High-impact industries—like salmon farming, mining, and logging—constantly complain about what they call a lack of legal certainty. They argue that as they move forward with their investments, the rules keep changing: citizen protests, cumbersome bureaucracy, and unfavorable court decisions.

 

Based on this idea, they launched a strong media campaign against what they conveniently called “permit-seeking.” Out of this uproar came the 2025 Sectoral Authorizations Act, and now the National Reconstruction Act is pending.

 

These and other regulations have been designed to favor companies—mainly large economic groups—and, by extension, the wealthy, even though it’s claimed that ordinary people would also benefit indirectly.

 

This is part of the trickle-down logic—a mantra that brought us to 20% unemployment in the 1980s and an average of 13% during the 17 years of the Chilean dictatorship (1973-90). For three decades after the transition, this idea was put aside, only to be recently revived by finance minister Jorge Quiroz: “The best social policy—and hopefully one day the only one—is full employment,” he said, overlooking decades of social policies that enabled a minimum wage, ended malnutrition, achieved literacy, provided housing for those in need, and supported agricultural development after the Agrarian Reform.

 

When it comes to investment security, it’s important to remember that most investments involved in legal disputes and community conflicts are tied to physical places: the land—and sometimes the sea.

 

That’s why it’s surprising that those demanding more legal certainty and pushing for changes to favor their investments (or those of their backers) aren’t calling for the implementation of a tool that’s already been law since March: the regulation for Regional Land Use Plans (PROTs), which also covers coastal zoning.

 

PROTs allow us to define and plan how different areas within a region can be used for productive activities. They also set binding guidelines for things like “the disposal of different types of waste and their treatment systems,” as well as “infrastructure and productive activities in areas not covered by urban planning.”

 

New investments in connectivity are a big challenge for Aysén’s future. This regulation is a chance to get organized, reach important agreements, and avoid the social conflicts we’ve seen too often—not to mention prevent irreversible impacts on rural areas, which make up over 95% of Aysén’s territory.

 

This regulation has a strong focus on citizen participation and puts sustainability front and center. As we’ve said before, legal certainty can’t just be for investors—it has to be for local people too.

 

Even though this process takes time, a strategic perspective means we need to get started now at the institutional level. After all, those in charge are supposed to plan and use the tools available—not just ask residents to hold on tight and weather the storm.