Keywords

1 Introduction

Contemporary spatial research has extended earlier considerations of peripheralization to focus on process, in addition to place. In this way, peripheralization entails processes that lead to structural marginalization, leading to social marginality and poverty, political dependency or exclusion, and economic polarization, among other outcomes (Bachmann-Vargas and van Koppen 2020; Kühn 2015; Kühn et al. 2017). Southern Patagonia can be considered a peripheral space in relation to the central, capital areas of the countries in which it is situated: Chile (CL) and Argentina (AR). In turn, CL and AR are peripheries with respect to the global North. Moreover, in a dual sense, southern Patagonia is a space of frontiers. First, there are political borders. These borders were interjurisdictional during the colonial period and inter-state since formal agreements were established between AR and CL at the beginning of the nineteenth century (Porto and Schweitzer 2018). Second, since the mid-eighteenth century, the interfaces between capitalism and nature have created new commodity chains and evolved others, which has reconfigured and adapted the natural domains, shifting the lines between mountains and plateaus, forests and steppe, icefields, and oceans. Through social processes of the production of space, a commodification of nature has unfolded in this sector of Patagonia, giving way to commodity frontiers that have expanded (Moore 2020), as capitalism has spread across the interior of Patagonia, from the coasts. Both of these cases represent political frontiers because they alter pre-existing power relations and generate unequal geographic development (Smith 2020).

French Marxist theorist Henri Lefebvre (1901–1991) argued that humans are inherently social, and as such, they produce their lives and their world through social processes (Lefebvre 2013). Lefebvre (2013) viewed space as a product of this social production, involving the interrelations between living beings, activities, concepts, undertakings, and discourses; an interrelation of all that is produced by nature or society. Humans produce their spaces through a rational mobilization of resources and tools, and a series of actions that are organized around specific objectives and logics. Their decisions and processes are based on social relations and use values; thus, rather than being a thing or container, space is relational, meaning that it is socially made and remade over time (Lefebvre 2013; Massey 1999). As such, it has both physical and conceptual frontiers, or boundaries, which are established, overlap, and superimposed with other social spaces (Fuchs 2019).

The delimitation of borders is a technique used in the social production of space; thus, it is necessary to study both the characteristics of borders as containers and also the configurations of the spaces they contain (Foucher 1991). Processes of borderization and cross-borderization alternate in the construction of borders, both in political-administrative terms and in terms of the expansion of commodification. In these processes, and in the context of border demarcation and definitions, government scales (e.g., municipal, provincial, regional, and national) foster the configuration and deployment of circuits, which respond to an economic and productive logic. These processes of borderization and cross-borderization affect the frontiers of nature commodification. For example, the accumulation circuits that historically developed in the southern Patagonia area around ranching and wool exports depended on fluid interactions between agents operating on both sides of the international boundary, including a movement of animals from one coast to the other. These cross-borderization processes facilitated rapid expansion of commodification frontiers (Pereira Carneiro 2016; Schweitzer 1998). Later, during the 1980s, when AR and CL underwent a period of geopolitical conflict, strict borderization processes were employed, closing what had historically been termed a sheep frontier and constraining related capitalist activity. When the conflict ended and integration processes regained momentum, processes of borderization relaxed somewhat (Foucher 1991).

In the production of space, a number of agents employ different strategies to compete for the control of space, each proposing territorial alternatives that are built upon distinct values and meanings. Territorial configurations end up being the result and reflection of these processes and power disputes. The advance of the commodification frontier is achieved through the provision of natural production conditions (Castree 1995; O’Connor 2001): landscapes and access to water or land, general conditions and infrastructure related to access (e.g., roads, trails, and ferries), energy, communications, equipment, and services (usually public). Despite fundamental differences in the values and meanings associated with agent preferences for these production circuits, the production conditions required for these competing activities often overlap, causing tensions to rise.

In many cases, to achieve the production conditions required for particular social productions of space, fundamental changes are provoked within the territory that can affect the conditions required for the reproduction of life (Torres et al. 2014), defined here as, “the process by which a society [or organism] reproduces itself from one generation to another and also within generations” (Burton 2014, p.1). When the social production of space impinges on the social, physical, and/or biological conditions required for the reproduction of life, disputes can arise. Common examples include disputes among productive sector agents and disputes between the productive sector and social sector agents (Barbosa e Souza and Chaveiro 2019; Valenzuela et al. 2021).

The study of processes of the social production of space can be carried out from a range of approaches including conventional economic, geographic, and environmental science approaches, and political ecology and critical geography approaches. These disciplines provide a range of perspectives and interpretations along a theoretical-ideological gradient of environmental issues and the conception of nature. In geographical terms, this research was developed under the assumption that space is relational, meaning that it is socially made and remade over time (Lefebvre 2013; Massey 1999). From a broader perspective, political ecology theories suggest the importance of extending analysis of territorial agents and conditions beyond humans and social reproduction to include the conditions needed for the reproduction of all life (human and non-human beings) (Moore 2020). Thus, evaluating the prospects for different territorial development alternatives and strategies requires analysis of the various agents, conditions required for productive activities, and the conditions required for the reproduction of life (Gumuchian and Pecqueur 2007; Schweitzer 2004, 2008). Lajarge and Roux (2007) defined territorial building projects as being the strategies and actions of state actors, undertaken to produce a desired territorial configuration. In our research, we applied these concepts more broadly, positing that territorial building strategies are not uniquely driven by the state; rather, they can also be undertaken by a variety of actors including large corporations and landholders, or even as expressions of alternative visions proposed by social organizations (Schweitzer 2008).

In recent decades, social frontiers have advanced in southern Patagonia through nature-based tourism (NBT) processes in and around protected areas (PAs) based on commoditization processes and capitalist logic. These PAs, which are often publicly owned, facilitate NBT by providing several of the primary production conditions necessary for success (e.g., access, infrastructure, unique natural landscapes, and established support service systems like trail maintenance or search and rescue). The case study presented within this chapter sought to better understand the recent advances in nature commodification frontiers in southern Patagonia through a transboundary case study that examined the production of space and nature on both sides of the Andean Mountain Range. Our study area focused on the Huella de Glaciares (Trail of the Glaciers) NBT product, which is accessed in AR via El Chaltén and Provincial Route 41. In CL, the Huella de Glaciares is accessed via Villa O’Higgins and the southernmost regional extension from the Carretera Austral (Route 7). The Carretera Austral is included within the Route of the Parks of Patagonia (rutadelosparques.org), a conceptual circuit connecting 17 national parks and 60 communities between Puerto Montt and Cape Horn in Chilean Patagonia. Our intrinsic case study approach identified the main agents involved in these processes and explored the similarities and differences in their strategies of appropriation and capitalization of space. Our work employed critical approaches to understanding the social production of space. We understand NBT, real estate development, private protected areas, and other forms of conservation-based development (CBD) as operating through a capitalist logic. Thus, our work assumes these logics require constant expansion and advance of capital to maintain their rates of profit and empower their reproduction.

2 Literature Review

During the twenty-first century, a number of studies have explored the dynamics surrounding nature exploitation, tourism, and conservation in this area of Argentine and Chilean Patagonia (Blair et al. 2019; Borrie et al. 2020; Gale et al. 2013; Grenier 2003; Núñez et al. 2014, 2018; Pérez 2019; Picone 2020; Picone et al. 2020; Ponzi 2022; Schweitzer 2020). French author Grenier (2003) offered early advances in the social production of space research, observing neoliberal globalization dynamics in Chilean Patagonian over the course of 30 years that were advancing hand in hand with the exploitation of untouched, peripheral, isolated nature. His book featured chapters dedicated to tourism, real estate speculation, and land grabbing for conservation purposes, providing an important background to the issues addressed in our chapter. A number of more contemporary works continue to enrich our understanding of social production of space in these areas in CL. Gale et al. (2013) examined NBT visitor perceptions of authenticity and change in several of the rural southern Patagonia spaces within our study area, including Villa O’Higgins (CL) and El Chaltén (AR). Their research with international travelers indicated that communities who maintained their traditional identity instead of developing a tourist-oriented culture were perceived as being less “welcoming.” Núñez et al. (2014) analyzed discourses of development linked to conservation, finding that CBD discourse has resulted in a new form of territorial colonization. Núñez et al. (2018) examined touristification in the Aysén region of Chilean Patagonia, focusing on the Carretera Austral and green businesses. Blair et al. (2019) examined nature-based tourism and local perceptions of changes in rural spaces around CL’s Cerro Castillo National Park, identifying deep-rooted skepticism, resentment, and distrust toward central policy shifts that promoted conservation-based development. Borrie et al. (2020) examined the dynamics and tensions associated with the advance of private PAs in Chilean Patagonia, calling for integrated governance between PAs and local communities based on “transparency, fair and legal adjudication, establishment of collaborative platforms, cross-jurisdictional coordination, and peer enforcement” (p.13).

Important contributions have also been made from an Argentine perspective within the study area, including Pérez’s (2019) research on transboundary border inhabitation within Villa O’Higgins (CL) and El Chaltén (AR), which identified renewed locally driven practices of exchange, circulation, and economic transformation centered on tourism despite ongoing national level geopolitical conflicts in the area. Schweitzer’s (2020) study of Argentine conservation strategies and practices within the Santa Cruz Province identified tensions around the production of space that threatened local well-being. Picone et al. (2020) identified a shifting social construction of Los Glaciares National Park that has resulted from the gradual incorporation of green economic strategies. Picone et al. (2022) further analyzed this shift, identifying land access/scarcity and land appropriation processes around the northern limits of Los Glaciares National Park as critical dimensions affecting the quality of life for residents of El Chaltén (AR). Lastly, Ponzi’s (2022) article on convergent ideas of nature in two Argentine national parks (Los Glaciares and Perito Moreno) identified a convergence of imaginaries and an intensification of commercialization processes of nature through tourism promotion.

The originality of our approach lies in consideration of the processes occurring on both sides of the mountain range, including the agents involved, the ways in which they secure and deploy production conditions in their promotion of cross-border NBT circuits, and the relationship between these agents, their actions, and processes of expansion of the frontiers of commodification associated with the production of nature (Castree 1995; O’Connor 2001). Thus, drawing on the existing theory and research presented in the previous sections, we aim to contribute to the collective understanding of the dynamics of frontierization, in its many forms, and the ways in which the commodification of nature can advance over interstate borders through NBT.

3 Methods

3.1 The Study Area

Southern Patagonia is marked by a cold climate, glacier masses, and, especially in Chile, a rugged geography that is difficult to access. The Chilean government considers this portion of its territory as an extreme zone, a designation based on low levels of connectivity and population which lead to underdevelopment and relative isolation as compared with the urban centers of the nation’s central zone (Gale et al. 2013). For more than two and a half centuries, the lower links of the first global textile accumulation circuit have been deployed in the southern Patagonia region, originating with the commercialization of oil, fats, and skins obtained from the hunting of whales and other marine mammals. This circuit became more complex in 1875, when it evolved to focus its accumulation process on the production and export of wool. It secured the necessary production conditions through the introduction of sheep from the Falkland Islands and the labor of migrant workers and Indigenous peoples who were proletarianized through forced acculturation (Barbería 1995; Bascopé 2018; Coronato 2017). With the implementation of the meat packing plants at the beginning of the twentieth century, this circuit evolved again to accommodate a new international export of lamb meat. Similar circuits evolved on the Chilean side of the frontier during this period. Other accumulation circuits in southern Patagonia included Argentine energy-related circuits that began to evolve in 1907 with the discovery of hydrocarbons in Comodoro Rivadavia and—later—coal exploitation in Río Turbio beginning in the 1940s.

More recent accumulation circuits in Patagonia (AR, CL) have focused on metalliferous mining and aquaculture. Similarly, during the last two decades of the twentieth century, another type of accumulation circuit has begun to emerge that involves the exploitation of nature through CBD. Many CBD circuits have been implemented within the same spaces used for older production circuits, particularly in the mountain areas of the Santa Cruz Province (AR) and two Chilean regions: Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (Aysén) and Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica Region (Magallanes). NBT accumulation circuits are one of the main ways in which CBD manifests. The attractiveness of this area is based on spectacular mountain, lake, glacier, and forest environments, like Mount Fitz Roy, Viedma Lake, Glacier, O’Higgins/San Martin Bi-national Lake, and the eastern reaches of the Southern Patagonia Icefields. Moreover, these landscapes show little evidence of the visual transformations caused by the deployment of previous circuits, so the NBT sector has been able to frame marketing narratives around an imaginary of pristine nature. As a result of improved transportation and communication access, southern Patagonia began to be incorporated within global CBD circuits during the latter decades of the twentieth century and has gained strength during the first few decades of the twenty-first century.

Our study focused on the mountainous areas of Capitán Prat Province of Chile’s Aysén Region and the department of Lago Argentino in the Santa Cruz Province of AR. Even within the context of low population density and isolation that has characterized southern Patagonia, this sector was considered extreme. Population centers were few and far between. There are four within the study area: El Calafate (AR), El Chaltén (AR), Tres Lagos (AR), and Villa O’Higgins (CL). At the time of this study, the Lago Argentino department was estimated to have a population density of around 0.5 persons per square kilometer, with the majority concentrated in the town of El Calafate. The population density of the Capitan Prat Province (CL) was estimated at 0.3 persons per square kilometer. Thus, NBT infrastructure and services (e.g., lodging, food services, transportation services, and fuel) were limited and geographically dispersed. Visitors who arrived by plane normally accessed the area through airports in either El Calafate (AR; population 23,065) or Balmaceda (CL; population 550) near the regional capital of Coyhaique (CL; population 57,818). After spending a few nights within these cities, visitors normally circulated the territory via overland tours, visiting natural attractions and PAs, and lodging in private lodges or smaller towns.

On the Argentine side, the Huella de Glaciares NBT product involved two natural PAs: Los Glaciares National Park and Lago del Desierto Provincial Reserve. Los Glaciares National Park encompasses approximately 7269.27 km2 (Argentine Administration of National Parks 2019). Its natural characteristics include a representative sample of the Patagonian Forest ecoregion composed mainly of the Magellanic Forest subunit, and to a lesser extent, the Patagonian Steppe subunit (Argentine Administration of National Parks 1997). To the north, following the De las Vueltas River valley, lies another natural PA, Lago del Desierto Provincial Reserve, which is under provincial jurisdiction (Honorable Chamber of Deputies of the Province of Santa Cruz of Argentina 2005). In addition to conservation, the Lago del Desierto Provincial Reserve permits cattle ranching, tourism, and vacation home development projects (Picone 2020). Almost all of the Argentine surface area of the Southern Patagonian Ice Field is contained within these two PAs.

These two PAs form a biological corridor for several animal species including the endangered huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) and torrent duck (Merganetta armata). The huemul is particularly threatened and has been classified as in danger of extinction by the Red Book of Threatened Mammals of Argentina (Argentine Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of the Nation and the Argentine Society for the Study of Mammals 2019), and the Red Book of Terrestrial Vertebrates of CL (Glade Carreño 1993). The huemul was also included in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (2015) and in the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) (2015), as it is a species shared between two countries and regularly moves between their boundaries.

On the Chilean side, the Huella de Glaciares NBT traversed fiscal lands along the buffer area of Bernardo O’Higgins National Park, which are considered to be part of the Chilean Border Zone. The Park has an estimated surface area of 35,259.01 km2 distributed between the Última Esperanza Province in the Magallanes Region and the Capitán Prat Province in the Aysén Region (Rosenfeld and Sekulovic Ltda 2000). This PA conserves forest environments, part of the steppe, a diverse hydrological system (i.e., canals, fjords, islands, lakes, rivers), and is home to most of the Southern Patagonian Ice Field (Fig. 7.1). In addition to being the world’s third largest reserve of fresh water in solid form, the glaciers of the Southern Patagonian Ice Field hold valuable information regarding climate and past glacial and interglacial periods. CL and AR are the South American countries with 90% of the continent’s glaciers, so their study, monitoring, and conservation represent a strategic issue in terms of climate change for the continent (Argentine Institute of Nivology, Glaciology and Environmental Sciences 2010).

Fig. 7.1
2 maps highlight a part of Chile and Argentina. They feature circuit stages, national and provincial protected area, natural forest reserve, private protected area, international border, province or department, trail of the glaciers, route, population centers, water course, lake or lagoon, and glacier.

Binational Study Area, including the natural protected areas, population centers, and Huella de Glaciares nature-based tourism circuit

Full size image

Historically, this area has been the subject of border disputes between AR and CL. Patagonia was incorporated into the Chilean and Argentine national spaces after the colonial era. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, the border was drawn as an east-west strip, inhabited and crossed by colonial armies, Creole settlers, and Indigenous peoples. In the 1856 Tratado de Paz, Amistad, Comercio y Navegación entre la República de Chile y la Confederación Argentina (Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Republic of CL and the Argentine Confederation), both countries agreed to promote free movement in this zone until the delimitation of the borders inherited from the colonial administration was resolved (Porto and Schweitzer 2018).

This treaty enacted border limits, affecting the flow of people and goods throughout Patagonia. It was implemented in a concrete manner in most passes along the border, with the exception of the study area, in the areas south of Buenos Aires/General Carrera Binational Lake and north of Punta Arenas – Puerto Natales, which were very peripheral, isolated, and unknown, at the time. The Llanquihue Province (CL) created in 1861 and the Santa Cruz National Territory (AR) in 1884 were the first national territorial administrations in the study area. Thus, for the following decades, this zone was barely affected by the arrival and presence of the State, including the new border limits and procedures. For example, unlike other Patagonian areas to the north and south, it was not the scene of the genocidal campaigns and territorial dispossession undertaken by the Chilean and Argentine states against the Mapuche and Tehuelche peoples. The religious missions that had been installed in other areas of Patagonia were also absent.

In the 1881 Limits Treaty and those that followed (i.e., Protocol of 1893, Act of 1898), until final limits were established in 1902, both AR and CL affirmed their sovereignty over Patagonia and agreed on the peaceful definition of the border: both considered the Andes Mountains as the western boundary but disputed sovereignty over the Strait of Magellan and the Beagle Channel Islands. Since the establishment of formal limits in 1902, different legal and cartographic interpretations have led to the continued dispute, marked by periodic protocols and addendums (e.g., 1941, 1991, 1996; De la Rosa 1998).

Conservation has played an important role in this nation-building process on both sides of the international border; often used as a geopolitical tactic to consolidate national sovereignty (Picone 2020). For example, in the Argentine portion of southern Patagonia, the Perito Moreno y Los Glaciares national parks were established in 1937. At this time, they grandfathered in existing estancias using a special permit, which allowed the parks to assume ownership and the estancias to manage and graze the lands, albeit with restrictions. Over time, these restrictions have increased as Argentina has moved to a stricter conservation mandate. Beginning in the 1990s, estancias were encouraged to convert into tourism providers as a tactic to align use and conservation (Picone 2020). In Chile, the Jeinimeni and Lago Cochrane (Tamango) national reserves were established in southern Patagonia in 1967, followed closely by the Bernardo O’Higgins National Park in 1969. The use of the national reserve figure in Chile allowed for greater use diversity within Jeinimeni and Cochrane, including timber harvesting and even some mining endeavors, while Bernardo O’Higgins was established under the stricter norms of national park.

The establishment of national parks in the borderlands of southern Patagonia ensured territorial sovereignty over partially unexplored spaces, as is the case of the area under study. For example, the mountain range area between the Fitz Roy and Daudet peaks was poorly defined in 1898 by the Boundary Commission. Throughout the decades, both Argentina and Chile produced maps with profound differences in their delimitation; thus, the conflict over this area increased. For example, towards the end of the 1970s, border tensions with CL flared after a presentation by the Argentine government to UNESCO. In 1979, UNESCO invited the Argentine embassy to submit natural or cultural properties of outstanding universal value for inclusion in the World Heritage of Humanity list. For these purposes, UNESCO requested information about grazing and tourism controls within the national reserve that would ensure the area would always maintain its natural state (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 1980). Chile formally protested UNESCO’s consideration of the inclusion of Los Glaciares National Park (AR) within the World Heritage of Humanity list, complaining that the area of the park remained under international dispute. Nevertheless, it was included in 1981.

In 1984, CL and AR signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, and in 1985, they established the Binational Commission for Cooperation and Physical Integration. In 1991, Economic Cooperation Agreement N° 16 was established, and later that same year the two countries signed an Environmental Treaty accompanied by a Specific Additional Protocol on Shared Water Resources. This laid the foundations for the creation of an Argentine-Chilean Water Resources Technical Group, formally constituted in Buenos Aires in December 1996 (Schweitzer 2000). In 1997, the two countries took another step forward in the integration process, signing the Treaty on Mining Integration and Cooperation, and the Cooperation Protocol. This treaty determined a strip along the binational border for mining activity, suspending restrictions in both countries regarding property access, mining rights, and the exercise of the activity. Although this treaty remains in force, it has not had repercussions to date within the study area (Schweitzer 2019).

In the context of the successive agreements that had been reached between President Carlos Menem (AR) and presidents Patricio Aylwin and Eduardo Frei (CL) in the 1990s, a solution to the border controversy was sought. In 1991, a 19-point polygon was proposed but not accepted by their respective Congresses (De la Rosa 1998). Consequently, in 1994, the matter was taken up by an international arbitration tribunal whose decision defined the current boundaries in place between the two countries. The tribunal ruled in favor of AR, granting it more than 532 km2 in and around Lago del Desierto Lake. In 1996, an additional protocol established that, even though the area remained in dispute, the existence of adjacent PAs required an integrated and coordinated management between the two countries (De la Rosa 1998). In 1998, an agreement was signed establishing the current limits in the area of the Southern Patagonia Ice Field by largely respecting the topographic line determined at the end of the nineteenth century. However, the preparation of the agreed upon 1:50,000 map, which was to be drawn up by a Joint Commission for the Demarcation of Limits, was never completed; thus, tensions remain. For example, after the presentation of the 2018 Argentine National Glacier Inventory, CL again denounced that AR had projected its mapping of the AR portion of the Continental Ice Zone between the Santa Cruz Province (AR) and the Magallanes Region (CL), over territory that CL considered its own.

Today, both countries have specific legislation and restrictions within their border areas. For example, the Border Zones in CL, including zones within the Capitán Prat province, are controlled by the Chilean National Directorate of Borders and Boundaries (DIFROL) under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which must authorize the foreign land purchase and any type of assignment, concession, or contract related to land access (Chilean National Directorate of Borders and Boundaries 2022). The Argentine Directorate of Limits and Borders, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Traditions, functions in a similar manner. Additionally, these two directorates coordinate the operations of a binational integration committee for the southern Patagonia region, which is responsible for the binational management of border areas and crossings. This committee is based on the model created within the framework of the Treaty of the La Plata Basin that was later adopted as a model organization for the integration processes of South America.

Conservation initiatives in this sector of southern Patagonia continue to grow and evolve. For example, in 2014, Patagonia National Park (AR) was established to the north of Perito Moreno National Park in AR, at the same latitude as Jeinimeni National Reserve in CL (Ponzi 2020). A few years later (2018), the Jeinimeni and Lago Cochrane National Reserves (CL) were joined with the donated lands of the Patagonia Private Park in the Chacabuco valley to form Patagonia National Park (CL). This expansive (and growing) network of State PAs within CL and AR is complemented by provincial PAs in AR, Chilean conservation zones, and PPAs on both sides of the border (Argentine Information System for Biodiversity and Argentine Administration of National Parks 2022; Chilean National Forestry Corporation 2019).

The Huella de Glaciares NBT product involves several border crossings, both as part of the core product and more generally in terms of its access routes. From north to south these include: a) the Río Mayer crossing which provides access between Villa O’Higgins (CL), Perito Moreno National Park, and Tucu Tucu Provincial Reserve (AR); b) the Río Mosco crossing which connects Villa O’Higgins (CL) with El Chaltén (AR) via the Cocoví Pass; c) the frontier area between Lago del Desierto (AR) and Candelario Mancilla (CL); and d) San Martín (AR) – O’Higgins (CL) binational lake and the Marconi control, located south of El Chaltén between San Martín Lake (AR) and Bernardo O’Higgins National Park (CL) (Fig. 7.2). Circulation through these crossings is constrained by the limits of the geography, infrastructure, and operations, and limited to pedestrian, bicycle, or maritime passage via lake crossings. Travel is further constrained by sporadic operations, which must be arranged in advance with the appropriate authorities, local agents, and attributions of the committee and the directions of each country.

Fig. 7.2
A photo of a banner in a standee displays a map of Huella de Glaciers.

Banner displayed at the bus terminal in El Chaltén

Full size image

3.2 The Huella de Glaciares Project

The Huella de Glaciares is a cross-border NBT product that has been created by tourism actors and government agents within CL and AR over the past decade. For most of its route, the Huella de Glaciares product uses existing trails and navigations (Fig. 7.1). In AR, it extends from the town of El Chaltén, which is located within the northern zone of Los Glaciares National Park, through privately protected lands, the Lago Del Desierto Provincial Reserve, and Los Glaciares National Park. In CL, the trail begins in Villa O’Higgins, crossing Chilean waters within the binational lake (O’Higgins Lake, CL/San Martin Lake, AR) to Candelario Mancilla, where the trail winds along the fiscal lands that border the edge of the Southern Patagonia Ice Field and Bernardo O’Higgins National Park (Fig. 7.1). The Huella de Glaciares initiative proposal seeks to strengthen the cross-border NBT circuit between Chile and Argentina, in the southern reaches of the Andes Mountains, as projected in successive sustainable tourism plans in both Argentina (Argentine National Touristry Ministry 2005, 2011, 2015) and Chile (Chilean Subsecretary of Tourism 2017). In AR, it has mainly been driven by the Santa Cruz Province through the Provincial Secretary of Tourism, with the support of the Ministry of Tourism of the Nation and backing of the El Chaltén Chamber of Commerce and the Tourism Secretary of the El Chaltén Municipality. In Chile, the project has been driven by the Villa O’Higgins Chamber of Tourism and representatives of the Villa O’Higgins Municipality, along with the Corporation of Los Glaciares Tourism Interest Zone (ZOIT), which is supported by the regional branch of the National Tourism Service (Sernatur), and the National Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism. Since 2019, the Huella de Glaciares cross-border NBT product has been promoted at international tourism fairs, which has further advanced the tourism frontier.

The Huella de Glaciares circuit extends more than 120 km through forested mountain landscapes where participants can see and enjoy more than 10 of the area’s glaciers. Developers propose that the circuit be hiked in seven stages with an estimated time of seven nights and 8 days. If hiking the route from AR, the first two stages employ two trails within Los Glaciares National Park that are extremely busy during the summer high season: Laguna Torre and Fitz Roy. The third stage follows the Fitz Roy trail, beginning from the Poincenot camp (National Park) and ending at the Piedra del Fraile refuge (Natural Wildlife Reserve), which is accessed via the Piedras Blancas trail adjacent to the El Pilar lodge (private). The fourth stage connects the Piedra del Fraile refuge to the Cóndor Lagoon (private in Provincial Reserve), passing through Route 41 (Provincial Reserve). The fifth stage occurs in the Provincial reserve, following the Huemul trail from the Cóndor Lagoon to the southern end of Lago del Desierto and the Huemul trail (private in the Provincial Reserve). The sixth stage crosses Lago del Desierto by boat ending on the northern shore of the lake, which is also in the Lago del Desierto Provincial Reserve. The seventh stage begins with the border crossing into Chile, near the northern shore of Lago del Desierto in AR passing through milestone 62 to the Candelario Mancilla border post on the shores of O’Higgins Lake (CL). Finally, the eighth stage involves a boat trip across O’Higgins Lake from Candelario Mancilla to the pier at Puerto Bahamondes, and a seven-kilometer hike (or transfer) from the port to Villa O’Higgins. The hike can also be experienced beginning in Villa O’Higgins (CL) and doing the stages in reverse order, ending in El Chaltén (AR). Either way, the daily hikes range between nine and 15 km, with overnight stays in wild campsites or private inns (Figs. 7.1 and 7.2).

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

This chapter presents an intrinsic cross-border case study, which has employed a qualitative approach. We focus on the recent advances in the frontiers of nature commodification in southern Patagonia through a transboundary analysis of the production of space and nature on both sides of the Andean Mountain Range. We did not choose this case because it was representative of a larger phenomenon, nor because it illustrates a particular issue; rather, it was chosen because we were particularly interested in this case and wanted to understand its “particularities and ordinariness” (Stake 2003, p.136). Data production techniques included field visits, participant observation, documentary analysis, and semi-structured interviews. With respect to field visits, one of the researchers observed and kept field diaries as part of a participatory action research process in and around El Chaltén (AR) and conducted a field trip of Lago del Desierto from south to north (AR). Participant observation occurred during the public hearing for the PR41 paving project (AR), the presentation of Huella de Glaciares NBT project at the Hotel Chaltén Suites in September 2019 (AR), and the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Study of the El Chaltén-Lago del Desierto section of Scenic Route No. 41 (AR). Documentary analysis expanded the dataset to include consideration of dynamics occurring in AR and CL. Analysis included regional tourism agency websites, local newspapers, official organizations, land-use plans, management plans of the PAs involved in the case, and environmental impact studies of recent development projects in both CL and AR. Finally, semistructured interviews were conducted with personnel of the Argentine Administration of National Parks and the Chilean National Forestry Corporation between 2019 and 2022.

4 Results and Discussion

This case sought to understand evidence of an advance of the frontiers of commodification and capitalization in southern Patagonia, based on the different strategies and multiple articulations expressed between agents. The complexity of these advances increased due to the binational character of the study area and the relatively recent occupation and territorial organization of these spaces, which required contact and interaction with different territorial administration systems across several scales.

Results and discussion are organized in three sections. First, we present an analysis of the similarities and differences that arose with respect to territorial planning, political-administrative functions, and PA management on each side of the international border. Second, we describe the Huella de Glaciares project, identifying the agents involved, their relationships, and their strategies and/or interests. Finally, we describe transit-related advances taking place in the study area to enable and promote one of the core production conditions necessary for the Huella de Glaciares NBT circuit and other forms of CBD advancement. Discussion focuses on our interpretation of the production conditions that facilitate the advance of the commodification frontier and the tensions this generates with local inhabitant conditions for the reproduction of life.

4.1 Territorial Organization and Natural Protected Areas

At the binational political level, we observed there to be profound differences between CL and AR, with respect to territorial organization and planning. As a unitary republic, CL maintained a centralized system of government with little regional autonomy. AR, on the other hand, has a federal republic system, in which the provinces are autonomous states with broad powers over land management and natural resources. National government decisions in AR are limited to the powers that have not been ceded to the provinces, like defense, economic policy, and some education and health agreements. Specific to this case, Santa Cruz acquired provincial autonomy in 1957 (Fig. 7.3).

Fig. 7.3
A block diagram portrays the territorial organization of Argentina and Chile. It has rows for national scale, regional scale, sub regional scale, and local scale. It features political administrative institutions and protected area administrative institutions.

Territorial organization within the study area

Full size image

In the Chilean territorial system, the political-administrative functions of regional, provincial, and municipal governments were extended within combined urban/rural territories. In contrast, with Santa Cruz (AR), municipal political-administrative institutions’ representation was limited to specific urban areas (e.g., the urban limits of El Chaltén). Thus, more than 90% of the Argentine territory was not covered by any local-scale authority, and therefore dependent on decisions made within the provincial capital (Fig. 7.3). This dynamic manifested within our data in several ways, contributing to interference and crossover between national, provincial, and municipal governments on the Argentine side of the case study. Although the Chilean provinces had less autonomy, their local area land-use plans and PA management plans seemed to carry greater weight.

For example, in CL, the Huella de Glaciares NBT product has been deployed within areas with defined guidance from political-administrative institutions within the Capitán Prat Province and the Villa O’Higgins Municipality. In AR, the Lago Argentino Department did not have any political-administrative functions and the El Chaltén Municipality’s political-administrative functions were limited to the 1.35 km2 urban area of El Chaltén, which represents a very small proportion of the departmental territory. These asymmetries hinder possible advances in the definition of local policies.

Another difference between the two countries relates specifically to issues of ownership and jurisdiction of natural PAs. Chilean State PAs are owned as public lands, under the control of the Ministry of Public Lands. Currently, the administration of these areas is entrusted to the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) which reports to the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture. Two other ministries are directly involved in policy and decision making: the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of the Economy, Development, and Tourism. Yet, while the Ministry of the Environment is in charge of environmental policy, plans, and programs, they do not manage all aspects of the environment: the Environmental Evaluation Service administers environmental impact assessments for Chile, the Directorate General of Waters controls all freshwater related management issues, and the Superintendency of the Environment ensures policy and legislative compliance (Borrie et al. 2020). This complex situation was designed and implemented within the neoliberal framework instilled by the military government (1973–1990), with marginal change since return to democracy. In theory, successful environmental oversight is possible in Chile if effective coordination and collaboration are achieved within this bureaucracy (Latta and Aguayo 2012). In practice however, the complexity of Chile’s public/private environmental governance system has proven weak, and a number of accumulation circuits (e.g., NBT, salmon aquaculture, sphagnum moss extraction, mining) have successfully installed themselves within and around Chilean PAs (Segura 2022).

Since all public lands in Chile belong to the republic, they can be reconfigured as national PAs through national-level legislative approval rather than regional agreement. In contrast, Argentina’s government structure requires agreement to be reached between the federal and provincial governments before changes can be made to the constitution of national parks and/or reserves, requiring one or the other entities to cede jurisdiction and/or dominion. Furthermore, on the Argentine side, national PAs are managed by the Argentine Administration of National Parks (APN), which depends on the Argentine National Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. There is also a board of directors and a provincial directorate or intendancy that is in charge of the local administration of the PAs, and some Argentine provinces even have their own agencies in charge of PA management. For example, Santa Cruz has a provincial system administered by the Provincial Directorate of Protected Areas, under the Provincial Agrarian Council (Fig. 7.3). Both CL and AR permit private entities to develop private PPAs and associate in order to coordinate actions and channel common proposals through their respective political-administrative and PA administrative institutions.

Some of the jurisdictional and domain combinations we have described in the previous paragraphs can be found in the study area. For example, on the Chilean side, Bernardo O’Higgins National Park is divided between the Magallanes and Aysén Regions. In Aysén, the park lies within the southern part of the Capitán Prat Province, divided between the O’Higgins and Tortel municipalities. Other Chilean lands in the study area are protected as fiscal areas, Border Zones, or municipal parks. In AR, the northern sector of Los Glaciares National Park falls under federal authority, managed by the Lago Viedma Section of the Argentine Administration of National Parks. In contrast, the Piedra del Fraile Natural Wildlife Reserve falls under provincial jurisdiction, along with the Lago del Desierto and Tucu-Tucu Provincial Reserves, while three other PAs (Los Huemules, Laguna Cóndor, and Río Cóndor) are considered private nature reserves.

To date, a coordinated binational system of biodiversity governance has not been achieved for this complicated web of PAs and administrative institutions. In fact, only one coordinated binational governance initiative was detected in Patagonia, lying to the north of our study area. In the framework of the 15th Meeting of the CL-AR Environment sub-commission in 2017, the CL-AR Joint National Parks Specialized Committee was created. Its first meeting took place in 2019 to coordinate the management of Nahuel Huapi and Lanín National Parks in AR, and Puyehue and Vicente Pérez Rosales National Parks in CL. AR and CL have also defined some agreements for economic cooperation and cultural integration. For example, in 2009, the Maipú Treaty established regional working committees to resolve conflicts and establish agreements (Pérez 2019). In 2014, CL and AR signed a memorandum for tourism cooperation related to the Huella de Glaciares NBT project (Argentine National Touristry Ministry 2015). And, in 2018, a feasibility study was conducted south of Parallel 42° to evaluate the potential for CL-AR integration within the framework of a strategic plan for the coordinated development of the Patagonia territory (Argentine Ministry of the Interior 2018).

4.2 Huellas de Glaciares Nature-Based Tourism Project

Although the trail crosses two Argentine PAs, the public institutions in charge of their administration were included in the project in late August 2020. At that time, the Argentine National Park Administration and Provincial Agrarian Council authorities signed a cooperation agreement, ignoring the concerns of local representatives about the effects that the increased flow of visitors would have on the management of PAs in the area. As the Chilean side of the Huella de Glaciares crosses fiscal lands in the area of Candelaria Mancilla and does not officially enter Bernardo O’Higgins National Park, coordination has focused on the O’Higgins Municipality, tourism actors, and the Los Glaciares Tourism Interest Zone Corporation rather CONAF who is in charge of the park administration.

Until 2021, Argentine investments for this project were allocated under the 50 Destinations Program with funds from the Country Tax. Four construction projects have been planned for the AR portion of the Huella de Glaciares to be paid for through AR financing: trail signage, control posts, a waiting room with restrooms at the southern end of Lago del Desierto, and a cable crossing over the Eléctrico River. All of these represent infrastructure improvements that will facilitate production conditions for the intensification and advancement of the tourist frontier. On the Chilean side of the trail, project plans, developed within the Los Glaciares Zone of Tourism Interest action plan, concentrate on infrastructure improvements to accommodate tourism growth, including construction of a new airstrip, amplification of the port in Bahía Bahamonde, development of trails to connect the Huella de Glaciares with the O’Higgins Glacier in the Chico Lake sector, and the development of local tourism capacity within Bernardo O’Higgins National Park through the Marconi Pass route (Chilean Subsecretary of Tourism 2017). These four projects would provide tourists with additional activities and options on the Chilean side of the route while simultaneously advancing the tourism frontier by extending the Huella de Glaciares through new routes and usage within the national park.

Our analysis of the Argentine plans suggests that only the first two initiatives (trail signage and control posts) would contribute to improved visitor registration and management within the Lago del Desierto Provincial Reserve. The Reserve does not currently have any type of public infrastructure in its approximately 600 km2 of extension. Thus, signage might help to encourage visitors to remain along designated trails, thereby reducing off-trail impacts. The control posts would facilitate the addition of a park ranger or fauna ranger, which has not existed within the PA to date (there were only four people dedicated to the PA in 2022, working from offices in El Chaltén). While these two initiatives also represent infrastructure improvements to facilitate tourism frontier advancement, they could also be considered to advance conditions needed for the reproduction of life, as they could help ensure the control, supervision, and conservation of the PA. Nevertheless, we posit that the other two initiatives, a waiting room with restrooms at the southern end of Lago del Desierto, and a cable crossing over the Eléctrico River, would employ public tax funding to the benefit private tourism operators, essentially enabling tourism capital production conditions at the expense of public and/or conservation good.

There are other restroom services nearby, however, because they are currently concessioned to another tourism service provider under a grandfathered agreement related to a land donation expanding the Los Glaciares National Park, separate restroom facilities were petitioned (Picone 2020). Given the environmental impact of restroom facilities in sensitive environmental areas, it seems important to resolve the ongoing issues between tourism operators, concessionaires, and administrative institutions, rather than invest more public funds in duplicative infrastructure. Similarly, the cable crossing project would likely contribute to, and perhaps escalate, existing tensions between Huella de Glaciares actors, by proposing to connect the Los Huemules Private Reserve with the Piedra del Fraile Refuge that is located inside this area of contention.

Furthermore, our research suggested that these situations were linked with NBT accumulation circuits and the expansion of NBT frontiers through the Huella de Glaciares. In June 2019, a key informant from Los Glaciares National Park explained,

Those are the big problems I have: charging for access or not? If Parks do not charge for access, how is a private company able to charge for access within Park territory? It seems illogical to me, but well, that’s the approach they are taking, in exactly those terms. They do not make any kind of contribution to the Park. I cannot control anything they do because, in fact, I do not have jurisdiction so I cannot control a third party. In other words, I have someone inside my house, doing whatever he wants to do, according to the terms he once agreed to with someone who is no longer the owner. They gave me a little gift with strings attached (Key informant Los Glaciares National Park 16, 01/06/2019).

And seemingly, the expansion of NBT frontiers was intimately linked with other types of conservation-based accumulation circuits. For example, agents that were linked to the gift referred to in the prior quote (i.e., the donation of Ricanor Estancia to Los Glaciares National Park), were also connected with other forms of CBD, including NBT, real-estate development positioned around conservation, private PA development, and a foundation dedicated to bond issues for the purchase of forest lands in AR. Finally, the December 2020 inauguration of the Chilean-backed Explora Hotel Chain suggested a transfrontierization of these practices in the Los Huemules sector near the Piedra del Fraile Refuge on the north bank of the Eléctrico River.

The land ownership irregularities that were observed on the AR side of the circuit were not observed on the CL side of the circuit. Rather, popular press articles and press releases from the O’Higgins Municipality suggest that the Municipality and the Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urbanism are advancing a formal project to develop the Candelario Mancilla sector as a small town adjacent to the Dos Lagunas border control, to provide services to the more than 2000 tourists that make the crossing along the Huella de Glaciares each year (Municipality of O’Higgins 2016; Tehuelche Noticias 2022). These sources report that the funding to develop the project in Candelario Mancilla has been secured through Chile’s national Lugares que Crecen (Places that Grow) program, administered through the Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urbanism. According to the Chilean Subsecretary of Tourism (2017), the rest of the projects identified in the Los Glaciares Tourism Interest Zone (ZOIT) action plan (e.g., new airstrip, port expansion, trail development, augmented tourism capacity within Bernardo O’Higgins National Park), represent specific initiatives that have been approved through the Chilean Committee of Ministers of Tourism to be defined in the officially designated ZOIT area. Each project within the plan establishes responsibilities, deadlines, and proposed sources of funding; however, funding is not guaranteed and must be secured through the actions and petitions of the ZOIT’s public-private governance system. If funding is not secured and projects do not advance, the validity of the ZOIT comes into question and may be revoked (Chilean Subsecretary of Tourism 2017, 2020).

Several Chilean scholars have proposed that these types of initiatives represent a new form of green colonization within the territory involving land redistribution in Aysén (Aliste et al. 2018; Miranda Cabaña 2016; Núñez et al. 2014, 2018, 2020). These scholars contend that this reterritorialization process has been framed and enabled by the State by positioning the Aysén region as a Reserve of Life, a new social narrative that aligns with the neoliberal environmental imaginary. According to these authors, State policy, strategies, and funding have supported the Aysén Reserve of Life narrative and CBD for several decades, influencing social understanding, discourse, and action within the region and beyond (Aliste et al. 2018; Miranda Cabaña 2016; Núñez et al. 2014, 2018, 2020). While green colonization operates through a neoliberal environmental imaginary and discourse that frames an urgent global need for the protection of sensitive natural environments, these authors have argued that its practice combines land grabbing with a privatization of nature based on progressive environmental values and capitalist speculation (Corson and MacDonald 2012; Goodman and Stroup 1991; Núñez et al. 2020). Thus, as these authors assert, it is not surprising that green colonization has coincided with recent tourism growth in Aysén (Aliste et al. 2018; Blair et al. 2019).

4.3 Access, as a Primary Condition of Production

In many respects, the binational Huellas de Glaciares circuit replicates the production models employed by other long-distance trails and routes in CL and AR, including the Huella Andina (lahuellaandina.com.ar) model of Northern Patagonia (AR) and the Chilean projects: Sendero de Chile, (fundacionsenderodechile.org) and Route of Patagonia Parks (https://www.rutadelosparques.org). Each of these projects employs a strategy that joins a series of existing tourist attractions and trails via existing roads and maritime infrastructure to achieve essential production conditions for packaging and positioning large-scale NBT products on the global market. In this final section of our results, we outline development considerations that arose within our data with respect to the Huella de Glaciares strategy for leveraging AR Route 41 in El Chaltén and CL Route 7 in Villa O’Higgins.

The development of Provincial Scenic Route No. 41 (AR) represents an ongoing project for the Santa Cruz Provincial government that, when completed, will provide one of the main structuring axes for tourism and CBD in western Santa Cruz. The project involves a set of road sections that are in varying stages of completion. Some portions of the route have not yet been defined, others are gravel, and others are completely paved. Although the collection of routes has been designed within a range of road standards, the route is gradually emerging in its entirety, with the objective of facilitating access and connectivity for tourism destinations to the west of National Route 40 (Argentine General Provincial Roads Administration, ESUCO Sociedad Anónima, and National University of Southern Patagonia 2022).

The design of this section of the route and the components of the associated territorial project have been in development since the 2010s but have yet to be fully defined. Within the framework of the Provincial Program for the Productive Development of the Santa Cruz Valleys (PROVASA), an international loan was granted to finance consulting work which was carried out between 2010 and 2011 on the route and its tourism attractions. Some road segments were renamed as Provincial Scenic Route No. 41, connecting protected areas of different jurisdictions and domains with gateway towns. Some of these gateway communities already existed, while others have advanced projects for their creation, as in the case of Tucu-Tucu, a future town near Villa O’Higgins. The route connecting the town of El Chaltén with Lago del Desierto, previously known as Provincial Route 23, was renamed De la Soberanía Nacional en la Senda del Huemul (Of National Sovereignty along the Huemul Trail) as part of Scenic Route N° 41 in 2017 (Legislative Branch of the Province of Santa Cruz, Argentina 2017). The choice to include this section in the route was made by the Provincial Roads Authority, and planned upgrades and improvements (e.g., paving) will be financed by the Argentine National Roads Authority.

The Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the new layout and paving of this section of Provincial Scenic Route No. 41 (AR) includes three stages, two of which deal specifically with the route, and a third involving the construction of jetties and the improvement of the Lago del Desierto-Chilean border section of the Huellas de Glaciares trail. The construction of jetties at Lago del Desierto complements the proposed checkpoint and restrooms to be built at the southern end of the lake, financed through the 50 Destinations Program. This demonstrates the close linkages between the provincial and national tourism development strategies and the ways in which they have furthered NBT and CBD in areas that were not previously open for this type of use.

Construction of the first two stages, which were addressed by the EIS, will be financed by the Argentine National Roads Authority and carried out by the ESUCO S.A. Two of the activities planned are of great concern in terms of biological and ecological aspects: deforestation and the impacts affecting the huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus). On the one hand, the deforestation planned for the new route and the widening of the current road fall within categories I and II of the Law of Minimum Budgets for the Development of Native Forest Land No. 26,331. Article 14 of this regulation prohibits the native forest removal in these areas. Hence, the removal implied by the widening of the road would not be allowed (Honorable Congress of the Argentine Nation 2017). Furthermore, the huemul would be threatened by this project, both during the construction stage and in later phases of operation. The project is moving forward despite the facts that (1) the huemul is categorized as in danger of extinction, (2) the huemul is protected in AR as a Natural Monument, and (3) the huemul who inhabit the De las Vueltas River valley represents one of the few populations with reproductive success, with a proposal for the construction of wildlife crossings as a mitigation measure.

Route No. 7, also known as Carretera Austral, was developed by Chile’s central government in the 1970s with the purpose of establishing an overland route that would connect the Aysén Region (CL) with Puerto Montt (CL) and points north (Adiego et al. 2018). Technically, the road to Villa O’Higgins (Route X-91) extends 89.5 km south from where it joins with the Carretera Austral, to reach Bahamondes Port, along the shores of O’Higgins Lake. Nevertheless, most recognize the end of Route X-91 as the southernmost point of the Carretera Austral.

In 2017, an agreement was reached between the Chilean Government and Rewilding Chile (formerly Tompkins Conservation Chile), for the donation of 45,000 km2 of private PA lands to the central government (CL) to be managed as national parks. One of the terms of this agreement involved the creation of a joint project between the Chilean government and Rewilding Chile to develop and promote a new NBT circuit, the Route of Patagonia Parks, which involves a 2800 km route, joining 17 national parks and 60 gateway communities, from Puerto Montt to Cape Horn (CL). The entire length of the Carretera Austral is included in the Route of Patagonia Parks, as are many other overland and maritime routes (e.g., Route 9; Y-85, the Austral Broom ferry route between Puerto Yungay and Puerto Natales).

Rewilding Chile had been working in CL since the 1990s, under a number of different NGO names and figures (e.g., Tompkins Conservation; Conservación Patagónico, Fundación Yendegaia, Foundation for Deep Ecology). One of their main objectives was to purchase large tracts of lands in areas of conservation interest, rewild these areas, and donate them back to the state for the expansion and/or declaration of numerous National Parks, including Corcovado (established 2005, reclassified 2018), Cerro Castillo (established 1970, reclassified 2018), Magdalena Island (established 1983, reclassified 2018), Melimoyu (established 2018), Pumalín Douglas Tompkins (established 2018), Yendegaia (established 2013, reclassified 2016; Chilean National Register of Protected Areas 2020). In 2017, various ministries, CONAF and other foundations linked to Tompkins signed a Protocol of Agreement for the development of the Chilean Patagonia National Parks Network project. This protocol included provisions for the creation, expansion, or recategorization of PAs in areas of high biodiversity value and potential for NBT in the regions of Los Lagos, Aysén, and Magallanes (Chilean National Forestry Corporation 2019). To support the 17 national parks and development of NBT in the 60 gateway communities, the Route of the Parks Fund, Protecting Patagonia Forever was established in 2018 by the Chilean government, Rewilding Chile, and the Pew Charitable Trusts. The fund’s design guarantees private capital as a complement to the progressive increase in public investment in PA management. Recently, the Route of Patagonia Parks designed a passport for the route, offering visitors the opportunity to obtain stamps in each of the PAs, as a mechanism to promote responsible visitation and consumption. For example, the official website states, “When you get your passport, you will accept the zero-footprint commitment as a responsible tourist, assuming your role as guardian of the Route of Parks of Patagonia” (Rewilding Chile Foundation 2018).

The Huella de Glaciares (AR-CL), the Scenic Route 41 in Santa Cruz (AR), and the Route of Patagonia Parks (CL) represent some of the many examples of CBD that are evolving on both sides of the border in Patagonia. These projects are revaluing Patagonian landscapes and renaming roads, trails, and even towns, in order to build a unique imaginary around a product that can be positioned and marketed for NBT. Our evaluation of this project and the many side projects proposed and underway to facilitate production conditions, suggested that these projects carry negative impacts for endemic animal and plant species such as the Huemul, due to habitat degradation and fragmentation. As well, we have identified an increased risk of visitor-induced accidents and impacts due to crowding, changing weather conditions, and difficult access in case of emergencies or fire. These social and environmental impacts increase the risk for the conditions for the reproduction of life within this zone, particularly if these areas become more crowded and congested as a result of NBT configurations.

The Huella de Glaciares product and the proposed improvements of former Provincial Route 23, between El Chaltén and Lago del Desierto, also stress the conditions for the reproduction of life in El Chaltén and the De las Vueltas river valley. For example, although the Lago del Desierto Provincial Reserve was officially established in 2005 (Provincial Law No. 2,820/2005), it does not have sufficient staff or the necessary infrastructure to carry out conservation monitoring and control, meaning increased tourism will carry commensurate increases in risk and impact. Moreover, the PA had just recently approved their management plan by Provincial decree No. 1546, in December of 2022. As one of our participants from the Argentine National Park administration described the staffing and planning deficiencies that exist with respect to the Lago de Desierto Provincial Reserve create risk for the entire PA system in the area, as well as the community and the De las Vueltas Valley:

There [in the Lago del Desierto Provincial Reserve] the shortcoming is with the [Provincial] Agrarian Council, which also does not have sufficient human resources to enforce the regulations. Or there is no one available to control the area and make sure that cows are not grazing within. But really, that is also due to a lack of human resources in the Agrarian Council. I think there are only two or three people working in the Council now. Many seasons there was only one person working. So, for us, that increases the risks in terms of fire or an accident. And, in the winter sometimes nobody takes responsibility when an accident occurs in the mountains. And we cannot take charge, in principle, because it is not our jurisdiction. We could do a rescue, because we know how to do it, but we cannot do it, in terms of regulations. Somehow, we have to coordinate and work with the Agrarian Council and with the private property [owners] or whoever it is. But well, you can’t expect someone to come forward and say 'ah, this is my responsibility" (Key informant section Lago Viedma 1, 10/05/2019).

Similar human resource pressures affect the northern zone of Los Glaciares National Park. The number of personnel is higher than in other sections of the PA but is still not sufficient to support new trail development (Picone et al. 2020). According to key informant, Lago Viedma 2 section, 12/09/2019, the current levels of infrastructure and funding are also insufficient to support monitoring and conservation tasks in the new Piedra del Fraile Wildlife Nature Reserve, located more than 15 km from the Lago Viedma section at the entrance to El Chaltén.

These developments also impact local communities. The El Chaltén community has faced a housing emergency for several years due to the scarcity of land that arises from their location within a national park (Picone 2020). During the tourism season, many residents are displaced, and it is common for tent cities to arise to accommodate seasonal workers (Picone 2020). The inhabitants of El Chaltén have demanded the right to access decent housing and land; yet real estate projects continue to multiply in the valley of the De las Vueltas River associated with tourism. And the proposed road improvements will likely increase the value of land in the area by improving access to areas of great scenic value; thus, encouraging private urban development and real estate speculation, which will likely aggravate social problems. In sum, while the improvements proposed for the route favor the production conditions for the development of the Huella de Glaciares, NBT, and amenity-based real estate projects, they do not benefit (and may heighten) the concerns of local inhabitants of El Chaltén and the De las Vueltas River valley, the agencies involved in the management of provincial and national PAs, and the nature that brings these actors together.

Although we did not identify similar dynamics occurring in CL during the time of our study, the intentions of the O’Higgins Municipality and the Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urbanism to develop the Candelario Mansilla sector as a small town oriented around tourism could produce similar conflict and speculation in the future. The Aysén Region has also prioritized the pavement of the Carretera Austral for the coming years and the projects prioritized within the ZOIT are all designed to facilitate greater visitation and tourism flows. Moreover, projects like the Route of Patagonia Parks are contributing to tourism growth and interest in the region, as well as processes of natural amenity-based migration.

Thus, it seems critical that we continue to research and grow our understanding of the peripheralization processes that are occurring in these remote areas of southern Patagonia. Complexity increases within peripheral frontier spaces, where contemporary occupation and territorial organization are relatively new, and the actors, processes, laws, and systems differ along multiple scales (Schweitzer 2020). Yet, an integrated approach adds valuable perspective, permitting communities and decision-makers to learn from each other, avoid pitfalls, and improve the planning and controls required on both sides of the border to protect the conditions required for the reproduction of life.

5 Conclusions

The results of the case study suggest that the production of the space through NBT and other forms of CBD is the result of a combination of dynamics that are typical of interstate borders. These dynamics include policies or actions that create barriers or filters (i.e., frontierization), and policies or actions that promote greater interactions between local inhabitants and/or the advance of the commodification of nature over interstate borders (i.e., transfrontierization). We would like to close this chapter with a series of conclusions, or lessons learned, that may help researchers and communities as they face similar processes.

In our study of the Huellas de Glaciares NBT circuit in southern Patagonia, we observed large investments that have been made to facilitate and promote circulation, scenic enjoyment, and access to marketable natural attractions on both sides of the mountain range (AR and CL). Overland, lacustrine, and maritime access infrastructure, along with the presence of PAs and their infrastructure that have been developed by government investments in CL and AR provide important production conditions that enable the development of binational NBT strategies like the Huella de Glaciares (AR – CL), Scenic Route 41 (AR), and the Route of Patagonia Parks (CL).

We observed a change in the (CL – AR) border logic with the advance of NBT. During the twentieth century, border disputes and borderization processes reinforced the frontier between AR and CL through barriers and boundary functions. Yet, in recent decades, cross-border processes have (re)configured this space as transboundary, as the creation of the Huella de Glaciares NBT circuit and associated private strategies demonstrate. Although these strategies were met with tension and conflict from other social productions of space, they were largely reinforced through public policies. In both countries, the public sector provided support to enable the Huella de Glaciares NBT at a variety of scales, including a legal and regulatory framework, financial and economic contributions, and a wide range of initiatives and projects to support the promotion of the area. Public processes were advancing hand in hand with the business strategies of large and medium-sized real estate investors and actors within the NBT sector. Thus, our evidence suggests that the area has changed from being an area configured to establish sovereignty in the dispute over Lago del Desierto, to a space of accumulation “without borders” based on integration and private interests and supported through public resources.

Though traditionally the production of space in southern Patagonia has been marked by multiple visions between agents that act under similar capitalist logics (e.g., ranching, mega-mining, and salmon aquaculture), the social production of space also involves social logics that operate around the defense of conditions of social reproduction, or in recognition of socio-ecological interdependence with other natures. While at times capitalist logics may conflict, they can also be compatible, or even, complementary by promoting and defending one another. For example, in CL, mining baron Andrónico Luksic Craig owns some 350 km2 of land around Villa O’Higgins which he manages as private conservation and ranching areas (Segura 2022). We observed that contradictions and resistance to capitalist logics created greater tension when they involved opposing logics, and a fight for the conditions necessary for the reproduction of life (Moore 2020; Navarro Trujillo and Linsalata 2021). This is evidenced by the dispute over urban land in El Chaltén and the complaints of inhabitants about the ecological and social impacts of real estate projects located along former Provincial Route 23 between El Chaltén and Lago del Desierto (AR).

The dynamics and trajectories we exposed within the case study of the Huella de Glaciares NBT suggest a likelihood of continued transfrontierization practices and related advances for the frontiers of CBD in Patagonia. The proposed road improvements for Provincial Route 23 between El Chaltén and Lago del Desierto (AR) continued southward advances of the pavement of the Carretera Austral (CL), and the infrastructure projects projected for Bahamondes port and Candelario Mancilla (CL) all evidence a likely convergence for NBT within the study area that is likely to attract luxury tourism capitals in alliance with other CBD capitals.

Left unchecked, this dynamic may eventually extend toward the north and south, incorporating other PAs along the border and giving rise to similar reconfigurations of Patagonia’s largely intact natural territories in proximity to the southern reaches of the Andes. Evidence of this trend is already visible in the southwest sectors of the Río Negro Province and the western reaches of Chubut, around Esquel and Trevelin (AR). Based on the literature, theory, and dynamics that surfaced from our study, we posit that the implementation of this model will require further financialization of nature and fragmentation of ecosystems, negatively impacting the natural conditions of these spaces and their attractiveness for NBT. We foresee an increase in disputes over how transit networks get deployed, both between productive sectors and with social logics that operate around the defense of conditions of social reproduction, or in recognition of socio-ecological interdependence with other natures. And we believe similar conflicts are likely to arise around other scarce resources, like water. Thus, we urge caution and additional research about CBD and NBT in cross-border environments that can inform policy and decision-making based on principles of social justice and sustainability.