Field projects:

Terminated project:

Good contacts established with Universities and interested students, in particular with the university of Coyhaique, allowed a financially and logistically supported by the project programme of field internships, in order to compile elements for the design of restoration activities:  works of interns.

IX. Working on issues of particular importance for the project:

  1. Intelligence of forms of life, in particular non-human species, intelligence of Nature, plants and animals who share the Earth.

  2. Applied philosophy of natural law, enforcement of the rights and personhood of nature.

  3. Sociology studies on personal relation to land in present times.

  4. Separating truth from post-truth.

  5. What is science?

  6. Quantum base of Nature’s life, impossibility of experiment in quantum physics, probability vs. verification and prediction, entanglement.

  7. Philosophy of restoration.

  8. Precautionary principle.

  9. Homeopathic treatments for trees.

And, of course the scientific aspects of reforestation and ecosystem restoration,

in particular Nature-friendly planting protocols.

Scientific facet


Under the project the relations with the scientific community have been ambiguous, either:

  1. -non-existent for reforestation and restoration: since its start in 2006 the project has contacted local research institutions in order to collaborate on scientific approaches to reforestation, planting protocols and other aspects of ecosystem restoration, with no interest from these institutions been shown; or

  2. -unfortunate: an attempt of cooperation with a local scientific institution on geology issues ended up in advertising of a part of the project as a public tourist destination which was completely contrary to the agreed conditions of the research; or

  3. -rights’ abusive : expeditions of different kinds entering into the area of the project without notice, permission or conclusion of obligatory agreements, breaking land and intellectual property rights and collecting data for their own needs, contrary to the project’s objectives.

The above deplorable experiences were counterbalanced by several promising projects on scientific aspects that require long-term involvement, resulting from:

  1. -cooperation with national institutions of applied science, such as Conaf Office in Rio Tranquilo on wildlife management and reforestation and adaptation protocols, SAG on land management and rehabilitation;

  2. -analysis of available scientific and natural history literature in the light of personal long-term experience with the native forest by the forest engineer who designed the reforestation protocols;

  3. -interest shown by the international ecosystem restoration community for achievements in reforestation/restoration, in particular related to the exceptionally high survival rate of planted trees and by social sciences on advantages of private land conservation, as well as under the UN decade of ecosystem restoration (2021-2030);

  4. -mutually beneficial cooperation with local and central universities, on the relevant field internships’ programme in particular;

  5. -personal analysis of available scientific information and advice, a lot of which has been provided by national institutions (INIA, Restauremos Chile, SAG), in order to frame better restorative and nature protective activities, as well as of the history literature for the assessment of the level of ecosystem degradation in the area.

Many aspects of modern science of live Nature have proven to be problematic for it use for reforestation or nature protection, such as:

- Modern ecology is a crisis discipline, which means that action needs to be taken immediately, without knowing the full complexity of the damage.

- Proliferation of fake and “adjusted” research data; race for publications taking precedence over professional responsibility; absence of follow-up of the application of the results of the research; changes in societal effects of produced data; placement of science above any judgement thus compromising its responsibility towards the objects of research; ever increasing infiltration of post-truth into the scientific world; obsession with innovations, abandoning fundamental knowledge.

Systematic fraud in science.pdf ; 1400 articles withdrawn every year;

In some countries - up to 90%.pdf ; EU regulations on post-truth.

- Logical empiricism has enslaved ethics to science: “We do not know what the world is, but we can explain what the science of the world is”. Science is the result of experiment.

- Modern science has a reduced level of responsibility, it justifies a lot by itself.

- Modern life sciences are seldom interested in private and personal nature protection, even though private landowners can provide long-term care, so needed for successful reforestation and nature recovery, Science Knowing But Not Doing.pdf .

- Commodification, depersonalisation and mechanisation of Nature, ignoring the infinite complexity of Nature and of the inherent interactions in its ecosystems.

- Modern conservation science is experiencing a series of crises, mainly due to the huge gap between the laboratory and nature, a crisis of baselines, for example.

- Experimental science (dominant trend) tends to be statistical ("There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”), leaving little scientific certitude for individual projects.

“A scientific vision of the world is hardly anything more than

a psychologically biased narrow view, which does not encompass

all those far from secondary aspects that defy the statistical

method of research”, Gustav Jung.

- Modern, mainly experimental, science is reductionist by merely sampling Nature, using the experiment and its artificially constructed quality as the dominant instrument of scientific production.  Move research from quantity to quality.pdf

- Modern science is in particular tough on wildlife: research is invasive and painful, using methods involving sedation of animals, radio collars or implants; an average of 1 out of 10 animals die in the procedure, in ungulates the figure is higher; those who do not die are quite often disoriented and vulnerable, the process can be cruel to animals; collars do not fall at times and kill the animal in a long and painful way; animals with collars are less efficient in hunting, the weight of the collar allowed being 10% of the weight of the animal; poachers often trap game using collars; many countries do not allow the use of this type of torturing methods of research.                                                   Long-term side-effects of abdominal implants.pdf

“In putting conservation into practice, we often cause great suffering to animals”, Marc Bekoff.

  1. -Wildlife field studies open ways to the previously undisturbed wildlife, for hunters and poachers.

As researchers and conservationists gather data on animals, other people might use it to harm them.                                                                                                               


- Investments in science of the recent years failed to prevent the global ecocide of life on Earth.

  1. -In many cases the funds used for research and for efforts to separate “wild” animals from social

  structures could have been better used to feed and protect these animals, whose house we occupied,

  or to buy land in order to protect it.

- Total protection of nature is quite often inconsistent with the concerns of scientific research.

  1. -There is no need to further accumulate scientific proof of the obvious, well proven and clearly visible

in the area, like man-made nature degradation, climate change, pollution.

- The project cannot count on active help of currently accessible scientific institutions and biosciences.

  1. -Personal polymathic research, personal experiences and qualifications, learning from Nature as the main partner, are essential for the success of the project.

- The lack of interest of the local scientific community in this private project has not prevented high survival rate in reforestation.

- Reductionist sampling science often does not provide the right answer and is likely to hamper restoration efforts at ecosystem level, which requires a holistic approach.

- Clear difference shall be made between  experimental and observational/learning from Nature approaches, with clear preference for the second.

- Research can be effectively done by practitioners, foresters or landowners, in particular by observing nature and valuation of non-classified events, non-computable and one-time observations, without engaging into the primitiveness of statistics,  thus ensuring holistic caring approach.

- In the valley of the project the level of degradation defies restoration science, it’s almost impossible to imagine the original natural path of the ecosystem.

- Live Nature does not deserve to be treated like a mere object of scientific research, any piece of life has the right to be free from experiments.

- Ethics of respect for nature shall be integral part of science.

- Natural law shall be the basis for scientific investigations.

- “Citizens science” should be avoided, it can be dangerous for nature.

“In nature there is a constant dialogue,

an exchange of information, and our task is to learn

to understand the language of nature, and not to consider

it as a dumb object of exploitation”

Galina Shatalova, Russian doctor


The goal is, therefore, making science work for nature, plants and animals, not for publications.


  1. Continue developing and using science- and experience-based nature-friendly planting protocols for native forest restoration, proven to be a success with a survival rate of about 85-90 %;

  2. Impose the “learn from nature” method of research;

  3. Recognise and use the uniqueness of the location for glaciological research (because of its proximity to the ice field) and atmospheric monitoring, as well as other potential studies of inert matter for the sake of live Nature;

  4. Protect nature and wildlife from modern science, by minimising or preventing any science-induced stress and export of benefits of scientific business with no return to nature;

  5. Work on defining nature-friendly science, respectful of plants and animals, helping them to cope with change and survive decently;

  6. Continue collecting personal knowledge to allow the project progressing;

  7. Setting-up long-term monitoring of the experience through case studies and effectiveness evaluations.

Trip financed by CIEP, National Geographic and Patagonia:

“in the habitat I am exploring the human is not welcome.

How can I prevent people from going here and destroy everything?”

Rules and methods:

Scientific investigations in private properties are customarily subject to specific requirements:

  1. -Any research or study shall be conducted under formal, explicit and signed agreement with the landowner (project). This agreement will specify legal aspects such as: respective responsibilities of both parties; conditions of access; investigation methods; aspects of intellectual property such as copyright, patents, or trademarks registered; financial issues; insurances; right to the image. A sample agreement can be provided.

  2. -The agreement will regulate the conditions of use of any resulting findings and publications, and the way the project and its location is mentioned there; any publication would be reviewed by the project before publishing.

  3. -Any finding or registered data will be first made available to the project for its use free of charge.

  4. -The work would be conducted in a private area, which is not covered by the same legal settings as public areas, with relevant legal and operational consequences.

  5. -For observations such as wildlife or reforestation monitoring minor cooperation agreements can be concluded.

  6. -In no case and under no circumstances any GPS route within the project can be published on any shared web platforms (2 legal cases against such publications filed by the project).

  7. -Under no circumstances and at no time any type of scientific tourism activity can be developed within the territory of the project or facilitated by the research.

  1. -Any research shall respond to the question: “What would it give to the land and how would it help Nature?”. The “Why?” of the research is crucial, research is justified only if it produces clear benefits to the piece of Nature it affects.

  2. -Any application shall indicate how the previously produced knowledge was used by the applicant, the effectiveness of the previous findings for Nature.

  3. -Priority will be given to integrated, non-innovative, long-term monitoring studies.

  4. -Preferential use of science with macro results, problems are global.

- No work on additional proof of evident matters, such as climate change, or other duplicative work (in the EU, for example, 30% of scientific research is conducted on subjects that have been studied with the same methods).

- No invasive or intrusive research of live matter, wildlife in particular, is authorised by the project. Results of previous invasive wildlife research are not used by the project (method vs. result).

- Only research method authorised - observation, learn from nature, preferential use of one-time non classified observations, single observations and holistic ecosystemic approach are considered most valuable.

- No paths shall be opened for research - worldwide experience shows that research in nature opens damaging access to all species of plants and animals.

- No research that could lead to mass wild plants or fruits collection would be authorised, protocols for seed collection for reforestation shall be designed for an ethical and harmless collection.

Example of investigation which did not observe the above-mentioned requirements: proglacial lake geosite. It also affected the effectiveness of monitoring of a sensitive area, and was subject to a legal complaint.

Active Nature-friendly projects on abiotic factors :

I.  The Geodesy and Geodynamics Group at Ohio State University in the USA has been using GPS geodesy to measure crustal displacements in Chilean Patagonia since 1994. Their partners in this project include the Instituto Geográfico Militar de Chile, the Universidad de Concepción, and the University of Memphis which works mostly in Argentine Patagonia with local partners. The main focus of this geophysical project is to infer present and past changes in ice mass within the Patagonian Icefields and so study climate change over a range of timescales. Contemporary ice mass changes driven by modern climate change produce instantaneous elastic deformation of the solid earth, and by measuring this 'elastic rebound' they can, in effect, weigh the ice sheets. This investigation is pursued using a limited number of continuously operating GPS stations, such as that in Leones valley, and larger numbers of survey GPS stations visited perhaps once every three years for a few days at a time.  On the western side of the Patagonian ice fields much of the fieldwork is performed using boats. The research group performs similar climate change/crustal motion research in Greenland and Antarctica.

It’s one of more than a dozen marks in Chilean Patagonia that are measured by IGM. They show that all the stations close to the ice are moving upwards. It is believed that this is the sign of solid earth 'rebounding' as ice loads decrease.

V. Monitoring  of climatic conditions in the valley: weather station of the project. Important for monitoring of weather and climate conditions for reforestation and tree growth.

  1. VI.Identifying the age of trees burned in 1939.

VII. Testing heavy metals and other pollutants in the waters within the area.

VIII. Analysis of power supply management and other operational issues.

  1. II. Monitoring of presence of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the air: Information on POPs; Booklet on POPs. With climate change POPs are being released from melting glaciers. The POPs sampler of the Project is one of several deployed in the Baker basin under the EULA-Chile (Concepcion) research project. Part of a broader programme including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Peru.

  2. III. Monitoring of living conditions of wildlife and identification of present species with sensor cameras, wildlife marks studies, footprints and scanners, in cooperation with local Conaf.

  3. IV. Studies of tourism impact on the valley’s ecosystem, data transmitted to Conaf.

“Nature is the source of all true knowledge. It has its own logic, its own laws. It has no effect without cause,

and no invention without necessity”,

“Nature is full of infinite causes that experience has never demonstrated”,

Leonardo da Vinci

  1. The easiest and least expensive expedition would be to evaluate the biodiversity of species whose specimens are stored in museums. Samples that have not been described were collected between a few months ago and 140 years ago. It takes an average of 9 years for a specimen to be described and published.

  2. “The risk of amnesia can be engendered in the scientific world by the immediate availability of the most recent part of the scientific literature. This induces a form of laziness which means that the researcher does not always return to the sources”,  Antoine Danchin, Pasteur Institute.

  3. “Like parrots, we repeat the story that nature reserves are created for science, and in order to love nature, we need to study it (no one believes it any longer), and at the same time we are embarrassed or afraid to confess our feel of wilderness as of a sacred space”,  a manager of a strict nature reserve, 2000.

Great comic re: science - Rat Park

  1. It is necessary to preserve the information, not to dig or unearth, or to dissect. That's how we preserve cultures and nature - belief of the peoples of Altai.

"... locking himself in a narrow specialty, which avoids the lively and multi-stream course of life and develops in its possessor an indifferent and even contemptuous attitude to everything that lies outside his area. Under the influence of all this, interest in the past and faith in future are lost ”, D.A. Rovinsky, Russian lawyer, XIX century.

  1. The film "Ocean" was shown in a European country, it was made by oceanologists and was meant to show the beauty of oceans and endangered fish species in order to protect them. The day after the projection people started asking in their fish shops why they did not sell the fish shown in the film.

  2. “Ignorance should be classified as one of the most immoral phenomena”, Ilya Metchnikov, Russian / French biologist.

  3. “Culture in its deepest essence ... is a greatest failure. Philosophy and science are failures in the creative knowledge of the truth ... "N. Berdyaev, Russian-French philosopher and writer.

Data of 2021: the ground is rising very fast: about 22.48 mm per year !

This rapid rise is due to ice loss. The weight of the ice is decreasing and the ground is rising in response. The station has moved from about negative 4 cm to positive 7 cm in 7.33 years. That's an average velocity of about 13.6 mm/year in the up direction. The station is also moving NE: East (2.7 mm/year) and North (10.9 mm/year). The annual cycle, most evident in the up direction, the general trend is up; there is evidence that it is rising faster since about 2016.

Bear poop

Animal excrements studies - a non-invasive form of investigation, but only if found on a walking trail for people

He who would study organic existence,

First drives out the soul with rigid persistence;

Then the parts in his hand he may hold and class,

But the spiritual link is lost, alas!

                Mephistopheles, “Faust”, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe.


Environmental DNA testing is a non-invasive method