Los Ríos

Valparaíso

Región Metropolitana de Santiago

Arica y Parinacota

Coquimbo

Atacama

Aisén del General Carlos Ibañez del Campo

Magallanes

Los Lagos

Tarapacá

Ñuble

La Araucanía

Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins

Antofagasta

Biobío

Maule

Chile

Mitigation Goal. By 2050 at the latest, greenhouse gas emission neutrality must be achieved. Said goal will be evaluated every five years by the Ministry of the Environment, in accordance with the instruments established in this law.

Reduction of 20% of GHG emissions by 2025 against a 2013 baseline

12% reduction of energy demand, equivalent to 41,500 Tcal and 4,150,000 Tonnes (eq) of oil not used by 2020 against a 2012 baseline

264,000 hectares of forests under intervention to avoid degradation  by 2025

20% of non conventional renewable energies by 2025

On July 4, 2025, a group of Chilean deputies, led by Congressman Daniel Melo Contreras, filed a constitutional complaint (requerimiento de inaplicabilidad por inconstitucionalidad) before the Constitutional Court, challenging several provisions of the Draft Framework Law on Sectorial Authorizations (Ley Marco de Autorizaciones Sectoriales – LMAS), commonly referred to as the “Permitting Law.” The complaint was filed under Article 93(1)(3) of the Chilean Constitution and Articles 61 et seq. of Law No. 17.997 (Organic Law of the Constitutional Court).

The challenged provisions, Articles 7(a), 9, 10, 76, and 104, aim to simplify over 380 sectoral permits and streamline administrative processes by establishing minimum standards for permit issuance. Although the law claims to maintain environmental safeguards, the plaintiffs argue it effectively weakens environmental and social protections, and that the process of indigenous consultation was omitted, in violation of ILO Convention 169.

The plaintiffs argue that the LMAS constitutes a regression in environmental protections, violates constitutional guarantees under Article 19(8) (right to live in a pollution-free environment), and undermines Chile’s commitments under the Escazú Agreement and other international instruments.
The Constitutional Court, on July 24, 2025, dismissed the complaint on formal grounds, by a 5–4 majority, citing a lack of specificity in the alleged constitutional violations.
However, the dissenting minority (4 judges) strongly criticized the decision, emphasizing that:
• The Court had developed prior environmental jurisprudence (STC Rols 13.053 and 14.844) recognizing international standards.
• The dissenting opinion argued that, in this context, it was particularly contradictory for the Chilean Constitutional Court, an institution tasked with upholding constitutional supremacy, to refuse to review the merits of a claim alleging a regression in environmental protection standards. The dissenting judges emphasized that the Court’s decision was based on procedural requirements not expressly established in either the Constitution or its Organic Law, and that such a position clearly contradicts Chile’s active role at the international level in promoting access to environmental justice, particularly in light of the Escazú Agreement and Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, which affirms the pro actione principle. This principle holds that procedural rules must not be interpreted or applied in a manner that unjustifiably hinders access to the courts, especially in environmental matters. Citing paragraph 543 of OC-32/25, the dissent invoked the pro actione principle, which requires courts to adopt the interpretation most favorable to access to justice in environmental matters. 

In March 2024, residents of Tocopilla, along with environmental organizations Chile Sustentable, Greenpeace Chile, and Asociación Interamericana para la defensa del ambiente (AIDA), filed a writ of protection before the Court of Appeals of Santiago against AES Andes. 

In February, AES Andes burned through 94,000 tons of surplus coal from their Norgener 1 and 2 units due to a request from the National Electricity Coordinator. Plaintiffs argued that the authorization should be revoked due to the right to life, health, and a pollution-free environment under the Chilean constitution. 

In late March 2024, the Court of Appeals rejected the issuance of a preliminary injunction, allowing AES Andes to burn through the rest of the coal supply under request by the Electricity coordinator.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

On January 17, 2024, the petitioners, in accordance with Article 53 of Law No. 19,880, have filed an administrative invalidation claim against Resolution Exempt No. 202399101873, dated November 8, 2023 (R.E. 202399101873/2023), issued by the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Service (SEA), in her capacity as Secretary of the Committee of Ministers, for having deemed the Environmental Impact Study of the "Los Bronces Integrado" mining project environmentally favorable. The project, intended for the extraction of copper and molybdenum and located in the Metropolitan Region of Santiago, 65 kilometers from the city of Santiago, is challenged due to alleged illegalities in the resolution.

The contested resolution seeks to continue the exploitation of the "Los Bronces Integrados" mining project, owned by Anglo American S.A., which was approved in different resolutions in 2007 and 2015. Afterward, the company requested new permission to optimize and adapt the original exploitation plan. On April 22, 2022, the SEA resolved that the project holder did not provide sufficient information to rule out the generation of health risks for the population, deciding to unfavorably qualify the project because it did not adequately determine the area of influence of the air quality component of the project, nor did it provide enough information to rule out health risks to the population, according to Articles 11(a) and 16(4) of Law No. 19,300, and Articles 2(a), 5, 18(d), and 62 of the SEIA Regulations. 

Against the negative resolution, nine administrative appeal claims were filed, and the project proponent submitted additional background information. On April 14, 2023, the claimants opposing the project also provided further background information, which, according to them, was not considered by the administrative authority and was violating their rights. It is explained that on November 8, 2023, the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Service, acting as the secretary of the Committee of Ministers, decided to reject the appeal claims filed by the non-proponents of the project and instead to accept the appeal claim filed on behalf of the project's proponent, thereby qualifying the "LOS BRONCES INTEGRADO" project environmentally favorable.

The claimants allege that Resolution Exempt No. 202399101873, dated November 8, 2023 (R.E. 202399101873/2023), which favorably qualified the project, fails to fulfill Chile's climate obligations and human rights commitments, including the lack of consideration of the climate factor in the Environmental Impact Assessment.

They add that the resolution that qualifies the project as environmentally favorable is illegal because the project poses a serious threat to the nearby glaciers in its area of influence, will increase the water scarcity already affecting the Metropolitan and Valparaiso Regions, will increase atmospheric pollution and harm the health of the population, generating an atmospheric catastrophe and severe damage to ecosystems. They argue that the project threatens serious human rights violations, such as the right to health, the right to live in a healthy environment, the right to life, the right to food, and the right to water, and that the contested act violates the precautionary principle.

The claimants request that the SEA invalidate the resolution that environmentally qualified the project as favorable, arguing that it contradicts the law. Concurrently, while the invalidation request is being processed, they seek an interim provisional measure to immediately suspend the effects of the contested act or any other appropriate measure.

On July 2, 2024, the plaintiff filed a judicial complaint under Article 17, No. 2 of Law No. 20.600, aiming to hold the defendant accountable for environmental damage resulting from the open-pit mining of ulexite deposits in the Salar de Surire. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant violated Ley N.º 19.300 (General Environmental Law) by failing to implement mitigation, repair, and compensation measures, as well as neglecting to enter the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA). Consequently, significant environmental harm ensued, including the destruction of sediments, alteration of topography, loss of surface runoff, and degradation of critical ecosystem services. The plaintiff further emphasizes the damage to microbiota and extremophile microbial ecosystems (EMEs), which possess scientific value, particularly in astrobiology.

The plaintiff emphasizes that climate change intensifies these impacts, citing the Sixth IPCC Report (2021), which highlights the vulnerability of unique ecosystems like the Salar to climate change. Increased summer rainfall worsens environmental degradation and disrupts the Salar’s role as a climate refuge, which is critical for sustaining biodiversity both regionally and globally. The plaintiff also references Chile’s international obligations under the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Paris Agreement, along with the Climate Change Framework Law (Ley N.º 21.455), which outlines long-term climate management strategies. Furthermore, the plaintiff invokes Article 19, No. 8 of the Chilean Constitution, which guarantees the right to live in an environment free from pollution and requires the State to protect nature.

The plaintiff contends that the defendant’s actions, which violate both domestic and international environmental obligations, have inflicted irreparable damage on the ecosystem and biodiversity of the Salar de Surire. To mitigate further harm, the plaintiff has requested a complete suspension of Quiborax’s mining operations, a measure granted by resolution on September 11, 2024. The plaintiff seeks reparative or compensatory measures in line with relevant environmental laws and commitments.

The defendant argues that the claim is inadmissible due to res judicata, as a prior judgment by the First Civil Court of Arica, confirmed by the Court of Appeals, ruled over a decade ago that there was no environmental damage in the Salar de Surire, no negligence by Quiborax, and no obligation to enter the SEIA process. The defendant also asserts that the action is time-barred, as the alleged damage began 37 years ago, far exceeding the statutory limitation period. Additionally, the defendant contends that the claimed environmental harm does not exist, as the impacts are inherent to regulated mining activities conducted under valid authorizations and continuous oversight. It denies causation, attributing changes in the Salar’s lagoons to climatic factors such as temperature and rainfall. Finally, it rejects the presumption of liability under Article 52 of Law No. 19.300, arguing that no infringement has been proven and that the court lacks direct sanctioning authority. The defendant requests the complete dismissal of the claim, including costs.

Geography

Chile

Recent cases