News

The Silent Tragedy of Chile's Native Forest

Sponsors

By Simón Berti, President of the College of Forestry Engineers

Chile possesses nearly 15 million hectares of native forest. Approximately one-third fulfills a primary function of protecting fragile soils and steep slopes; another third is safeguarded in parks and reserves; and the remaining third is perfectly suitable for responsible and sustainable management. It is precisely there that the future of the native forest is at stake and, paradoxically, where the least action occurs.

The lack of management is not neutral. A degraded forest, impoverished in valuable species and without silvicultural intervention, loses ecological and economic value. When the forest does not provide benefits to its owners—many of them smallholders—it becomes invisible, irrelevant, and, ultimately, expendable.

Chile's rural history clearly shows the consequences of this neglect: overgrazing, fires, substitution, and soil erosion. Absolute protectionism, far from saving the forest, can end up pushing it toward disappearance.

Why, then, is so little native forest managed? There are obvious structural reasons. The first is economic: current subsidies are insufficient and do not cover a significant fraction of the real recovery costs, whose returns are measured in decades.

The second is institutional and cultural: a forestry authority—Conaf, currently transitioning to Sernafor—that has comfortably settled into a merely regulatory, distant, and unempathetic role, rather than that of an active technical collaborator in the sustainable management of the native forest. Without adequate incentives and without a supportive State, it is illusory to expect owners to undertake a long-term effort alone.

It is also striking—and criticizable—that neither large forestry companies nor the State itself, through Conaf and the reserves and parks under its administration, contribute more decisively to the demonstrative management of some of the dozens of native forest situations from north to south and from sea to mountains.

Forestry engineering was born precisely to rescue forests from degradation, accelerating their natural dynamics and recovering valuable species. Demonstration plots, alliances between companies, universities, and the authority, and the compilation of real experiences from many owners could contribute more than many speeches to changing perceptions and generating trust.

An additional aspect, systematically omitted in public debate, is the role of managed native forest in mitigating climate change. Technical evidence shows that a native forest under sustainable management, by maintaining a higher growth and renewal rate, can absorb significantly more CO2 than an unmanaged and degraded forest, where biomass accumulation stagnates. Ignoring management is not only a productive and social mistake, but also a climatic one.

Reversing this situation requires a clear strategy. Updating economic incentives, incorporating managed native forest into carbon credit markets, and, above all, building a new relationship between the State and forest owners. A forestry institution that leaves behind the logic of the padlock and permanent suspicion—and that explicitly assumes its responsibility to promote, guide, and support sustainable management—is as important as a good law.

The true tragedy of Chile's native forest is not that it is used, but that it is ignored. Without management, there is no future, neither ecological nor social, for a resource that could be a national pride, a regional engine, and a legacy for future generations.

Source:BiobioChile