Years of technical groundwork had been set aside.
En las últimas semanas de mayo, un grupo de científicos chilenos llevó su disconformidad con la política ambiental del gobierno al escenario más visible de la ciencia global, publicando en la revista Science una carta que advierte sobre las consecuencias de retirar 43 decretos ambientales. El gesto trasciende el debate doméstico: es una declaración de que las decisiones tomadas en Santiago sobre ecosistemas únicos —del Atacama a la Antártica— pertenecen, por su magnitud, a la conversación planetaria sobre biodiversidad y clima. En un momento en que el mundo enfrenta pérdidas aceleradas de especies y una crisis climática en profundización, la comunidad científica chilena ha elegido hablar con voz internacional antes de que el silencio se vuelva complicidad.
- El gobierno del presidente Kast retiró 43 decretos ambientales —muchos madurados durante años de revisión técnica— en una decisión que la comunidad científica califica como uno de los mayores retrocesos regulatorios ambientales en décadas.
- La retirada paraliza cinco nuevos parques nacionales y procesos de clasificación de especies amenazadas, borrando de un trazo años de trabajo científico que debía orientar las prioridades de política pública.
- Investigadores de ecosistemas, clima y conservación —habitualmente cautelosos ante el debate público— escalaron su protesta al publicar en Science, señalando que Chile alberga territorios irreemplazables cuya desprotección tiene consecuencias globales.
- Solo cuatro de los 43 decretos han sido reingresados a tramitación, lo que mantiene viva la alarma sobre el alcance real del retroceso y la fragilidad de los ecosistemas costeros, altiplánicos y subantárticos ante industrias extractivas.
- La carta marca un punto de inflexión en la academia chilena: los científicos ya no confían en que el debate permanezca en canales domésticos y están dispuestos a que su posición resuene en los foros científicos internacionales.
A fines de mayo, un grupo de investigadores chilenos publicó en la revista Science una carta titulada "Chile's environmental policy at risk", escalando a escena global su oposición a la decisión del gobierno de retirar 43 decretos y procesos regulatorios ambientales. Entre los firmantes figuran Juan G. Navedo, Hugo Benítez, Luis Vargas-Chacoff —del Instituto Milenio BASE— y la microbióloga Cristina Dorador, voces que normalmente operan dentro de los cauces académicos nacionales.
Los decretos retirados no eran instrumentos menores: regulaban calidad del aire, emisiones industriales, adaptación climática y la protección de especies clasificadas como amenazadas según criterios de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. Muchos habían pasado años en revisión técnica antes de ser retirados por la vía de la Contraloría. Solo cuatro han sido reingresados a tramitación. Entre las consecuencias más concretas: la paralización de cinco nuevos parques nacionales y de procesos de clasificación de especies cuyo trabajo preparatorio había demandado años.
El argumento central de la carta apunta a la singularidad ecológica de Chile. El país alberga ecosistemas que no existen en ningún otro lugar —el desierto de Atacama, salares de altura, archipiélagos oceánicos, zonas subantárticas y antárticas—, territorios bajo creciente presión extractiva. Debilitar la regulación ambiental en estos espacios, sostienen los científicos, no es una decisión de política interna: es una elección con implicancias directas para la biodiversidad y la estabilidad climática global.
La publicación en Science refleja un cambio de actitud en la academia chilena. Investigadores que históricamente evitaban el debate público han comenzado a intervenir de forma más directa cuando perciben que decisiones críticas amenazan el futuro ambiental del país. Elegir un foro internacional en lugar de uno local fue, en sí mismo, un mensaje: la conversación sobre los ecosistemas chilenos ya no puede —ni debe— quedar confinada a Santiago.
In late May, a group of Chilean scientists took their objection to the government's environmental rollback to one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. The letter, published in Science magazine under the title "Chile's environmental policy at risk," represented an escalation in the campaign against President José Antonio Kast's decision to withdraw 43 environmental decrees and regulatory processes that had been in place for years.
The move marked something unusual in Chilean academic circles. Researchers who study conservation, climate change, and southern ecosystems—including Juan G. Navedo, Hugo Benítez, Luis Vargas-Chacoff from the Millennium Institute BASE, and microbiologist Cristina Dorador—had chosen to air their concerns on a global stage rather than confine the debate to domestic channels. Their message was direct: the withdrawal represented a substantial step backward for conservation, biodiversity protection, and climate governance in Chile, with consequences that would ripple far beyond the country's borders.
The decrees under review touched on critical environmental infrastructure. They governed air quality standards, industrial emissions, climate adaptation measures, and the protection of species classified as threatened under criteria established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Four of the 43 have since been resubmitted for processing, but the broader signal troubled the scientific community. These were not hastily drafted regulations. Many had spent years moving through technical review before the executive branch withdrew them through the comptroller's office.
What made the scientists' intervention particularly pointed was their focus on Chile's ecological significance. The country contains ecosystems that exist nowhere else on Earth—the Atacama Desert in the north, high-altitude salt flats, ocean archipelagos, and subantarctic and Antarctic zones in the south. Coastal ecosystems face mounting pressure from extractive industries. Weakening environmental regulation in these territories, the letter argued, was not merely a domestic policy question. It was a decision with global implications for biodiversity and climate stability.
Among the most concrete concerns was the fate of five new national parks and species classification processes that had been halted by the decree withdrawals. These conservation instruments had been identified as fundamental to guiding public policy priorities. Their suspension meant that years of technical groundwork—the careful scientific assessment that precedes protection decisions—had been set aside.
The publication in Science reflected a broader shift in how Chilean researchers were approaching environmental policy. Traditionally cautious about entering public debate, scientists working in biodiversity, conservation, and climate change had begun to intervene more directly when they believed decisions threatened the country's environmental future. Publishing in a global journal rather than a local outlet suggested they were no longer content to let the conversation remain domestic.
The government's defenders might argue that environmental regulation needed recalibration. But from the scientific perspective, the timing could not have been worse. The world was in the midst of accelerating biodiversity loss and deepening climate crisis. Rolling back environmental governance in a country with irreplaceable ecosystems seemed, to those who study such things, like stepping backward at precisely the moment the world needed to move forward. Whether the letter would shift political calculations remained to be seen, but it signaled that Chile's scientific community was prepared to make its position heard internationally.
Citações Notáveis
The withdrawal represents a substantial step backward for conservation, biodiversity protection, and climate governance in Chile, with consequences beyond the country's borders.— Chilean scientists in Science magazine letter
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did these scientists choose to publish in Science rather than, say, a Chilean journal or a regional publication?
Because they needed to be heard beyond the government's reach. A letter in a local outlet gets ignored or dismissed as partisan. Science is read by policymakers, funders, and scientists everywhere. It's a way of saying: this matters globally, not just to us.
But doesn't that risk making it look like they're appealing to foreign pressure rather than engaging domestically?
Perhaps. But they'd already been engaging domestically for two months. The decrees were being withdrawn anyway. At some point, you escalate or you accept defeat.
What's the actual harm if these 43 decrees are gone? Can't new ones be written?
Some can be rewritten, sure. But these weren't new ideas. They'd been through years of technical review. You're not just losing a regulation—you're losing institutional memory, scientific consensus, and the signal that environmental protection matters. And in the meantime, five national parks don't get created. Species don't get protected.
The letter mentions that Chile has irreplaceable ecosystems. What makes them irreplaceable?
They're unique. The Atacama has species found nowhere else. The Antarctic territories are globally significant for climate research. You can't recreate those. If you degrade them, they're gone.
Do you think the government will respond to international pressure?
Honestly, probably not directly. But it changes the conversation. It makes it harder to dismiss as a local dispute. It attracts attention from international investors, conservation organizations, and other governments. That creates friction.