Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract

This research examines how socio-economic and political dynamics, often obscured in conservation debates, shape conservation in Chilean Patagonia. Findings show livelihood changes, strong hierarchical governance, and limited community influence in protected-area decision-making.

Contribution long abstract

In the face of biodiversity loss, the creation of protected areas has been considered the primary tool to address this challenge. International agreements, like the 30x30 Agenda, have encouraged countries to commit to their goals, promoting the creation of protected areas worldwide.

Initial conservation approaches have perpetuated dichotomous ways of understanding the human-nature relationship, such as fortress conservation, which considers that the ecological preservation of an area is most successful without the presence of humans and their threats, which increases tensions with local communities. Even though new conservation paradigms have emerged that consider that conservation goals should be achieved by including local communities’ voices and their rights to participate in decision-making processes, the socio-economic and political aspects, and the power dynamics that converge in these contexts of territorial reconfiguration, are often overlooked.

This doctoral research explores, through the lens of political ecology, how socio-economic and political forces shape protected-areas conservation in Patagonia, Chile. Preliminary results from 21 semi-structured interviews and document reviews revealed that the model of protected areas in Chilean Patagonia has reconfigured traditional livelihoods toward local training in tourism, and that the predominance of hierarchical governance structures, compounded by the influential presence of foreign conservation organizations, hampers genuine local participation and decision-making, thereby exposing the shortcomings of participatory frameworks. This study addresses a gap in conservation research in Chile by focusing on the structural factors that shape the outcomes of protected areas, moving beyond the narrative that protected areas themselves are a “golden solution” to address biodiversity loss.