abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptriangletwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

コンテンツは以下の言語で利用可能です: English, español

記事

2025年12月5日

著者:
Diario Constitucional

Chile: Court accepts for review an Indigenous community’s complaint related to the approval of the environmental impact assessment of Candelaria mining company

申立

“Court accepts for review complaint filed by the Colla Indigenous Community over the approval of Minera Candelaria’s optimization and operational continuity project” – 5 December 2025

The Colla Tata Inti Indigenous Community of the town of Los Loros filed a legal complaint against a decision by the Environmental Evaluation Commission of the Atacama Region (COEVA), which rejected the community’s request to invalidate the approval granted to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project “Optimization and Operational Continuity of Minera Candelaria,” owned by Compañía Contractual Minera Candelaria. The community had sought to have the approval annulled, arguing that it was illegal...

In its filing, the community sets out several arguments in support of the complaint. First, it alleges illegality stemming from the lack of an adequate assessment of the impacts of PM2.5 emissions and of the measures intended to address them, despite the Environmental Qualification Resolution (RCA) identifying a significant increase in this pollutant. The community also criticizes the alleged failure to correctly identify sensitive receptors, which would affect the dispersion modeling of emissions and the assessment of their impact on air quality...

They further argue that the assessment of risks to health and agricultural activity caused by sedimentable particulate matter (SPM) was inadequate. They claim there was a failure to consider human receptors located within the area of operations and in certain areas adjacent to the mining site, as the EIA and its addenda — according to the community — omit information about particulate matter in that area and its effects on workers...