We consider it opportune and necessary to publicly inform you of our extreme concern and annoyance in relation to your statements in the inauguration speech for the Pangue hydroelectric-electric plant that took place March 6 in Santa Barbara county, Alto Bío Bío. 

The fact that the government, and moreover, the President himself, polarizes developmental and environmental positions has profoundly called our attention. At present, the primary challenge for countries consists in achieving sustainable development policies that unite the necessity of a better quality of life for all citizens with the conservation of the environment and of our natural resources. 

We consider that your statements are unfortunate and clearly reflect the government's incorrect environmental management. It is very disillusioning to realize just how unrealistic are the government's current environmental policies. This is evident both in high political levels, as well as, in public debate related to environmental themes. 

The incorporation of existing, legitimate and fundamental differences of opinion is the most adequate style of development for a country and is part of the democratic life of a society. Environmental sustainability is an ethical and economic imperative. This objective will only be reached if the government effectively takes into account public opinion from all sectors without falling prey to political and leadership styles that censor and disqualify different proposals. This implies representing legitimate interests of distinctive societal actors and not only a certain business sector with strong economic and political strength. 

The accelerated destruction of our environment and natural resources is an inescapable reality that affects the quality of life of millions of Chileans. It is enough to recall the citizen poll of May, 1996 when 71% of those interviewed gave the opinion that the government did little or nothing for the protection of the environment. 

We have observed that environmental decisions are often made either before environmental impact assessments are completed or that they contradict technical opinions of specialists from government agencies, environmental organizations and academic institutions. This renders the state's environmental institution's decisions meaningless, totally inefficient and effectively powerless. With respect to the Pangue and Ralco projects, and in particular the Bío Bío watershed, we cannot understand why we have been cast as opposers of hydroelectric-electric plants, an thus against the development of Chile. CODEFF has opposed this project in particular because of its negative implications on the ecosystem, indigenous communities, and other economic and social uses of the watershed. 

We consider that hydroelectric-electric plants are one of the best alternatives for the generation of electricity. This, however, does not signify that we applaud the construction of all plants and reservoirs at whatever environmental and social cost in whichever of Chile's rivers. Furthermore, we believe that the construction of small scale plants with reduced environmental impacts should be an integral part of national energy policies. This is needed, in addition to a national policy of efficient energy use and of the expansion of the use of technological generators of alternate, non-traditional energies. 

In other words, we see that the environmental decision making processes that democracy has defined are not being respected. One such example is the public support by the President of the controversial Ralco hydroelectric-electric, in spite of the fact that CONAMA has not completed its evaluation report. This same attitude of political backing in the middle of the environmental evaluation process by the authorities was also evident in the case of the CELCO cellulose plant in the X region. 

Through these examples the government is not only sending the direct signal to affect the impartiality of CONAMA or COREMA's final decisions, it is demonstrating that it does not take into account the opinion and work of even its own environmental institution's processes. This pro-project governmental posture without evaluating social and environmental costs, aside from potential damage to the patrimony, could bring consequences to Chile's international image and prejudice international commercial trade negotiations where our country faces requirements to develop and implement a coherent environment policy. 

The rapid application of an environmental policy whose principal objective is sustainability and the adoption of development models that guarantee environmentally friendly products is, without a doubt, a solid base for the development of a country to compete in the demanding international markets. 

In regards to your public statement referring to the work of environmental organizations and indigenous communities, besides categorically rejecting its content and form, we see ourselves as obligated to demonstrate how your opinion is unfounded and erroneous. We need to point out that since 1988, CODEFF has been working with the Pehuenche communities of the Quinqu‚n valley to aid them in the conflict over legal ownership of their lands, as well as, in the defense of their araucaria forests. This case was resolved positively by the government of Mr. Patricio Aylwin. 

Meanwhile, in relation to the Pehuenche communities of the Alto Bío Bío, CODEFF has been involved since the beginning in the discussion over the hydroelectric-electric projects. In 1994, CODEFF, with the support of FOSIS, constructed a mini hydroelectric-electric plant in Nitrao which is presently administered by the Pehuenche community. At present, we are developing a new mini hydroelectric-electric project for the Pehuenche community of Butalelb£n with possibilities of its extension to the community of Trapa Trapa. 

Sincerely yours,