Identifying social actors' needs and expectations through participatory

This section gives an overview of the three social research methodologies undertaken, i.e., the second step of this SMCE. These approaches were focused in analysing the needs and expectations present in the region, to generate possible future scenarios and the evaluation criteria.

a) In-depth interviews

The aim of these experiences is to complement the information obtained by the historical and institutional analysis, and to recognize social actors not considered yet. 25 people of different social, economic, technical and political sectors were interviewed (See Box 2). The selection of the interviewees relies upon the results of the historical and

institutional analysis, and also in the information collected during the interview process itself.

In-depth interviews had the following structure (See also Box 1):

i. Description of the biophysical and socio-economic contexts, and the relationships between social actors.

ii. Description of the future projections of the region and the requirements to reach it.

iii.Whom the different possible futures would affect.

The open structure of the interviews is aimed at allowing people to freely express their opinions. The gathered information is used as a feedback to the participative processes coming

later, in order to discuss, modify and specify it.

b) Focus groups

The main objectives of these discussion spaces were to promote reflection about the future of the region and to learn about the regional socio-economic and ecological contexts. Other aims of these meetings were to validate and to complement the opinions gathered during the previous stage.

About 20 people have participated in three focus groups: one with institutional actors

Box 1: Questions of the in-depth interviews System description and knowledge

• How would you describe the economic, social and environmental regional situation?

• Who are the main actors supporting the region and promoting its development?

• Who are the socio-economic and institutional actors operating in the region?

To generate and evaluate development alternatives

• How would you like to see the region in 15 years?

• What do you think it needs to be done in the social, economic and environmental fields?

• What kinds of projects are needed to be implemented?

• Which kind of criteria do we have to use in order to evaluate alternatives?

• Which dimension (economic, social or

environmental) is more important? And the second?

• What do you think about the actual economic alternatives (Alumysa, tourism, aquaculture…)

• What do you think about compatibility between alternatives?

Evaluation of the activities impact over social actors

• How is the impact of the activities over different social actors?

• How do the different activities impact on your life?

(mainly from the local government) in Coyhaique, and two with socio-economic actors, one in Coyhaique and the other one in Puerto Aysén.

The groups of between 5 and 8 people were given a presentation on the aims and methodologies of the study. It followed a summary of the opinions collected previously.

Then, people were invited to exchange opinions in order to build a general vision of the region.

c) Young people have something to say

One workshop with students between 14 and 18 years old took place in Coyhaique. The objective of this activity are twofold: to collect opinions about the current regional situation and to take into consideration one part of the population that is normally not

invited/considered in public decision processes. Moreover, they will face the future consequences of current decisions.

This activity was carried out in three steps:

i. Introduction of some economic concepts commonly used, such as value added, gross national product, economic growth and so on,

ii. The group was split in three sub-groups, and were asked to develop future scenarios of the region based on three specific pre-assumption: an industrial development of Aysén, a strictly environmentally regulated development, and a development based on an intermediate path.

iii.Presentation of the results of the groups by means of writings and drawings, and discussion about these possible scenarios.

The above-mentioned methodologies allowed identifying several social actors involved in the conflict and their positions (see Table 3, Table 4 and Table 27).

Box 2: Interviewees

Governmental institutions

• Regional Director of CONAF (Forest National Corporation).

• Mayor of Coyhaique

• Public official of the Environmental Office, Municipality of Coyhaique.

• Councillor of the Municipality of Puerto Aysén

• Councillor of the Municipality of Coyhaique

• SECPLAC (Planning and Cooperation Communal Secretary’s Office), Puerto Aysén

• Governmental official in charge of the Land-use planning program

Social movements

• Representative of the Communal Union of Puerto Aysén

• Representative of the Communal Union of Coyhaique

• Representative of the Trade Union of Temporary Women Workers

• Representatives of the Civic Committee for the Sustainable Development of Puerto Aysén and its Surroundings

• Regional Director of Codeff (Forest and Fauna Defence Corporation)

Economic sectors

• Representative of the Regional Tourism Chamber

• Representative of SalmonChile

• Representative of the Commerce Chamber of Coyhaique

• Representative of the Commerce Chamber of Puerto Aysén

• Consultant of the craft-fishing sector

• Representative of the Association of Craftsmen/Craftswomen, Coyhaique

• Representative of FAGA (Association of Farmers and Stockbreeders of Aysén) Others

• Representative of the Association of Doctors

• Representative of the Regional Teachers Association

Once the biophysical environment and the socio-economic context of the region has been analysed, the next step is to assess potential outcomes of public decisions and actions. In this case, it follows the creation of three possible future scenarios, and their comparison under a set of evaluation criteria (technical evaluation) and under the social actors' perceptions (social evaluation).

Table 3: Social actors involved in the conflict and their positions

Sector Social Actors

INSTITUTIONAL

CONAMA – COREMA (National – Regional). Public services coordination in the EIAP.

Public services (National - Regional). Regarding its “technical” functions (evaluation of the project), they are not allowed to express opinions about the project and its implications.

Municipality of Puerto Aysén (Communal). The mayor says that even if the majority of the population is in favour of the project, he gives his support depending on its socio-economic impact.

Municipality of Coyhaique (Communal). There is no official position on the project, but the mayor says that the biggest regional resource, the water and its hydroelectric power has to be used for the

industry needs.

Parliamentarians (National). Two senator and one parliamentary are in opposition of the project. And the other parliamentary is in favour.

But it has to be noted that, at the beginning of the conflict, Senator A. Zaldivar was recognized by many actors as the political sponsor of Alumysa project. But he changed his position in favour of the salmon farming sector. It can be said that all the parliamentarians are looking for the best way to reach economic growth.

SOCIAL

Alliance for Aysén Reservoir of Life (International) and Citizen Committee for Aysén Reservoir of Life (Regional). Their opinion is that Alumysa will strongly impact the region, in social, environmental and economic terms. Being Aysén one of the purest regions in the world, with its recent social and geo-biological formation, the 600 thousands tons of waste produced a year and an EIA that does not reflect all the potential impacts, it is difficult to say yes to such a project.

They also argue that an industrialization plan like Alumysa is incompatible with the Regional Development Strategies 2000-2006.

Civic Committee for the Sustainable Development of Puerto Aysén and its Surroundings (Communal). They support similar ideas than the previous coalition, and they have appealed to the court for protecting the national goods of public use affected by Alumysa.

Communal Unions of Puerto Aysén and Coyhaique (Communal). The communitarian organizations have not given support to Alumysa, there is the intention to constitute a coalition to do so.

Population of Puerto Aysén and Coyhaique (Communal). Some communal leaders have said that the majority of the population is in favour of Alumysa. Mainly people coming from low income levels. In their view, the project represents better job and salary opportunities.

On the other hand, some people say that this is “bread for today, hunger for tomorrow”.

ECONOMIC

Proyecto Alumysa Ltda. (International) The general manager answers to the critics that the project is not incompatible with the rest of regional activities, and that it is proved by the EIA that the emissions will be under the levels allowed by the environmental legislation. Also the industry will bring economic growth, with a better life quality at a lower cost, more jobs and infrastructure to a neglected region.

SOFOFA – Manufacturing Promotion Society (National). The private entity says that the Chilean economic model is based on the private initiative in a free market, and in this situation they refuse the salmon farming position asking for exclusivity.

Salmon and Trout Producers Association of Chile - SalmonChile (National). They say that the incompatibility between both sectors is in Puerto Chacabuco bay. Because the emissions and

contamination (principally Fluorine) will affect the water where the salmon farming industry operates, damaging its production and image.

Regional Tourism Chamber (Regional). They say that the big negative impacts are not well considered in the EIA, and the compensation and restoration plans are not equivalent to those impacts. The clean image of the region will be damaged, affecting the tourism industry as well.

Regional Commerce Chamber (Regional). They basically support Alumysa for the big impulse over the commercial activity the project will bring (thanks to the immigration and purchasing power growth).

Chilean Construction Chamber (National). The Alumysa project is an opportunity that the region can not lose. This sector has shown its interest over the productive infrastructure investment of 900 millions of dollars. And disregard the worry about the environmental consequences.

Sector Social Actors

TECHNICAL

Consulting Group, Mining Centre, Catholic University of Chile (National). This organism concludes that the EIA needs additional information like possible synergies between different project’s

components; accumulative effects after 50 operation years; mitigation, elimination, minimization and compensation plans in more detail; why it does not use the best available technology; etc.

Note: In brackets it is said the scale at least each organization could have influence or bargaining power.