También hay dudas respecto de cuánta autoridad tendría realmente el nuevo ministerio. Como el poderoso Ministerio de Hacienda, tomaría decisiones que afectarían a muchas otras carteras pero, en un conflicto, ¿estaría empatado con -digamos- el más poderoso Ministerio de Salud?

Un incidente sugiere que no. Originalmente el proyecto de ley iba a incluir un nuevo servicio público para la protección de la biodiversidad y los recursos naturales que habría absorbido el rol del Corporación Nacional Forestal (CONAF) sobre la administración de parques nacionales.

Pero el Ministerio de Agricultura, del que depende CONAF, objetó la medida. “La protección de los recursos naturales fue uno de los grandes vacíos de la ley de 1994 y ahora de este proyecto”, señala Katz, “y eso es algo que debió haberse discutido en el Consejo de Ministros, no sólo con Agricultura”.

Bueno para el Medio Ambiente?

La prueba de fuego para el nuevo proyecto de ley es, por cierto, lo que hará por el medio ambiente. Y, en ese sentido, daría un importante paso en el fortalecimiento de su aplicación.

Eso se identifica como uno de las debilidades clave del actual sistema. En su informe del 2005, la OCDE se quejó de que la CONAMA no tenía suficientes inspectores y que, si bien otros servicios públicos con responsabilidades relativas al medio ambiente tenían la capacidad técnica y el personal necesario, a menudo tenían otras prioridades.

La aplicación de la ley es un problema en América Latina, destaca Baquedano. “La región tiene algunas leyes ambientales muy buenas, pero no se cumplen”, afirma.

En una apuesta por remediar este problema, la propuesta reforma de Chile incluiría la creación de una nueva agencia reguladora, la Superintendencia de Medio Ambiente. Esta jugaría un rol crucial en lo que respecta a abordar los desafíos impuestos por los tratados de libre comercio de Chile y su competitividad internacional, dijo la ministra Uriarte en una reciente reunión del Comité de Asuntos Corporativos, RSE y Medio Ambiente de la <b>AmCham.</b>

Según Uriarte, la Superintendencia también ayudaría a desenredar la compleja red de supervisión de distintos servicios públicos a la que están sujetas en la actualidad las empresas en Chile. En el caso de proyectos que han recibido un permiso a través del sistema de evaluación de impacto ambiental, la Superintendencia tendría poderes exclusivos de supervisión, dijo la funcionaria de Gobierno a bUSiness CHILE.

Otro importante avance, afirma Sandoval, es que, a través del denominado proceso de evaluación ambiental estratégica, se alentaría a los distintos ministerios a considerar el impacto ambiental y su posible mitigación al momento de elaborar políticas públicas. En la actualidad, los contratistas de proyectos que surgen como resultado de una política pública están obligados -tal como los proyectos de inversión privada- a conseguir un permiso ambiental, pero las implicancias ambientales de las propias políticas no están sujetas a una evaluación previa.

“Por primera vez, este nuevo proceso introduciría -si se implementa de manera correcta- al medio ambiente como un factor en las decisiones de políticas públicas a través de distintos sectores”, señala Sandoval. No obstante, la trampa es que, en virtud del proyecto de ley en su actual forma, los ministerios sólo estarían obligados a adoptar el sistema en caso de políticas relacionadas con el uso de tierra y, para todas las demás, tendría carácter voluntario.

Otro de los cambios importantes al proyecto de ley, según Sandoval, es que obligaría a las empresas a usar la mejor tecnología disponible desde el punto de vista del impacto sobre el medio ambiente. “De seguro ello generará mucha discusión en el Congreso”, prevé “porque el proyecto de ley será acusado de interferir con las decisiones de las empresas”.

Sin embargo, según Katz, esta provisión no sería muy convincente. “Para conseguir un permiso ambiental, las empresas, en la práctica, ya están usando la mejor tecnología disponible”, aduce.

Impacto sobre las Empresas

Más normas, una aplicación más estricta y mayores sanciones sugieren costos más altos para las empresas. Sin embargo, el sector privado está mucho más preocupado sobre los propuestos cambios de la reforma al sistema de obtención de permisos para invertir en proyectos.

Según la ley, el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente no sería responsable de evaluar los estudios de impacto ambiental presentados por nuevos proyectos. Esa responsabilidad, en cambio, se escindiría a un Servicio de Impacto Ambiental autónomo que, promete la ministra Uriarte, entregaría un servicio más eficiente y, posiblemente, más rápido que el actual sistema coordinado por la CONAMA.

Ese no es el problema. Lo que es un problema, dicen las empresas, es que esto iría de la mano con la abolición de las Comisiones Regionales de Medio Ambiente (COREMA) que actualmente son responsables de decidir, basadas en la información entregada por los distintos servicios públicos, si entregan el visto bueno a un proyecto que se localizaría en su región.

Esta decisión, en cambio, quedaría en manos de un comité formado por los representantes regionales de los principales ministerios del Gobierno que -a diferencia de las COREMA- no incluirían al intendente de la región, los gobernadores de sus provincias o miembros del Consejo Regional (CORE). La idea, señala Sandoval, era asegurar una decisión más técnica que política.

Pero ese es un tema debatible, admite. “Ni siquiera las decisiones de los técnicos son neutrales”, afirma, “porque actúan sobre la base de la visión que tienen del mundo”.

Más aún, la propuesta ha sido ampliamente criticada por aumentar el poder del Gobierno en Santiago a costa de las regiones. Eso no es necesariamente algo malo, argumenta Sandoval: “La visión en una región puede ser influida por preocupaciones locales y una perspectiva nacional más amplia también es necesaria”, destaca.

Pero la legitimación local es importante, asevera Charles Kimber de Arauco. “Aun cuando el rol del intendente regional es político, es importante a nivel local y el actual sistema ha funcionado bien”, dice.

Y una preocupación aún mayor, según Kimber, es que la nueva Superintendencia de Medio Ambiente tendría el poder de suspender e incluso confiscar, un permiso ambiental en caso de un impacto no previsto en el estudio presentado por un proyecto. Eso es complicado, sostiene, porque los problemas ambientales pueden ser complejos y no siempre es fácil identificar su causa.

Ricardo Katz también se hace eco de su preocupación. “En virtud del actual sistema, un permiso ambiental es, en la práctica, un contrato entre el servicio que lo adjudicó y la empresa que lo recibe mientras que, según el proyecto de ley, habría un tercero -la Superintendencia- con el poder de interpretar ese contrato”, destaca.

Y todavía hay otra pregunta: ¿cuándo verá la luz la nueva ley? Con unas 80 enmiendas ya presentadas, es posible que el debate en el Congreso sea prolongado y hay una alta probabilidad de que el proyecto de ley no se apruebe antes del término del actual Gobierno en marzo del 2010.

Eso no es bueno para la inversión. “Cuando estamos hablando de un área como el medio ambiente que es tan importante para la competitividad, los inversionistas necesitan reglas claras”, subraya Kimber.

Y también es malo para el medio ambiente, añade Katz. “Por los próximos dos años, estaremos preocupados por la nueva ley, en lugar de proteger el medio ambiente”, se lamenta.

Ruth Bradley es editora general de bUSiness CHILE además de corresponsal en Santiago de The Economist.

A bill before Congress may face a long haul but has focused attention on the virtues, as well as the shortcomings, of Chile’s environmental regulation and its role in the country’s international competitiveness.

A bill before Congress to reform Chile’s environmental regulatory system raises more questions than it answers. That, at least, is the conclusion if differences of opinion are any guide.

While the government claims that the bill would take the politics out of the award of environmental permits without affecting the say of the country’s regions, its critics maintain that it would make the process not only more political but also more subject to central government control.

And, while Environment Minister Ana Lya Uriarte says the reform would help businesses by making the process simpler and clearer, businesspeople themselves are concerned that it would reduce clarity by allowing a new institution - a Superintendency for the Environment - to suspend and even confiscate a permit once it has been granted.

And the questions go even deeper. Is a new law really necessary? And would the bill currently before Congress make things better or worse?

Where there is no disagreement is on the fact that the present system of environmental regulation, headed by the National Commission for the Environment (CONAMA), needs some fine-tuning. Since its creation in the mid-1990s, Chile’s international integration has increased and consumers in the country’s export markets have become far more concerned about the way goods are produced and their impact on the environment.

That is a particularly important consideration now that Chile is seeking membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which, in a report in 2005 on Chile’s environmental performance, wasn’t exactly full of praise. “Given that, on some issues, Chile has a long way to go before reaching the standards of most OECD countries, it needs to strengthen and considerably expand its environmental institutions,” stated the report.

Local experts agree that the present system has not delivered in some areas. CONAMA’s Council of Ministers - its equivalent of a board of directors - has not fulfilled its function of drawing up environmental policies, says Ricardo Katz, a researcher at the Centro de Estudios Públicos, a think-tank.

There is also consensus that CONAMA has been slow in issuing environmental norms, a problem also noted by the OECD. “But you don’t need a new law to resolve that; it’s just a question of resources,” counters Katz.

Nor do you need a new law to improve management and technical standards, says Charles Kimber, corporate affairs and marketing director at the Arauco forestry company and chair of AmCham’s Corporate Affairs, CSR and Environmental Committee. These are, in his view, the two key areas in which the present system has room for improvement.

Coordination or control?

The discrepancies are hardly surprising. The bill that the government presented to Congress in June would, after all, go beyond a face-lift to the present system; it would change the very principle on which it is based.

Environmental regulators can be divided into two basic types - those that coordinate the disperse powers of other public services and those that have their own clout. CONAMA falls into the former category.

For environmentalists, that is synonymous with demeaning the importance of the environment. “Today, the environment needs to be on a par with areas like the economy, defense and agriculture,” argues Manuel Baquedano, president of the Institute of Political Ecology, an environmental NGO.

In other words, it needs a ministry, not a mere coordinating agency, and that is precisely what President Michelle Bachelet promised in her election campaign. In March 2007, she made Ana Lya Uriarte, the executive director of CONAMA, a minister and, in the bill before Congress, is now seeking its authorization to create the ministry to go with her title.

According to Hernán Sandoval, who chairs Chile Ambiente, an environmental NGO, and helped CONAMA draw up the bill, one important consideration in designing the proposed new regulatory structure was Chile’s legal tradition. Inherited from Spain, it is grounded in authority, not coordination, he says.

Under the bill, a number of other ministries, such as Health, Housing and Agriculture, would cede some - although by no means all - of their powers to the new Ministry for the Environment. Because the environment pervades so many issues, it was not easy to know where to draw the line, admits Sandoval, adding that he expects the new distribution of ministerial powers to be the subject of intense debate in Congress,

Ricardo Katz, one of the authors of the 1994 law that created CONAMA, says he has no objection per se to the creation of a ministry, if it helps to raise the profile of environmental issues. “But it’s important to maintain coordination,” he insists.

And that, he fears, could suffer under the proposed new structure. CONAMA’s 13-strong Council of Ministers may not have been good at drawing up policies but it has played an important role as a place to thrash out conflicts and in ensuring that decisions, once taken, are understood and implemented by different public services, he says.

There are, moreover, doubts as to how much authority the new ministry would really have. Like the powerful Finance Ministry, it would be taking decisions that affect many other portfolios but, in a conflict, would it be a match for, say, the weightier Health Ministry?

One incident suggests that not. The bill was originally intended to include a new public service for the protection of biodiversity and natural resources that would have absorbed the role of the National Forest Service (CONAF) in managing national parks.

But the Ministry of Agriculture, to which CONAF reports, objected. “The protection of natural resources was one of the big gaps of the 1994 law and now of this bill,” says Katz, “and it’s something that should have been discussed in the Council of Ministers, not just with Agriculture.”

Good for the environment?

The acid test of the new bill is, of course, what it would do for the environment. And, there, it would take an important step by strengthening enforcement.

That is identified as one of the key weaknesses of the present system. In its 2005 report, the OECD complained that CONAMA did not have sufficient inspectors and that, while other public services with responsibilities related to the environment did have the necessary staff and technical capacity, they often had other priorities.

Enforcement is a problem around Latin America, notes Baquedano. “The region has some very good environmental laws but they’re not complied with,” he argues.

In a bid to remedy this problem, Chile’s proposed reform would include the creation of a new enforcement agency, the Superintendency of the Environment. It would play a crucial role in addressing the challenges posed by Chile’s free trade agreements and its international competitiveness, said Minister Uriarte at a recent meeting of AmCham’s Corporate Affairs, CSR and Environmental Committee.

According to Uriarte, the Superintendency would also help to unravel the complex network of supervision by different public services to which companies in Chile are currently subject. In the case of projects that have received a permit through the system for evaluation of environment impact, the Superintendency would have exclusive supervision powers, she told bUSiness CHILE.

Another important advance, says Sandoval, is that, through the so-called process of strategic environment evaluation, different ministries would be encouraged to take environmental impact and its possible mitigation into account when drawing up public policies. At present, contractors for projects that result from a public policy are - like private-sector investment projects - obliged to obtain an environmental permit, but the environmental implications of the policies themselves are not subject to prior evaluation.

“For the first time, this new process would - if implemented correctly - introduce the environment as a factor in public policy decisions across different sectors,” says Sandoval. The catch, though, is that, under the bill in its present form, ministries would only be obliged to adopt the system in the case of land-use policies and, for all others, it would be voluntary.

Another of the bill’s important changes, according to Sandoval, is that it would oblige companies to use the “best available” technology from the point of view of impact on the environment. “There’s bound to be a lot of discussion about that in Congress,” he predicts, “because the bill will be accused of interfering with business decisions.”

However, according to Katz, this provision wouldn’t cut much ice. “To get an environmental permit, companies are, in practice, already using the best available technology,” he argues.

Impact on business

More norms, tighter enforcement and increased sanctions suggest higher costs for businesses. The private sector is, however, far more concerned about the reform’s proposed changes to the system for obtaining a permit for investment projects.

Under the bill, the Ministry for the Environment would not be responsible for evaluating the environmental impact studies presented by new projects. Instead, that responsibility would be spun off to an autonomous Environmental Impact Service which would, promises Minister Uriarte, provide a more efficient and, potentially, quicker service than the present system coordinated by CONAMA.

That isn’t the problem. What is a problem, say businesses, is that this would go hand-in-hand with the abolition of the Regional Commissions for the Environment (COREMAs) currently responsible for deciding, on the basis of information provided by different public services, whether to give the go-ahead to a project that would be located in their region.

This decision would, instead, be left in the hands of a committee formed by the regional representatives of main government ministries that - unlike the COREMAs - would not include the region’s governor, the governors of its provinces or members of the Regional Council (CORE). The idea, says Sandoval, was to ensure a more technical, rather than political, decision.

But that is a debatable issue, he admits. “Even the decisions of technicians aren’t neutral,” he says, “because they act on the basis of their view of the world.”

Moreover, the proposal has been widely criticized as increasing the power of the government in Santiago at the expense of the regions. That is not necessarily a bad thing, argues Sandoval - “the view in a region can be swayed by local concerns and a broader national perspective is also needed,” he says.

But local legitimacy is important, argues Arauco’s Charles Kimber. “Even if the regional governor’s role is political, it’s important locally and the present system has worked well,” he says.

An even bigger concern, according to Kimber, is that the new Superintendency of the Environment would have the power to suspend, and even confiscate, an environmental permit in the case of an impact not foreseen in the study presented by a project. That is tricky, he says, because environmental problems can be complex and it’s not always easy to identify their cause.
His concern is echoed by Ricardo Katz. “Under the present system, an environmental permit is, in practice, a contract between the service that awarded it and the company that receives it whereas, under the bill, there would be a third party - the Superintendency - with the power to interpret that contract,” he points out.

And there is yet another question - when would the new law see the light of day? With some 80 amendments already presented, the debate in Congress is likely to be lengthy and there is a high chance that the bill won’t be approved before the end of the present government in March 2010.

That isn’t good for investment. “When we’re talking about an area like the environment that is so important for competitiveness, investors need clear rules,” points out Kimber.

And it’s also bad for the environment, adds Katz. “For the next two years, we’re going to be worrying about the new law, instead of looking after the environment,” he laments.

Ruth Bradley is general editor of bUSiness CHILE. She is also the Santiago correspondent for The Economist.