内容摘要：He said: "I had to spend a fair amount of time sort of looking out the window and trying to work out, actually, where I am, where I need to get off."

He said: "I had to spend a fair amount of time sort of looking out the window and trying to work out, actually, where I am, where I need to get off."

"In terms of concessions in the national parks we have 21 that we aren't using," he says. "We have told the government that we don't want to be there and asked to be relocated but nothing has happened for many years."Regarding salmon farming in national reserves, he says that is a different environment which, according to Chilean law and the rules and regulations they follow, they can operate in.

In Chile, the salmon industry is regulated by The Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture, a public body that is part of the Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism.It looks at environmental protection and sustainability, and is also working on a new general aquaculture law to further regulate the sector.Julio Salas Gutiérrez, the Chilean Undersecretary of Fisheries and Aquaculture, tells the BBC that the government is working to remove fish farms from the national parks.

"It's not right to claim that the government 'has done nothing for years' regarding the relocation of concessions outside of national parks," he says. "Under the current administration, efforts have been made not only to understand the problem, but also to advance it."The relocation process itself is usually quite complex, bureaucratic, and takes a considerable number of years, considering the difficulty of relocating these concessions to new areas suitable for aquaculture."

Matt Craze is the founder of UK and Chile-based Spheric Research, which studies global seafood markets. He says that Chile's salmon industry would invest more money "if they felt that there was a better regulatory framework, and the government gave some certainty about the areas where they can farm".

Yet with a general election due in Chile later this year, the uncertainty may continue at least in the short term."That's a nasty question" he said, arguing that it was only by making these threats that he got the EU to the negotiating table.

Trump's ambassador to the EU during his first term, Gordon Sondland, told the BBC this so-called wishy-washy-ness was by design."What Trump is doing is exactly what he would do as a business person. He would immediately find a point of leverage to get someone's attention today. Not next month, not next year... he wants to have these conversations now," he said earlier this week, before the latest legal twists.

"How do you get someone as intransigent and as slow moving as the EU to do something now? You slap a 50% tariff on them and all of a sudden the phone start ringing."If Trump's tariffs plan continues to meet resistance in the courts, one option at his disposal is asking Congress to legislate the taxes instead. But that would eliminate one of his biggest tools - the element of surprise.