Chilemontaña Trips Nicolás André Rojas Cuq E.I.R.L. et al. v. National Forestry Corporation (CONAF)

On December 2, 2025, a group of local ecotourism operators providing guided glacier trekking services on the Exploradores Glacier, located within Laguna San Rafael National Park (Aysén Region), filed an economic amparo action (recurso de amparo económico) before the Coyhaique Court of Appeals against the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF). The action challenged CONAF’s decision not to renew the ecotourism permits authorizing guided passenger transit on the glacier, a measure that effectively halted the applicants’ sole economic activity. The applicants argued that the decision was arbitrary and unlawful, as it relied on a technical report issued by the General Water Directorate (DGA) that, in their view, merely described general glaciological phenomena associated with climate change, including glacier retreat, thinning, and the formation of supraglacial lagoons, without assessing the safety or feasibility of the specific routes used for ecotourism activities, nor recommending a total closure of the glacier. They alleged that CONAF improperly relied on a general climate diagnosis to impose a blanket prohibition on a lawful economic activity, in violation of the constitutional freedom to conduct economic activities under Article 19(21) of the Chilean Constitution. CONAF requested dismissal of the action, arguing that the economic amparo is an exceptional mechanism aimed at controlling unlawful state entrepreneurial activity, which was not at issue in the case. On the merits, CONAF maintained that its decision constituted the legitimate exercise of regulatory and public safety powers within a protected area and was duly grounded in technical evidence demonstrating an active phase of glacier disintegration linked to accelerated melting driven by climate change. Invoking the preventive and precautionary principles, CONAF asserted that the protection of life and physical integrity prevailed over economic interests and that the permits were temporary and conditional, not vested rights. On February 6, 2026, the Coyhaique Court of Appeals rejected the economic amparo, holding that the challenged decision fell within CONAF’s lawful administrative powers and was supported by objective technical evidence. The Court emphasized that the economic amparo is not an appropriate vehicle to review the technical merits or substantive reasonableness of administrative decisions, and therefore did not engage with the applicants’ substantive arguments on the merits. The applicants appealed the decision, and the case is currently pending before the Chilean Supreme Court.