Finding that poor air quality and inadequately regulated industrial pollution violates the right to a healthy environment, Chile’s Supreme Court denounces ‘sacrifice zones’ as unjust and vindicates years of local mobilization.
In Chile’s Quintero, Ventanas and Puchuncavi regions, persistent pollution from the Ventanas Industrial Complex has long plagued local communities. A court case in 2018 highlighted a series of toxic “Yellow Alert” events causing widespread health issues, including nausea, vomiting and hospitalizations. The plaintiffs accused the State and private companies of neglect and failure to prevent pollution, violating citizens’ right to a healthy environment (R2HE). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering measures to reduce emissions, diagnose related diseases and establish emergency plans. As of 2023, achieving full compliance has proved challenging, despite some progress in regulating pollutants and closing certain industrial facilities.
Chile’s Quintero, Ventanas and Puchuncavi regions have long grappled with persistent pollution from a local industrial complex that continuously released toxins into the environment. The area surrounding the Ventanas Industrial Complex is often called a “sacrifice zone,” polluting the local communities for years and contaminating the air and soil, which caused adverse health outcomes.
The case originated from a series of “Yellow Alert” pollution events in 2018, resulting in thousands of individuals requiring medical attention and, in extreme cases, hospitalization. From late August to early October, locals were exposed to nauseating fumes, causing symptoms such as vomiting, dizziness, headaches and fainting. By October 9, over 1,700 people had sought health consultations and authorities discovered traces of sulfur dioxide, methyl chloroform, nitrobenzene and toluene – all harmful to human health – in the environment.
The plaintiffs alleged that the State and private entities had neglected their responsibilities for decades. Their failure to take necessary measures to prevent further toxic events ultimately lead to the mass health crisis of 2018. Private companies within the Ventana Industrial Complex were accused of inadequate waste treatment and measures to prevent environmental pollution. The State, including the Ministry of the Environment and the Chilean President, faced accusations of neglecting their mandated responsibilities and violating domestic and international obligations to monitor public health and uphold fundamental rights such as the right to life, health and a pollution-free environment.
The Supreme Court of Chile determined that the harmful air pollution violated the population’s right to a healthy environment (R2HE) and that the State had failed to take the necessary precautionary and preventive measures required by domestic laws and international commitments. Emphasizing human rights protections over economic development, the Court ruled that the economic benefits of industry could not justify sacrificing conservation, environmental protection and the health of local populations.
The Court issued extensive remedies, including (1) that the State conduct studies to determine the extent and sources of pollution, develop an action plan within one year and implement measures to address pollution; (2) requiring facilities and pollution sources to reduce emissions to levels set by administrative authorities; (3) diagnosing diseases linked to pollution and implementing specific health programs; (4) creating an Emergency Plan for future pollution events; (5) fostering cooperation and coordination between government levels; and (6) establishing a public information platform to publish reports and investigations required by the Court.
As of 2023, although a Quintero-Puchuncaví Environmental and Social Recovery Program is in place, there are ongoing delays and barriers to implementing the Court’s orders, with a comprehensive analysis of local pollutants and their health effects still pending. However, some positive developments have been made, including regulating contaminants like benzene and closing some smelters in the industrial complex.
The plaintiffs brought the case alleging that the respondents violated their constitutional rights to life, health and a healthy environment. The Court noted that a number of the plaintiffs were not directly harmed. Only one plaintiff alleged direct harm and the violation of their rights . However, the Court noted that they could decide on the execution of environmental measures and norms even absent direct harm, especially when a popular action was unavailable.
The case did not argue that the Chilean Constitution explicitly guaranteed R2HE; however, Article 1 mandates the State to promote the common good, ensuring the fullest respect for citizens’ guaranteed rights to thrive. Additionally, Law No. 19,300’s Article 70 obligated the Ministry of the Environment to adhere to international conventions ratified by Chile. These constitutional and legislative provisions legally bound the State to honor its international commitments, providing a domestic legal basis for enforcement beyond international compliance regimes. The plaintiffs contended, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the respondents had failed to fulfill their constitutional and international obligations.
Domestic legislation required the State, municipalities and agencies to comply with the international agreements to which Chile had subscribed. This included hard emissions targets, recognizing certain fundamental rights and the application of legal principles. The Court spent significant time detailing the various international, regional and bilateral treaties, agreements, conventions and declarations Chile had signed and was therefore bound by. Such agreements included the Montreal Protocol, Stockholm Convention, Basel Convention, Rio Declaration and the World Declaration of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the Rule of Law in Environmental Matters, among others. The Court focused on how such agreements articulated the contents of sustainable development and intergenerational equity and called for application of the precaution and prevention principles.
The Supreme Court spent considerable time articulating the principles that the respondents were obligated to recognize and fulfill. One such principle was taken from the World Declaration of the IUCN on the Rule of Law in Environmental Matters (IUCN World Declaration). The State and private actors must “care for and promote the well-being of nature, regardless of its value to human beings, as well as to impose limitations on its use and exploitation.” While listed among numerous other principles, the application of Principle 1 from the IUCN World Declaration elevates and recognizes the rights of nature independent of humans.
While the Industrial Complex promised development and economic growth, the plaintiffs argued that sustainable development required such growth to not be at the expense of the locals’ health and environment. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the principle of sustainable development fully applied to the case and clarifying its scope from the Stockholm and Rio Declarations and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Drawing from these international sources—as well as domestic Law No 19,300— the Court found that development could not compromise the expectations and needs of future generations.
The plaintiffs’ case centered on the fact that, through action or omission, the State had failed in its obligations to regulate environmental pollutants and protect the fundamental rights of the populace. The respective administrative agencies responded that they followed international conventions in force, adopted appropriate health measures to address the pollution events, complied with national emergency plans and sufficiently monitored and analyzed unregulated emissions. The Supreme Court found that the respondents had failed in their duties, neglecting to apply the principles of precaution and prevention, thereby failing to implement sustainable developmental practices and infringing on the fundamental rights of life, health and a healthy environment.
From the outset, R2HE was separated from the interlinked rights to health and life. The Court articulated the intertwined nature of the fundamental rights, stating that it was necessary to analyze their violations together as a whole.
