The main rules of the Chilean environmental legislation are contained in the following regulations:

• Article 19 No. 8 of the Chilean Constitution, which guarantees to all persons the right to live in a pollution-free environment.
• Law No. 19,300 (‘Environmental Act’), which established a general framework to guarantee the constitutional right indicated above, the protection of the environment, the preservation of nature and the conservation of environmental heritage. It also regulates environmental management instruments such as the Environmental Impact Assessment System (‘SEIA’) for projects or activities capable of causing environmental impact in any of their phases.
• Supreme Decree No. 40/2012, issued by the Ministry of the Environment (‘SEIA Regulation’), which regulates the operation of the SEIA.
• Law No. 20,417, which, among other matters, created the Environmental Superintendence (‘SMA’).
• Law No. 20,600, which creates and regulates the Environmental Courts.

Regarding the regulatory framework, the Environmental Act is complemented by several other statutory provisions, such as: Supreme Decree No. 6/2025, which enacts the Regulations for the Issuance of Environmental Quality Standards and Emission Norms; Supreme Decree No. 29/2012, which enacts the Regulations on the Classification of Wildlife Species According to Their Conservation Status; Law No. 20,283, the Native Forestry Law; Supreme Decree No. 148/2004, regulating Hazardous Waste Management; Supreme Decree No. 13/2011, regulating Emission Standards for Thermoelectric Power Plants; Supreme Decree No. 38/2012, which establishes Noise Emission Standards; Supreme Decree No. 28/2013, regulating Emissions Standards for Copper Smelters and Arsenic Emitting Sources; Supreme Decree No. 1/2023 which establishes a Standard for the Emission of Artificial Luminosity Generated by Outdoor Lighting; Law No. 20,920, establishing the Producer’s Extended Responsibility; Law No. 21,455, the Framework Law On Climate Change; Law No. 21,600, which establishes the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service and the National System of Protected Areas; Law No. 21,595, the Law on Economic Crimes; and the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (‘Escazú Agreement’).

Chile has various authorities responsible for environmental management and the protection of natural resources:

The Ministry of the Environment, authority responsible for assisting the President of Chile in the design and implementation of environmental policies, plans and programs and responsible for environmental protection.

The Environmental Assessment Service (‘SEA’), a sectorial authority in charge of managing the SEIA, conducting the environmental assessment of projects and activities, and issuing the guidelines for the environmental assessment processes.

The SMA is the authority responsible for implementing, organising and coordinating the monitoring and control of Environmental Assessment Resolutions (‘RCAs’), Prevention and Decontamination Plans, Environmental Quality Standards and Emission Norms, Management Plans, and any other environmental instruments established by law. As an oversight authority, the SMA is entitled to inspect facilities and initiate sanctioning proceedings that could result in the imposition of sanctions that range from fines up to approximately US$9.6 million per breach, closure of facilities and revocation of the relevant RCA.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are other public services and authorities with surveillance attributions in environmental matters that shall exercise their attributions only in connection with matters and instruments which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the SMA. Some of these authorities and services are the following: the Health Authority; the National Mining and Geology Service; the Agricultural and Livestock Service (‘SAG’); the Superintendency of Sanitary Services; the National Forest Corporation; the General Water Bureau (‘DGA’); the National Monuments Council; the General Directorate of Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine; and the Service for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (‘SBAP’).

The basic principle of the Chilean environmental permitting regime is that projects or activities that may have an environmental impact in any of their phases can only be executed or modified upon assessment of their environmental impacts in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Environmental Act and the SEIA Regulations.

Once an RCA is obtained, specific authorisations or permits shall be obtained before each sectoral authority according to the specific characteristics of each project or activity. Notwithstanding the above, projects or activities that may not cause an environmental impact in terms of the Environmental Act and the SEIA Regulation, and that are not required to be environmentally assessed, shall secure all sectoral permits mandated by the applicable regulations.

The Environmental Act and the SEIA regulation allow and regulate the transfer of the RCA. The process for transferring ownership of the RCA is straightforward and consists briefly of: (i) a declaration by the original holder expressing its decision to transfer the RCA; and (ii) a declaration by the new holder assuming this status and the responsibilities and obligations contained in the relevant RCA. This information shall be sent to the SEA, including the relevant information about the new holder, and the legal basis for the transfer and its documentation (e.g. purchase agreement or any other underlying agreement). With that information, the SEA issues a resolution stating the transfer of the RCA to the new holder.

According to Chilean public law rules, all the administrative decisions are subject to be reviewed before the authority which issued the decision or before its superior (when applicable) and after this, they may be claimed before ordinary courts.

Regarding the RCA, the petitioner (the holder or a third party that participated in the environmental assessment of the project) may appeal to the resolution that environmentally approves or rejects or imposes conditions and requirements on a project or activity. These appeals are filed before the SEA (if the relevant project or activity was environmentally assessed through an Environmental Impact Statement, the competent authority will be the Executive Director of the SEA, and if the project or activity was assessed through an Environmental Impact Study, the competent authority will be the Committee of Ministers –authority integrated by several Ministers related to environmental and economic matters- ). The resolution issued by the SEA or the Committee of Ministers may, in turn, be appealed before the Environmental Courts.

In general, the Environmental Act and the SEIA Regulation provide a detailed list of projects and activities that are subject to an environmental impact assessment. Among others, this list includes energy generating centrals in excess of three megawatts; ports, sailing ways, shipyards and maritime terminals; industrial or real estate projects that are to be located in zones declared as latent or saturated; mining projects ; oil, gas, mining and other kinds of pipelines; industrial facilities, such as metallurgical, chemical, textile, producers of building materials, metallic and tanning equipment and products, of industrial size; production, storage, transportation, disposal or recycling, on a regular basis, of toxic, explosive, radioactive, flammable, corrosive or reactive substances; and certain sanitary projects.

Depending on the effects, characteristics or circumstances of a project or activity, the petitioner shall submit to the authority an Environmental Impact Statement (‘DIA’) or an Environmental Impact Study (‘EIA’) regarding the environmental impact that the relevant project or activity shall have. Therefore, if the environmental impact creates or presents at least one of the effects, characteristics or circumstances mentioned in Article 11 of the Environmental Act (i.e., risk to the population’s health; significant adverse effects on the quantity and quality of the renewable natural resources, including ground, water and air; resettlement of human communities; alteration of areas belonging to the cultural patrimony) the petitioner shall submit an EIA. In all other cases, the petitioner shall submit a DIA. The process concludes with the issuance of the RCA.

RCA’s can be challenged as explained  in the answer to Question 5.

Chilean legal framework does not have a standalone contaminated land statute or regulation, and therefore the general environmental regulation for contamination is applied. Environmental regulation for contamination events establishes prevention, mitigation, monitoring and remediation obligations. Notably, Chile lacks specific soil quality standards, and reference values from international sources are typically used for risk assessment purposes.

However, in 2012, the Ministry of the Environment issued a methodological guide for the management of soils with potential contaminants, approved by means of Exempt Resolution No. 1,690/2011, which contains the main procedures involved in the identification, prioritisation, risk assessment, and management of contaminated land.

In the case of groundwater contamination, companies that discharge liquids to groundwater via infiltration are subject to an emission standard under Supreme Decree No. 46/2002.

It is worth noting that the RCA of any project may include measures to prevent, mitigate or compensate potential soil or groundwater contamination. Moreover, the applicable regulations require that any unanticipated contingency occurring during the execution of an environmentally authorised project that results in contamination must be reported to the SMA.

Regarding judicial liability, the Environmental Act establishes an environmental liability regime which imposes the obligation to repair any relevant damage culpably or wilfully caused, in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle set forth in Article 51 thereof. In this regard, there is a legal presumption of culpability where a breach of environmental standards/permits is proven. The environmental damage action seeks restoration, without prejudice to ordinary civil damages actions. These actions are heard by the specialised Environmental Courts created by Law 20,600.

Finally, criminal liability may arise for soil or groundwater contamination if certain statutory elements are met, as regulated by the Chilean Criminal Code and reinforced by Law No. 21,595 on Economic and Environmental Crimes, which strengthened the existing framework for environmental criminal offenses.

As explained in the previous answer, companies that discharge liquids to groundwater via infiltration shall comply with the emission standard set out in Supreme Decree No. 46/2002. That decree requires periodic monitoring of the discharged effluent and reporting obligations to the SMA. In addition, pursuant to Article 70(g) of the Environmental Act, the Ministry of the Environment can propose policies and standards regarding contaminated soils and environmental risk assessment’s obligations to the SMA. In connection with the latter, the Ministry of the Environment maintains a National Cadastre of Soils with Potential Presence of Contaminants, which as of 2022 identified over 10,000 sites nationwide with potential contamination, particularly in mining regions.

Additionally, as part of the environmental impact assessment process of a project or activity, soil and/or groundwater monitoring may be required. RCAs may also impose monitoring obligations or other conditions or obligations, including periodic reporting to the relevant authority (e.g., the SMA or the DGA). The SMA has broad investigative and access powers, including the authority to perform inspections, request additional information, take samples and conduct monitoring. Furthermore, RCA holders are required to report any environmental incident through the SMA’s Environmental Monitoring System within 24 hours of the event.

There is no universal, standalone statutory duty requiring every landholder to notify the authorities of contamination. However, as explained in the answer to Question 8, any pollution incident that occurs at an environmentally authorised project must be reported to the SMA through the Environmental Monitoring System within 24 hours, providing all background information on the incident, its effects, and implemented containment measures. For sites or projects not subject to an RCA, there is no general statutory reporting duty, although –as indicated above in the answer to Question No.7- the Ministry of the Environment issued a methodological guide for the management of soils with potential contaminants, which contains the main procedures involved in the identification, prioritisation, risk assessment, and management of contaminated land.

General legal liability principles apply in such cases. In this regard, statute of limitations restrictions may apply, which will vary depending on the knowledge from the previous owner of such contamination and the communication of it to the new owner in a timely manner.

Chile’s waste regulatory regime is primarily grounded in the Sanitary Code, which provides the legal basis for the sanitary control of waste management.

Hazardous waste is governed by Supreme Decree No. 148 of 2004 of the Ministry of Health, which approves the Health Regulation on Hazardous Waste Management. This regulation establishes criteria for identifying hazardous waste and imposes obligations on generators concerning storage, labelling, on-site accumulation, transport (including manifest system requirements), treatment and final disposal.

Complementing this regime, Supreme Decree No. 43 of 2015 regulates safety conditions applicable to hazardous-substance storage installations, which may be relevant where waste presents hazardous characteristics prior to treatment or disposal. Transportation of hazardous waste is also subject to sanitary and transport controls, including traceability and documentation requirements.

Additionally, Law No. 20,920 which establishes the Framework for Waste Management, Extended Producer Responsibility and the Promotion of Recycling (‘REP Act’), includes a parallel circular-economy regime for certain priority products (e.g. batteries, packaging, tires, oils, etc.), imposing collection and recovery targets on producers and regulating waste management systems and compliance schemes.

Under Chilean law, transferring waste to an authorised third party does not automatically eliminate the producer’s liability. Article 2(i) of the REP Act expressly provides that the generator is responsible for the waste ‘from its generation until its valorisation or disposal’ (‘cradle to grave’ principle). The statute does not provide for a legal ‘cut-off’ of liability upon transfer; rather, responsibility is extinguished only once lawful and effective treatment or final disposal has actually occurred. This principle is reinforced by the ‘polluter pays’ principle established in Article 2 of the REP Act, whereby the waste generator must internalise the costs and negative externalities associated with waste management.

In addition, producers remain subject to ongoing regulatory obligations even after transferring waste off-site, as the legal standard is linked to effective recovery or disposal rather than mere transfer. Across the various regulatory regimes applicable to different types of waste, producers are generally required to ensure proper sorting, adequate storage, traceability, reporting, and delivery to duly authorised transporters and treatment or disposal facilities. The REP Act specifically requires that all waste generators deliver waste to an authorised manager for treatment, and that authorised managers handle waste in an environmentally sound manner applying the best available techniques. Consequently, while the intensity of regulation varies depending on the type of waste, the common denominator is that the producer must guarantee that the waste is legally managed until its final treatment or disposal. If this ultimately does not occur, for example, due to mismanagement or operator insolvency, exposure to liability may persist, as Chilean law does not recognise a simple contractual transfer as a complete release from responsibility.

Under the REP Act, the standard is stricter. Producers of priority products remain responsible for meeting legally binding collection and valorisation targets, even where compliance is implemented through collective management systems. Producers must: (i) register in the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register; (ii) organise and finance waste collection, storage, transport and treatment; (iii) meet collection and recovery targets established by Supreme Decrees for each ‘priority product’; (iv) ensure that waste management is carried out by authorised and registered handlers; and (v) comply with associated obligations including consumer information and eco-design requirements. Accordingly, regulatory responsibility cannot be fully outsourced, and enforcement exposure may remain if statutory targets or reporting obligations are not met. Enforcement is shared between the Ministry of Environment, which sets targets and approves management systems, and the SMA, which oversees compliance and may impose sanctions for violations.

In Chile, take-back obligations arise under the Extended Producer Responsibility regime established by the REP Act. These obligations are not automatic for all products; they apply exclusively to those categories formally designated as priority products and only once the corresponding product-specific decree has been enacted and entered into force.

Since 2019, the REP Act system has moved from a framework statute to an operational regime. Binding take-back obligations are currently in force for the following products: tires (D.S. No. 8/2019, in force since 2021); containers and packaging (D.S. No. 12/2020, with collection targets in force since September 2023 for packaging materials including liquid packaging carton, metal, paper and cardboard, plastic, and glass); and lubricating oils (D.S. No. 47/2024, with staged entry into force). A decree covering batteries and electrical and electronic equipment was approved by the Council of Ministers for Sustainability and Climate Change in June 2025 and is pending presidential promulgation. Other product categories remain subject to ongoing regulatory development and take-back obligations become legally enforceable only upon publication and entry into force of their respective decrees.

The Chilean take-back system is outcome-based and follows a hierarchy in waste management that prioritises prevention, reuse, recycling, and energy recovery over disposal. Producers must organise and finance collection systems—individually or through authorised collective management schemes—and comply with legally binding, progressively increasing collection and valorisation targets established by Supreme Decree for each ‘priority product’. They are also required to: (i) register in the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register; (ii) ensure traceability throughout the management chain; (iii) contract only authorised waste managers; (iv) meet reporting obligations through annual declarations; and (v) comply with associated obligations such as labeling, eco-design, and consumer information requirements, as may be established by regulation. Compliance is subject to supervision by the SMA, which may impose sanctions for violations.

Accordingly, the extent of take-back obligations in Chile is substantial for regulated priority products: producers bear structural responsibility for the recovery and valorisation of post-consumer waste derived from the products they place on the market. This responsibility is regulatory in nature and cannot be avoided through simple delegation to third parties; compliance is measured against statutory targets and system performance. The law also promotes the inclusion of informal waste collectors (‘recicladores de base‘) by requiring their certification and integration into formal management systems, recognising their role in the circular economy.

Chile does not regulate asbestos through a single comprehensive statute. Instead, it is governed through a coordinated framework of sanitary, occupational and hazardous waste regulations.

The core instrument is Supreme Decree No. 656/2001 of the Ministry of Health, which prohibits the production, importation, distribution, sale and use of all types of asbestos (including both amphibole and chrysotile varieties) and materials containing asbestos, effective July 2001. Despite the prohibition, asbestos remains present in thousands of older buildings constructed before the 2001 ban, prompting government programs for its safe removal and requiring specific protocols for the identification, handling and safe management of this material in replacement or demolition projects.

Article 5 of Supreme Decree No. 656/2001 allows the Health Authority to authorise asbestos use in limited circumstances for products that are not construction materials, provided the interested party demonstrates there is no technical or economic feasibility to replace it and strict workplace hygiene and safety measures are maintained. Article 9 specifically regulates asbestos already installed in buildings. Any demolition, dismantling or modification involving friable asbestos requires prior authorisation from the competent health authority and submission of a work plan detailing protective measures for workers and the surrounding population. If friable asbestos is unexpectedly discovered, works must be suspended until authorisation is obtained. Where asbestos is non-friable, prior notification and submission of a work plan are required.

Workplace exposure is governed by Supreme Decree No. 594/1999, which establishes sanitary and environmental conditions in workplaces and sets a permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers/cc (Article 66). These obligations operate together with Article 184 of the Labour Code, which imposes a general duty to effectively protect workers’ health, and with Law No. 16.744 and Supreme Decree No. 109, which recognise asbestos-related diseases as occupational diseases. Preventive duties and worker information requirements are further reinforced by Supreme Decree No. 40/1969.

Where asbestos-containing materials are removed, disposal is regulated under Supreme Decree No. 148/2004, which classifies asbestos waste as hazardous waste (Article 18) and requires declaration through the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, controlled transport, and disposal at authorised facilities.

Chile has not adopted a comprehensive PFAS-specific regulatory regime. Nevertheless, PFAS may be subject to relevant environmental management controls arising from incorporated international commitments-such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Basel Convention-as well as from generally applicable domestic regulatory frameworks. Chile ratified the Stockholm Convention in 2005 and is bound by its subsequent amendments.

PFAS expressly listed under the Stockholm Convention are subject to elimination, restriction and environmentally sound management obligations. The Basel Convention framework may likewise become relevant where PFAS-containing residues qualify as hazardous waste, particularly in the context of transboundary movements.

Separately, Chile’s domestic regulations governing hazardous substances, including Supreme Decree No. 57 on the Classification, Labelling and Notification of Hazardous Chemical Substances and Mixtures, Supreme Decree No. 43 on Hazardous-Substance Storage, and Supreme Decree No. 148 approving the Health Regulation on Hazardous Waste Management, may become applicable insofar as specific PFAS substances or PFAS-containing residues meet hazard-classification criteria and applicable regulatory thresholds. Chile’s Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (‘RETC’) Regulation further provides an institutional mechanism through which pollutants subject to reporting, quantification or estimation obligations may be captured.

Finally, Chilean authorities have considered regulatory developments potentially relevant to PFAS, including proposed amendments to the Food Sanitary Regulation (‘RSA’) and policy discussions concerning PFAS-related risks in drinking water. However, Chilean law does not currently establish PFAS-specific concentration limits for drinking water or environmental media.

Chile does not operate a comprehensive and centralised chemicals control regime equivalent to the European Union’s REACH Regulation, the CLP Regulation, or the United States’ TSCA. Chile does not maintain a general pre-market registration system applicable to all chemical substances placed on the market, nor does it operate a unified substance-by-substance authorisation or restriction mechanism comparable to REACH Annex XIV/XVII or the TSCA inventory framework.

Instead, Chile regulates chemical substances and hazardous products through a fragmented, sector-based framework, combining horizontal hazard-classification rules with sector-specific controls.

The closest functional equivalent to the European CLP Regulation is Supreme Decree No. 57/2019, which establishes the Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Notification of Hazardous Chemical Substances and Mixtures. This regulation adopts the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System (‘GHS’), specifically Revision 7, and requires manufacturers and importers to classify and label hazardous substances prior to commercialisation or use, irrespective of quantity. It also imposes notification obligations to the health authority for hazardous substances and mixtures whose annual volume equals or exceeds one tonne. For mixtures, substances must be reported if they meet this threshold and are present above specified cut-off concentrations. Additionally, the regulation requires the preparation of Safety Data Sheets, which must be updated within six months of receiving new information on hazard classification or restrictions. Resolution No. 777/2021 provides an official list of approximately 4,500 substances with mandatory classification. While this framework introduces notification and hazard communication duties-now transitioning through staggered compliance deadlines-it does not create a centralised authorisation or risk-evaluation regime comparable to REACH or TSCA.

Operational controls are further complemented by Supreme Decree No. 43/2015, regulating hazardous-substance storage installations, and Supreme Decree No. 594/1999, which establishes occupational exposure limits and workplace handling requirements for hazardous chemicals. Safety Data Sheets in Chile must comply with the national standard NCh 2245:2021, which aligns with GHS Revision 8.

In addition, Chile maintains sector-specific product regimes, including: (i) pesticide authorisation and control under the SAG; (ii) sanitary registration of cosmetics before the Public Health Institute; (iii) food-contact material controls under the RSA; and (iv) regulation of chemical precursors under Law No. 20,000. These systems operate independently and are administered by different authorities.

Chile has also ratified key international conventions governing chemicals and hazardous substances, including the Basel Convention (hazardous waste movements), the Rotterdam Convention (prior informed consent for hazardous chemicals in trade), the Stockholm Convention (persistent organic pollutants), and the Minamata Convention (mercury). These instruments influence domestic controls over specific substances but do not amount to a comprehensive chemicals management regime.

An Energy Efficiency Law (‘EEL’) was enacted in Chile in 2021. This law incorporates the concept of ‘energy intensity’, which is the way in which energy efficiency is measured, establishing a relationship between the amount of energy required to generate the gross domestic product (‘GDP’). In turn, the EEL establishes the duty to prepare a National Energy Efficiency Plan, which shall be updated every five years; an obligation that was fulfilled in February 2022 with the enactment of the ‘National Energy Efficiency Plan 2022-2026’. This plan seeks to reduce energy intensity by 4.5% by 2026 (e.g. 4.5% less energy required to generate the same GDP), 13% by 2030, and 30% by 2050. This goal is more ambitious than the one established in the EEL itself, which required a 10% energy intensity reduction by 2030, based on the consumption corresponding to 2019.

Additionally, the EEL regulates and impose duties on (i) ‘consumers with capacity for energy management’, which is regulated through Supreme Decree No. 28/2021 of the Ministry of Energy (including reports, energy management systems and audits); (ii) public sector (through energy reports); (iii) vehicles (through labelling and minimum efficiency standards for new cars); and buildings, regulated through Supreme Decree No. 5/2024 of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (imposing a qualification of the energy efficiency).

The main regulation regarding this issue is the Framework Law on Climate Change (‘LMCC’), issued in 2022. This law, in addition to establishing several duties to be adopted by the Chilean State, included the ambitious goal of achieving neutrality of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This goal has also been confirmed in other instruments and strategies adopted by the country. Examples of this are the Nationally Determined Contribution (‘NDC’) – updated in 2025 through Supreme Decree No. 28/2025 – and the Long-Term Climate Strategy.

The following measures are included in the LMCC:

• The duty of the Ministry of the Environment to issue regulations to state new emission limits to combat climate change, limiting, for example, the greenhouse gases and/or short-lived emissions from industrial activities or other sources.
• The creation of a national carbon market, regulated through Supreme Decree No. 32/2025 of the Ministry of the Environment. The LMCC allows compliance with emission standards through the acquisition of certificates that verify the reduction or absorption of greenhouse gas emissions. These certificates will be generated by the (i) implementation of emission-reduction projects, or (ii) verification of surpluses in compliance with emission standards. For this purpose, a public registry shall be created to record, among other things, the transfers, purchases and values of these certificates.

Other relevant regulation is a tax reform that established ‘green’ taxes. Green taxes are tax duties levied on the emission of certain pollutants, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and carbon dioxide (CO₂), with the purpose of correcting or compensating for the undesired effects produced by their emission into the atmosphere.

This tax is levied on the emissions produced by establishments whose emitting sources, individually or as a whole, issue 100 or more tons per year of particulate matter, or 25,000 or more tons per year of CO₂. The tax amount is calculated by applying a formula, established by law, considering the type of pollutant, the population of the sector in which the sources are located, the existence of atmospheric prevention and decontamination plans, among other factors. In this sense, the owners or holders of these sources have the obligation to report and declare the emissions of these pollutants and their amount to the Ministry of the Environment.

This law establishes the possibility for taxpayers subject to the green tax to offset all or part of their taxable emissions, for purposes of determining the amount of payable tax, through the implementation of projects to reduce emissions of the respective pollutants, complying with the requirements established by law and its regulation.

Another mechanism implemented by the state of Chile to achieve the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable economy is the issue of ‘green’ bonds. Green bonds are financial debt instruments used to finance projects, companies and, in general, economic activities that have a positive impact on the environment or that contribute to addressing or adapting to climate change. Pursuant to the ‘Green Bond Framework’, issued in 2019, funds were destined for the development of certain eligible green expenditures in various sectors that benefit the environment. Some examples of these sectors are clean transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, natural resources, land use and marine protected areas, water management and ‘green’ buildings.

The State is an advocate for renewable energy, promoting it through public policies and the creation of benefits that encourage its expansion and development. In this sense, one of the policies aimed at promoting the development of renewable energies has been the requirement imposed on electric power companies that make withdrawals from the electric power system with an installed capacity of over 200 MW, that at least 20% of their withdrawals have been injected into the system by means of renewable generation, either their own or contracted.

Likewise, within the energy policies designed and established by the Ministry of Energy, a prioritisation of renewable energy generation projects is included. For example, in 2015, the Chilean government issued the Chilean Energy Policy, which established a goal that – -by 2050 –- at least 70% of the generated energy should be produced by non-conventional renewable energy generation means. This goal was updated and deepened in 2022, imposing an even more challenging one, aiming for the electric power generation matrix to contain at least 80% of NCRE by 2030 and 100% by 2050.

Yes. Please refer to the previous question.

There is currently no special statute specifically regulating greenwashing; however, a bill on this subject is under discussion in the Chilean Congress.

Nevertheless, the Consumer Protection Act (Law No. 19,496) prohibits advertising that misleads or confuses consumers, and those general prohibitions apply to environmental claims about products or services, including greenwashing.

Additionally, The Financial Market Commission (‘CMF’) requires supervised entities to disclose sustainability and corporate‑governance information in their annual reports (General Rule No. 461), aligning with international ESG reporting practices. In November 2025, the CMF also put out for consultation a comprehensive funds rulebook that, among other measures, introduces specific requirements for funds using ESG‑related terms (e.g., maintaining at least 80% of investments aligned with stated sustainability objectives) to address greenwashing risk in fund naming, marketing and ongoing management.

In Chile, there is currently no competition law that expressly incorporates environmental sustainability or climate change as an autonomous objective of the free competition regime. The framework of Decree Law No. 211 maintains its classic structure, focused on protecting the competitive process and consumer welfare, without explicitly recognising environmental efficiencies or justifications.

However, there is indirect and functional interaction between the two areas. The clearest example is the REP Act, which, by enabling collective management systems potentially composed of competitors, requires the preventive intervention of the Free Competition Defense Tribunal (‘TDLC’) to assess anti-competitive risks. Under this framework, collective compliance systems must submit their governing documents for review by the TDLC and, if necessary, the National Economic Prosecutor (‘FNE’), and must contract waste management services using a competitive bidding process. This regulatory design does not merge the two regimes, but it does recognise that environmental instruments can generate business coordination structures that must be examined under competition standards.

Outside of these cases, the integration of climate considerations into competitive analysis remains mainly at the doctrinal level. Unlike certain comparative jurisdictions, where authorities have issued specific guidelines on sustainability or climate change agreements, Chile has not yet developed an explicit policy that flexibly modulates the application of competition law based on environmental benefits. Nevertheless, recent enforcement trends show growing attention to the intersection of competition and sustainability policy. The FNE has signalled its willingness to scrutinise algorithmic pricing tools and digital market practices, and the TDLC continues to evaluate joint ventures and coordination arrangements under the REP Act framework, ensuring compliance with open access, fair participation, and free competition principles.

Over the past three years, Chile has experienced a significant evolution in climate-related litigation. Both the Environmental Courts and the Supreme Court have issued decisions that consolidate climate change as a legally relevant factor in environmental legality control, particularly in cases involving water resources.

A landmark precedent is the decision of the Second Environmental Court in Case No. R-271-2020 (joined with R-270-2020), dated February 26, 2024, concerning the ‘Cerrillos Data Center’ project. The Court partially annulled RCA No. 127/2020 after determining that the project proponent, the SEA, and the DGA had failed to adequately incorporate the climate change variable into the assessment of impacts on the Santiago Central Aquifer. The Court expressly held that, although there is currently no specific regulatory mandate requiring an autonomous climate change chapter in environmental impact assessments, the preventive and precautionary principles require consideration of all relevant variables that may affect a vulnerable resource. In light of Chile’s prolonged mega-drought, the Court emphasised that water resources must be assessed under reasonably adverse or worst-case hydrological scenarios.

In contrast, Supreme Court ruling in Case No. 3501-2024, dated July 29, 2024, addressed the issue from the opposite procedural posture. In that case, the Court rejected a cassation appeal and upheld a prior ruling that had validated the environmental assessment of a project. The Supreme Court confirmed that the incorporation of climate change effects may be achieved methodologically rather than through a separate analytical section, and that the use of highly conservative hydrological modeling — including 300-year return period scenarios — constituted a legally sufficient means of integrating climate risk into impact projections. The decision is significant because it clarifies what the Court considers an acceptable technical standard for climate incorporation within the SEIA.

More recently, in Supreme Court’s decision Case No. 12225-2025, dated August 5, 2025, the Court addressed climate considerations outside the SEIA context. The case involved a resolution of the DGA ordering the restoration of a river embankment. The Court granted a constitutional protection action and suspended the effects of that specific administrative act until an environmental impact assessment was conducted to evaluate the hydrological consequences of the restoration. In doing so, the Court characterised climate change as a ‘well-known and public fact’ affecting geographical and hydrological conditions. While the ruling does not establish a general doctrinal rule applicable to all administrative decisions, it confirms that climate change constitutes a legally relevant factual element in the judicial review of water management decisions.

Taken together, these cases reflect a coherent jurisprudential development: the courts have required the explicit incorporation of climate variables where omitted, validated conservative technical methodologies where applied, and recognised climate change as a legally cognizable factor beyond the strict confines of the SEIA. As such, they represent the most significant climate-related judicial developments in Chile in recent years.

Substantial climate-related regulatory change is expected in Chile in the near term, although not through the enactment of a new overarching climate statute. The Framework Law on Climate Change (Law No. 21,455 referred above as LMCC) already provides a structural legal basis, including a binding carbon neutrality target by 2050 (Article 4). The significant developments will arise from the activation of the regulatory instruments mandated by that law.

The most consequential shift will be the transition from policy-driven mitigation commitments to enforceable emission controls at the facility or sector level. Article 14 of the LMCC authorises the adoption of greenhouse gas emission standards, and Supreme Decree No. 12 of 2025 has already approved the regulation governing their issuance. This framework enables the Ministry of the Environment to establish maximum emission limits by establishment, source, or sector through future decrees. Once adopted, these standards will represent a structural regulatory change by converting climate targets into binding quantitative obligations.

In addition, Law No. 21,455 introduces a market-based compliance mechanism. Article 15 creates a system of emission reduction or absorption certificates intended to be used for compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards. While the specific implementing regulation remains pending, its entry into force would materially alter the regulatory landscape by allowing regulated entities to meet certain obligations through transferable certificates, thereby incorporating a structured carbon-pricing logic into the domestic legal framework, albeit within the scope defined by the statute.

Under Chilean environmental law, the allocation of liability for regulatory violations or environmental contamination caused by a company operates across three distinct legal frameworks: (i) administrative sanctioning liability, primarily governed by Law No. 20,417, which created SMA; (ii) civil liability for environmental damage, regulated by Articles 3, 51, and 52 of the Environmental Act; and (iii) criminal liability, significantly expanded by Law No. 21,595 on Economic Crimes. As a general rule, liability is attached primarily to the holder or effective operator of the regulated activity. However, Chilean courts have progressively broadened the scope of potential defendants where there is evidence of participation, effective control, or breach of supervisory duties, applying Article 2317 of the Civil Code to impose joint and several liability in cases of concurrent wrongdoing.

(a) The company itself. The project holder is the primary subject of liability. The SMA may impose administrative sanctions under Articles 38 and 39 of Law No. 20,417, including fines of up to 10,000 Annual Tax Units, suspension, or revocation of the environmental permit. In civil proceedings, Article 3 of the Environmental Act requires any person who, through fault or intent, causes environmental damage to restore it materially and provide compensation. Article 52 establishes a presumption of liability where the damage results from violations of environmental standards. Since 2023, legal entities may also incur criminal liability for certain environmental offenses under Law No. 21,595.

(b) Shareholders. Chilean corporate law is based on separate legal personality and limited liability; shareholders are not liable beyond their capital contribution. That principle may be displaced, however, where the shareholder acts as an effective controller, administrator, or operator, or where the corporate form is abused. In environmental cases, courts have not consistently framed these situations as the classic ‘veil piercing’. Rather, they have imposed liability when shareholders personally participated in the wrongful conduct or breached supervisory duties, applying Article 2317 of the Civil Code to establish joint and several liability, as in Case, D-71-2022 before the Second Environmental Court. Thus, liability arises from participation or fault, not merely ownership. True veil piercing remains exceptional and doctrinally unsettled in environmental litigation.

(c) Directors and officers. Directors are not automatically liable by virtue of their role. However, they may incur civil, administrative, or criminal liability where they directly participate in the violation or where serious failures of oversight are causally linked to the harm. Article 133 of Law No. 18,046 provides that directors found liable are jointly and severally responsible with the company for civil damages. Law No. 21,595 further extends criminal exposure to directors and senior executives who engage in environmental offenses such as submitting false information or obstructing regulatory oversight. In addition, Article 45 of Law No. 20,417 establishes that where the infringer is a legal entity, its legal representatives are subsidiarily liable for payment of administrative fines. Chilean courts have held in the past that omission of legally required supervision may generate personal liability when causally relevant.

(d) Parent companies. Chilean environmental statutes do not impose automatic liability on a parent company for acts of its subsidiary. Courts have nevertheless imposed liability where the parent jointly participated in the harmful conduct, exercised effective operational control, or knowingly tolerated unlawful activity. In such cases, liability is typically grounded in concurrent fault under Article 2317 of the Civil Code rather than in formal veil piercing. While the abuse-of-legal-personality doctrine could, in theory, extend to parent companies, Chilean environmental case law has more frequently relied on control and participation analysis than on a fully articulated veil-piercing framework.

(e) Financial institutions (lenders). Mere status as a lender does not create environmental liability in Chile, and no general ‘lender liability’ is applicable. Liability may arise, however, where the financial institution becomes a property owner or assumes a role that entails supervisory duties. In Forestal León v. Banco de Chile (Supreme Court Case No. 8593-2012), a bank was held jointly liable as property owner in a sale-and-leaseback structure after failing to prevent unlawful logging. By contrast, there is no precedent imposing liability solely on a bank that provided financing without acquiring ownership or exercising operational control.

(f) Other entities and transactional contexts. Chilean courts have extended liability to property owners, lessors, co-owners, and even municipalities when they breached legally relevant duties of oversight. In corporate transactions, the distinction between share deals and asset deals is decisive: in a share acquisition, the legal entity — and thus its environmental liabilities — remains unchanged; in an asset acquisition, liability will depend on whether the purchaser assumes permit holder status or effectively becomes the new operator through operational continuity. Across these contexts, courts focus less on formal structure and more on effective participation, material control, and causal contribution.

In sum, Chilean law does not impose automatic liability based solely on corporate affiliation or financial involvement. Nevertheless, judicial practice reflects a clear trend toward expanding liability where there is joint participation, effective control, or failure to exercise legally required supervision. Although veil piercing has begun to appear in environmental discourse, most cases extending liability have been grounded in concurrent fault and control-based analysis rather than in a fully developed and autonomous veil-piercing doctrine

In Chile, whether a purchaser may assume pre-existing environmental liabilities and responsibilities, and whether a seller may remain exposed after a transaction, depends primarily on whether the deal is structured as a share acquisition or an asset acquisition, and the terms of the agreement governing such acquisition, as well as on the mandatory nature of Chile’s environmental liability framework under Article 3 of the Environmental Act and Article 44 of Law No. 20,600.

In a share acquisition, the target company remains the same legal entity. Accordingly, all pre-existing environmental liabilities and responsibilities -administrative, civil, and potentially criminal- remain vested in the acquired company. The purchaser assumes those risks indirectly by acquiring control of the entity that bears them. The seller, in principle, is no longer exposed once its shares are transferred. However, the seller may retain personal liability if it directly participated in the conduct giving rise to environmental harm, for example in its capacity as director, manager, or controlling shareholder, pursuant to Article 133 of Law No. 18,046 and Article 2317 of the Civil Code. Contractual indemnities allocate economic risk between the parties but are not enforceable against environmental authorities or any other third parties.

In an asset acquisition, the purchaser does not acquire the legal entity that generated the liability, but rather specific assets. As a general rule, liability for environmental damage attaches to the party that caused it through fault or intent under Article 3 of the Environmental Act. Consequently, the seller retains liability for pre-existing environmental damage resulting from its own conduct. The transfer of assets does not release the seller from liability before regulators or third parties.

If the transferred asset includes a project that holds an RCA, the purchaser must formally process a change of permit holder pursuant to Article 163 of the SEIA Regulation. Upon becoming the new permit holder, the purchaser assumes full responsibility for compliance with all environmental conditions and obligations set forth in the RCA.

Under Chilean law, there is no standalone statutory provision that imposes a general environmental disclosure obligation on a seller in private asset or share transactions. This does not mean, however, that a seller may withhold material environmental information without legal consequences. Disclosure duties arise indirectly from the general principles of civil law, particularly the doctrines governing latent defects, fraudulent nondisclosure, and the overarching requirement of good faith in contractual negotiations and performance.

In practice, environmental due diligence is very common in Chile, especially in mid-sized and large transactions.

The legislation in Chile regulates insurance for certain risks arising from environmental damage (e.g., nuclear damage). Such insurance aims to cover the eventual compensation derived from the civil liability of negative environmental impacts, but there is no general insurance requirement to cover environmental damages or breaches of environmental laws or regulations.

In Chile, environmental insurance can generally cover the economic effects of accidental or unforeseen pollution events. It typically includes third-party liability for damages, containment and cleanup costs, and legal defense expenses. The exact scope of coverage varies depending on the policy, and situations such as gradual pollution or intentional acts are commonly excluded.

The most common alternatives on the market are civil liability insurance for pollution, remediation expense coverage, and, in some cases, environmental extensions incorporated into traditional insurance policies. In industries with greater exposure -such as mining, energy, or industrial activities- these policies are usually taken out with conditions tailored to the type of operation.

In practice, not all companies purchase this type of insurance. Its use is concentrated in companies with significant environmental risks, contractual requirements, or strict risk management policies. Therefore, it can be said that its adoption is selective rather than widespread.

In Chile, the general rule is that official acts and procedures of public services are subject to public access. This principle is established by the Chilean Constitution and by several statutes, most notably Law No. 20,285 on Access to Public Information. Additionally, various regulations promote public access to environmental information. Moreover, Chile has ratified the Escazú Agreement, which establishes specific obligations regarding the accessibility of environmental information.

As a result, public authorities in Chile maintain several public registers of environmental information. These include the following:

(a) the RETC, maintained by the Ministry of the Environment, which is publicly accessible and captures, systematises, and disseminates data on emissions, waste, and transfers reported by obligated establishments;

(b) the environmental impact assessment procedures, which are publicly available through the SEA website, including every DIA and EIA, observations submitted by relevant public services, and the RCA; and

(c) the National Environmental Enforcement Information System, administered by the SMA, which is expressly regulated as a public, digital, and free-access system that must publish environmental enforcement information as well as public registers of RCAs and sanctions.

Under Law No. 20,285 on Access to Public Information, information held by public bodies is, as a rule, publicly accessible. Accordingly, any person may submit an information access request to the relevant authority, and in most cases the information is disclosed unless a statutory exception applies. Additionally, the relevant parties of the information requested may oppose the granting of access to the requested information, based on certain legal exceptions. If access is denied, the applicant may file a claim before the Council for Transparency, which resolution may be also appealed before the relevant Court of Appeals.

Over the last three years, there have been significant changes in Chilean environmental legislation. Notably, Law No. 21,600 created the SBAP and the National System of Protected Areas, reorganising competencies, strengthening conservation institutions, and introducing new biodiversity management rules with an impact on permits and environmental assessment.

In terms of liability, Law No. 21,595 on Economic Crimes significantly strengthened the criminal regime applicable to serious environmental violations, increasing penalties and compliance standards for companies and executives.

The Framework Law on Sectoral Authorisations (Law No. 21,770) should also be highlighted. This law modernises and simplifies the processing of several sectoral permits -including some of those with environmental content- through coordination mechanisms, parallel processing, and a single digital window to process all permits.

In the near future, the regulatory focus will be mainly on the implementation of these legal frameworks and associated regulatory adjustments. At the same time, discussions continue on improvements to the SEIA, modernisation of permits, development of climate instruments, and regulation of biodiversity and the circular economy. This scenario anticipates greater technical requirements and a sustained strengthening of enforcement.