, the current regulatory framework creates uncertainty, making long-term planning difficult. Unfortunately, CONAF has lost its identity as a development institution in recent decades. Its unclear messaging on productive sustainable management worsens uncertainty, leading owners to inaction. Often, unscrupulous third parties exploit this, illegally logging and causing immense damage."
Among the changes proposed by the Alliance is a necessary shift in attitude from the Ministry of Agriculture and CONAF toward promoting sustainable management and native forest interventions. This shift, they argue, must be accompanied by clearer, simpler regulations and more concrete guidelines for CONAF. "The country's Forest Service must become the leading advocate for professional forest management, actively supporting owners in this effort," Koster explains.
José Carter notes: "Native forests are a giant awakening from long neglect. Data shows around 4.4 million hectares (INFOR, 2017) are primarily designated for productive or multipurpose use. Harvesting just the current annual growth could yield about 15 million cubic meters. By managing this resource to unlock its potential, we could double growth rates, reaching roughly 28 million cubic meters annually—a medium-to-long-term effort, with visible results in about 40 years."
The Aprobosque president highlights existing growth in second-generation forests (renewals) and native-species plantations over 20 years old, which allow growth projections. "Additionally, our forests silently contribute daily by sequestering carbon, protecting soils and water, providing wildlife habitats, and enhancing biodiversity—all critical to Chile's environmental commitments."
Jan Koster adds that institutional governance must improve: "Today, CONAF often acts as both judge and party, lacking proper oversight. Advisory councils like the Forest Policy Council and CONAF's Civil Society Council must function better and have greater influence. Without substantive changes in CONAF and the Ministry of Agriculture's policies, the decline in management plans and rise in informal interventions will continue. As an Alliance, we’ve drafted this proposal based on practical, on-the-ground knowledge. Sadly, CONAF has yet to grasp or implement these ideas. There’s a major disconnect with reality. We’re wasting immense economic, social, and environmental potential by failing to promote sustainable native forest management—a debt our country owes both the forests and those who depend on them."