Opinion column by Juan Carlos Guajardo.
The ruling by the Second Environmental Court that revoked the environmental approval (RCA) for the Collahuasi project is a troubling sign of how fragile investing in Chile has become. We are not talking about a company that tried to bypass institutional procedures.
On the contrary, it completed an Environmental Impact Study, obtained approval from the State, and on that basis moved forward with an investment nearing completion worth more than US$3 billion.
The project is strategic because it seeks to extend operations for 20 years, increase productive capacity, and incorporate a desalination plant — a key component for a mining company that must produce more, reduce the use of continental water, and respond to increasingly demanding environmental standards.
The Court did not declare the project unviable. It questioned how the authorities evaluated observations regarding human impact, coastal indigenous communities, maritime territory, and the marine environment, and ordered the process to be rolled back. But that is precisely the problem. If those aspects were decisive, they should have been resolved before the investment had already materialized, not when construction is nearly complete.
No serious country can consider it normal for an investor who followed the institutional path to remain exposed years later to the destabilization of an environmental permit. Not because companies should be exempt from oversight, but because regulatory certainty must be an essential part of the contract between the State and those who invest. If the authorities make mistakes in their evaluation, the cost cannot suddenly appear like a bomb hanging over a project already built.
This case shows that “permit bureaucracy” was not merely a cliché or an excuse against regulation. It is one of the most dangerous cancers affecting Chile’s growth. Not because permits exist, but because the system is slow and incapable of delivering certainty proportional to the scale of the investments committed.
Environmental protection, indigenous consultation, and citizen participation are indispensable. But so is the legitimate confidence of those who invest with a valid authorization from the State. When that trust is broken, the damage is not borne only by one company. Chile pays the price in investment, productivity, employment, and credibility.
Collahuasi needs a prompt solution. But the lesson is national. Chile does not need to lower environmental standards; it needs to improve the quality and coherence of its permitting system. A good system makes sound decisions and provides real certainty.
When an investor follows the institutional path and still remains exposed to this kind of vulnerability, permits cease to be an administrative guarantee. They become a broader debate about growth and trust. The problem is no longer the project — it is the country.
Source: El Mercurio