Gonzalo Bravo, director of our Public Law and Regulated Markets Group, spoke with Diario Financiero, where he addressed the challenges of preventing and managing the risks posed by archaeological findings in investment projects.
Archaeological risks are not always something investment projects can eliminate, but they can anticipate and manage them. The sooner the archaeological potential of a site is identified, the greater the margin for adapting the project’s design or evaluating alternatives before construction begins. However, the challenge persists when a discovery is made during an excavation.
According to a document from the Environmental Assessment Service (SEA) on the characterization of archaeological cultural heritage, this process involves three stages: a literature review, a visual on-site inspection, and, when appropriate, subsurface prospecting and characterization through test pits—the latter requiring authorization from the National Monuments Council (CMN).
For Gonzalo Bravo, director of the public law and regulated markets group at az, one of the main sources of uncertainty is that preliminary studies “in no way rule out” the possibility of new findings during the project’s implementation. “It is very common for these types of findings to be located beneath the surface and not be properly detected during the baseline survey,” he states. Such findings must be reported immediately to the CMN and may require work to be halted, affecting the schedule and costs. Added to this are potential observations regarding the adequacy of information, areas of influence, characterization methodologies, or mitigation measures.
“Today, one of the main problems lies in processing times and institutional coordination,” says Javiera Arriagada, head of the archaeology department at ORBE AMBIENTAL. She explains that, while a project developer can conduct archaeological studies in advance, identify risks, and be prepared to implement the necessary measures, if the required authorizations or rulings take too long, the uncertainty ultimately spills over into the project’s entire timeline.
“We don’t need less archaeology; we need archaeology that is better integrated into project planning and an institutional framework capable of responding in a timely manner,” Arriagada states. He adds that bottlenecks also exist in excavation and salvage permits, methodologies that do not always take into account the specific characteristics of each project, and the capacity of museums to receive and store artifacts.
Archaeology and Design
Oscar Toro, an archaeology professor in the School of Social Sciences at U. Alberto Hurtado and representative of the Chilean Archaeological Society (SchA) at the CMN, Oscar Toro, clarifies that the environmental assessment does not exhaust the project owner’s obligations regarding a discovery, since even if the project is not submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA), it must comply with the law and notify the CMN so that it can determine the necessary measures.
From this perspective, he asserts that when the archaeological component is incorporated from the outset, “the path forward in subsequent stages is much easier and clearer,” and he emphasizes that this also helps reduce uncertainty about how the project might affect cultural heritage sites, thereby lowering economic costs not included in the original budget.
Marcela Urízar, a scholar at the University of Atacama, notes that this foresight also allows for keeping options open so that, should surface evidence indicate complexity, the layout can be modified or part of the project relocated. However, she warns that the search for certainty could encourage over-intervention at archaeological sites, leading to a situation where, in the effort to protect them, sites that could have been preserved end up being unnecessarily disturbed.
But the challenges do not end with early planning. Urízar suggests that one way to reduce processing times could be to decentralize certain actions through the CMN’s regional technical offices. Arriagada, meanwhile, calls for clearer response deadlines, greater coordination between the CMN and the SEA, simpler processes, and transparent tracking of applications.
In Toro’s view, the discussion should not be limited to the “permit process,” but should incorporate the perspective of public archaeology, which aims to promote greater heritage education.
