The Indigenous World 2026: Chile

Written on 22 April 2026. Posted in Chile

Despite steadily increasing since the 1990s, the Indigenous population has not seen any major variations since the 2017 census. 2,185,792 people thus self-identify as Indigenous, equivalent to 12.8% of the country's total population (17,076,076). The Mapuche are the most numerous people (almost 1,800,000 individuals), followed by the Aymara (156,000) and the Diaguita (88,000).^[i] The trend highlights a sustained increase in the urban Indigenous population over the rural population, with 87.8% of Indigenous members being urban, compared to the 12.2% that live in rural areas.^[ii]

Law 19,253 of 1993, on the Promotion, Protection and Development of Indigenous Peoples, known as the “Indigenous Law”, has not been amended to comply with current international standards on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, such as ILO Convention 169, ratified by Chile in 2008. In addition, Chile has adopted the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the 2016 American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This article is part of the 40th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here

It is important to note that, to this day, Indigenous Peoples are still not recognized in the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, despite such recognition forming part of their historical demands. The 1980 Political Constitution imposed during the dictatorship remains in force and this makes no mention of Indigenous Peoples and their individual or collective rights. It was only on 30 June 2025, following the recommendations of the Commission for Peace and Understanding, that President Gabriel Boric submitted a Constitutional Reform Bill to Congress amending the Constitution to recognize Indigenous Peoples in the Political Constitution of the Republic (Bulletin No. 17.643-07).^[1] The bill proposes their recognition “within the framework of the unity of the state, guaranteeing their individual and collective rights in accordance with this Constitution, the laws and international treaties ratified by Chile and in force”. This bill is currently making its first passage through the Chamber of Deputies, with very little political support for its implementation.

Presidential Commission for Peace and Understanding, another wasted opportunity 

On 07 May 2025, after almost two years of work, the Presidential Commission for Peace and Understanding (CPE) released its final report.^[2] The report analyses the historical, legal, political and economic context of relations between the state and the Mapuche people, as well as the growing conflict in the regions where its work was focused. The report also contains an assessment and quantification of the Mapuche land claims, and proposes a total of 21 recommendations, organized around five themes: Justice and Recognition, Reparations for Victims, Land, Territorial Development and Guarantees for Implementation.

Regarding land matters, the CPE recommended the creation of a new Land System to address the excessive waiting time for land restitution requests from Mapuche communities, which under current conditions are estimated to take up to 162 years to be resolved.^[3] To this end, it proposed the creation of a Reparation Agency and an Arbitration Tribunal, which would be the bodies responsible for resolving the land claims, mainly those arising from legal titles that have been channelled down institutional avenues, by means of four groups identified in the report, according to the status of the claim. The Reparation Agency would preferably carry out its task through land reparations. Where land is not available or the communities do not consider it adequate, alternative forms of redress may be applied. To this end, a one-off budget of USD 4 billion (approx. EUR 3.4 billion) was proposed for its resolution.

One of the main gaps in the proposal, from a rights-based perspective, is the fact that the CPE’s recommendations do not consider recognition or reparation for the Mapuche people’s claims to traditionally occupied lands, apart from in the exceptional case geographically limited to the provinces of Arauco and Malleco. Within this framework, the processing of such claims by the Arbitration Tribunal is limited in those municipalities where the titles granted by the state represent less than 4% of the municipal area. In addition, a time limit was established (five years from establishment of the Court in which to submit reparation claims) for processing such claims, a circumstance that does not resolve the Mapuche people’s primary land claim.

Furthermore, the recommendations maintain the market as the central mechanism for addressing these claims, without using the expropriation mechanism provided for in the current Constitution. Its use for these purposes could have avoided the speculation that has characterized the land market in the area, identified as a critical factor in the current public policy on the matter. Most worryingly, it reduces the potential for subsequent land claims by Mapuche organizations in terms of procedure, time and budget.

Another issue of concern is the fact that the CPE’s recommendations propose a partial amendment to the Statute for the Protection of Indigenous Lands, allowing the term of leases on Indigenous lands (Article 13 of Law 19.253) to be extended from 5 to 25 years, which has raised serious questions from the Mapuche organization.

These measures were submitted to an Indigenous consultation process^[4] launched by the government, which was questioned by various Mapuche organizations from the four regions consulted. There has been widespread opposition,^[5] on the one hand, to the scope of the measures and, on the other, to the way in which the prior consultation process was carried out. Some organizations attended the first meetings to express their rejection. Others even prevented them from taking place. Faced with such opposition, the government decided to suspend the process,^[6] arguing that the suspension would allow for more in-depth territorial dialogues to take place before resuming the consultation. This has not, however, borne fruit, and the suspension will remain in place until at least the start of 2026.

The work of the CPE represented an historic opportunity to create conditions that would ensure qualitative and quantitative progress towards putting together structural responses that could reconstruct the social balance and peaceful coexistence of all actors who inhabit the regions that make up the historic territory of the Mapuche People. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a rights-based approach and the process’s lack of proximity to the Mapuche organizations, this historic opportunity is fading.

The national political scenario is not auspicious for the rights of Indigenous Peoples or, in particular, for the Mapuche people. The far-right president-elect José Antonio Kast is proposing regressive measures in terms of rights, making threats towards the regulatory bodies that recognize these rights, such as the Lafkenche Law, as well as the potential implementation of the proposals of the CPE.

Chile faces the challenge of meeting its international commitments to conservation and Indigenous rights

The implementation of the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service (SBAP), the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) and the updating of the National Biodiversity Strategy (ENB) will only mark a turning point in conservation policies in Chile if it is aligned with the rights and international standards of Indigenous Peoples.

Chile faces significant challenges in meeting its international commitments on biodiversity conservation and the rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly those derived from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This agreement explicitly recognizes the key role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in conservation, especially through targets such as Target 3, which recognizes the importance and contributions of Indigenous and Traditional Territories (ITTs) to conservation, and Target 22, which requires ensuring their full, effective and equitable participation in decision-making.

This scenario takes on special relevance considering that, at the end of February, the States Parties must report on their progress in implementing the KMGBF, reports that will be presented and evaluated at the next CBD COP17, scheduled for October 2026. In this context, the current year is critical for observing whether Chile is effectively moving in the right direction towards fulfilling its international commitments, particularly with regard to respecting and guaranteeing the rights of Indigenous Peoples in conservation policies.

The implementation of the new law creating the SBACP and the SNAP, and updating the National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS), is a key opportunity to advance towards these commitments. Implementation alone, however, is not enough. It will be crucial that these processes are implemented from a rights-based conservation approach, overcoming historical practices that have affected the rights of Indigenous Peoples and limited the recognition of their territories and their own systems of governance.

As part of the implementation of the SBAP, a process of Indigenous consultation took place^[7] in 2024 and 2025 on matters to be regulated in future regulations on protected areas and priority sites. This process is especially relevant given that the law allows, among other things, for the creation of Indigenous Peoples' Conservation Areas (Article 62), both terrestrial and marine, and expressly including the Marine Coastal Areas of Indigenous Peoples (ECMPO, Law 20.249). The consultation concluded in December 2025 with a national dialogue; however, to date, the final text of the regulations has not been made known. The way in which the proposals and observations of Indigenous Peoples are incorporated into the regulation governing the system and priority sites will be a key indicator for assessing the consistency of the new institutional framework with international human rights standards.

At the same time, the Ministry of the Environment launched a public consultation process as part of the updating of the NBS. Although this process allowed for comments and contributions from different stakeholders, no institutional feedback has been made public to date and nor is there any known updated version of the strategy. This lack of information generates uncertainty regarding the effective integration of the contributions received and the incorporation of a rights-based approach into a key instrument for the implementation of the KMGBF.

Chile is thus at a decisive moment in demonstrating whether it will be able to meet the challenges of its international commitments regarding conservation and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Environmental organizations have already raised the alarm about the uncertainty generated by the arrival in government of President-elect Kast in March 2026^[8] who, like other actors in his sector, promotes a vision that pits development against nature conservation. The way in which the SBAP, the SNAP and the NBS are implemented will make it possible to assess whether the country is moving towards a conservation policy that is consistent with international standards and capable of simultaneously contributing to biodiversity protection, environmental justice and effective respect for the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Attempts to amend the Law on Marine Coastal Areas of Indigenous Peoples and threats to defenders of the sea

Law No. 20.249, enacted and in force since 2008 and known as the “Lafkenche Law” is one of the main instruments for recognizing the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples in Chile in the marine coastal area. Through the creation of ECMPO, this legislation safeguards the customary use of the coastline by Indigenous communities, recognizing their spiritual, economic and cultural relationship with the sea and strengthening their own forms of local, inclusive and sustainable governance. In a context historically marked by the privatization of the coastline and a lack of legal recognition of the presence and specific cultural features of Indigenous Peoples in their relationship with the sea, the ECMPO have enabled progress in achieving internationally recognized Indigenous rights while operating as a mechanism of domestic law for the delimitation of Indigenous territories on the coastline. Eighteen years after its entry into force, this legislation has thus been increasingly and intersectionally used by various Indigenous Peoples in Chile, extending not only to the Mapuche-Lafkenche people, who were the protagonists of its development, but also to the Mapuche-Williche, Chango, Diaguita, Kawésqar and Yagán.

Nevertheless, due to the growing number of ECMPOs decreed and in process, as well as the increase in areas requested, over the last few years –and particularly in 2025– the Lafkenche Law has faced a particularly adverse scenario, resulting in strong opposition from certain public and private actors. This has manifested in aggressive disinformation campaigns, promoted mainly by business sectors –especially the salmon industry– and related political authorities, aimed at delegitimizing the ECMPO as an “abusive” regulation and an obstacle to development and investment. It has led to the emergence of openly discriminatory narratives that falsely pit Indigenous Peoples against other sectors, such as artisanal fishing.^[9] As a result of the vote and the Chilean state’s decision to reject recent ECMPO applications, there has been a proliferation and intensification, at national and local level, of hate speech and racist rhetoric^[10] –even in institutional decision-making spaces^[11]– against ECMPOs and the Indigenous communities that have applied for them, which has even resulted in threats and other forms of intimidation against their leaders and representatives in their role as territorial defenders.^{[12], [13]}

Against this backdrop of hostility and racial discrimination, recent legislative attempts to amend the Lafkenche Law are particularly serious, as they have all been tabled and processed without prior Indigenous consultation under the terms established in ILO Convention 169, and in open contravention of the principle of non-regression in human rights. There are four bills, in particular going through National Congress –one of which made substantial progress during 2025^[14]– which, under the pretext of “improving” the implementation of Law No. 20.249, seek to limit its applicability and weaken the protection of ECMPOs and Indigenous customary uses in relation to other economic activities. It should be noted that amending the Lafkenche Law has found explicit support in statements by president-elect José Antonio Kast, who in July 2025 described ECMPOs as a “tool for political blackmail”, publicly stating his intention to “veto all those permits that are requested under the Lafkenche Law”.^[15]

The expansion of the lithium industry in the salt flats of Andean peoples

The rapid development of the lithium industry in Chile's high Andean salt flats continues to have an impact on the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Andes. This is a consequence of the National Lithium Strategy promoted by the current government, which encourages the development of lithium, promotes the participation of the state in its exploitation through its copper company, Codelco, and encourages the participation of foreign investors.

In the case of the Lickanantay or Atacameño people, in 2025 the state launched a process of Indigenous consultation on the operation and lease contracts signed with the Production Development Corporation (CORFO) to enable Codelco's involvement in the exploitation of the Salar de Atacama. This was the result of a partnership agreement between this company and the private company SQM, of Chilean and Chinese capital, planned for the periods 2025-2030 and 2031-2060. This agreement will enable both companies to develop a large-scale joint project (Salar Futuro) until 2060, with an annual production of up to 300,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate. This is in circumstances where the current exploitation of lithium has had a major impact on the salt flat aquifers, severely affecting agriculture and livestock farming, which are ancestral activities of the Atacameño communities.^[16]

The aforementioned consultation process was challenged in court by the Atacameño communities, particularly due to the limited timeframe for its implementation, the consultation methodology, and the exclusion from this consultation of a large part of the clauses (75%) of the agreement between CORFO and Codelco for lithium exploitation. These clauses cover matters such as control of the operating company, benefit sharing mechanisms, and the participation of Indigenous communities in the company's future decisions.^[17]

On top of this are further three lithium mining projects undergoing environmental assessment in Salar de Maricunga, in the territory of the Colla people: the Paloma project, promoted by Codelco together with Australia’s Rio Tinto; the Sales de Maricunga project, promoted by Simco Lithium, a Chilean-Taiwanese company; and the Salares Altoandinos project, promoted by the state-owned ENAMI and Rio Tinto. During the year, Indigenous consultation processes also took place for Special Lithium Operation Contracts (CEOL) in the six salt flats in the regions of Tarapacá, Antofagasta and Atacama.

A common feature of these consultation processes is the proposal to share the benefits obtained from such projects, which distorts the communities’ ability to express –or not– their Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

Hernando Silva, Lorena Arce, José Aylwin and Christian Paredes are members of the Observatorio Ciudadano (www.observatorio.cl).

This article is part of the 40th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here

Notes and references

^[1] See: https://tramitacion.senado.cl/appsenado/templates/tramitacion/index.php?boletin_ini=17643-07

^[2] Available at: https://www.comisionpazyentendimiento.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Informe-de-Resultados-VFinal.pdf

^[3] The report contains an assessment and quantification of Mapuche land claims, noting the limitations of the land reparation system administered by CONADI under current legislation and listing the pending land claims (727 communities eligible under Article 20(b) of Law 19,253, and 1,252 communities that have submitted applications for applicability and are awaiting a decision from CONADI). At the current rate of processing, it could take between 80 and 162 years to respond to these claims.

^[4] See: https://www.gob.cl/nuevosistemadetierras/

^[5] “Junta General de Caciques de Osorno rechaza Consulta Indígena del gobierno”. Fütawillimapu, 27 July 2025.

 https://www.futawillimapu.org/2025/07/29/junta-general-de-caciques-de-osorno-rechaza-consulta-indigena-del-gobierno/?fbclid=IwY2xjawL4tJRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuWmxooS8yZEy6M52g-qbGEgOTT2wTrkLGk7aMR4VQu1HfenVGB5fqybMIal_aem_aS2tgF8mTzfcpKOlIU6G0g

^[6] Available at: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1218457

^[7] See https://consultaindigena.mma.gob.cl/consulta-indigena-sobre-las-materias-contenidas-en-los-reglamentos-sobre-areas-protegidas-y-sitios-prioritarios-para-la-implementacion-del-servicio-de-biodiversidad-y-areas-protegidas-ley-n21-6/

^[8] Michelle Carrere. “Desafíos ambientales de Chile en 2026: riesgos y amenazas ante la llegada del gobierno de Kast”. Mongabay, 7 January 2026.

 https://es.mongabay.com/2026/01/desafios-ambientales-chile-2026/

^[9] Barinia Montoya. “Industria del salmón acusada de desinformar sobre solicitudes de espacios marinos costeros de Pueblos originarios en Chile”. Mongabay, 5 March 2024. https://es.mongabay.com/2024/03/industria-del-salmon-acusada-de-desinformar-solicitudes-espacios-marinos-costeros-Pueblos-originarios-chile/

^[10] Paredes, C. “Modificación de la Ley Lafkenche: un acto de discriminación racial”. CIPER Chile, 2025. https://www.ciperchile.cl/2025/07/24/modificacion-de-la-ley-lafkenche-un-acto-de-discriminacion-racial/

^[11] This is the case of the so-called Regional Commissions for the Use of the Coastal Edge (CRUBC), collegiate and inter-institutional bodies that play a decisive role in the procedure for establishing an ECMPO insofar as they are responsible for ruling on the approval, rejection or modification of the requested area.

^[12] El Ciudadano. “Amenaza de muerte a defensor ambiental mapuche en Chiloé: piden protección urgente y activar Escazú”. El Ciudadano, 30 July 2025. https://www.elciudadano.com/justicia/amenaza-de-muerte-a-defensor-ambiental-mapuche-en-chiloe-piden-proteccion-urgente-y-activar-escazu/07/30/

^[13] Consorcio TICCA. “ALERTA: Apoyamos a Daniel Caniullán Huentel y a las defensoras y los defensores bajo amenaza en los espacios costeros y marinos en Chile”. Consorcio TICCA, 2024. https://www.iccaconsortium.org/es/2024/02/02/chile-apoyamos-daniel-caniullan-huentel-defensores-amenazados-espacios-costero-marinos/

^[14] Senate of the Republic of Chile. "Perfeccionamientos a la implementación de la Ley Lafkenche avanza a su debate en particular". Senate of the Republic of Chile, 15 August 2025. https://www.senado.cl/comunicaciones/noticias/perfeccionamientos-la-implementacion-de-la-ley-lafkenche-avanza-su-debate

^[15] Aqua. “José Antonio Kast: ‘lo que la industria necesita es que el Estado deje de poner obstáculos’”. Aqua, 23 July 2025. https://www.aqua.cl/jose-antonio-kast-lo-que-la-industria-necesita-es-que-el-estado-deje-de-poner-obstaculos/

^[16] Litio y derechos humanos em los salares altoandinos de Argentina, Bolivia y Chile. 2025. https://litioyddhh.observatorio.cl/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/litio-y-dd-hh-salares-altoandinos-abc.pdf

^[17] Fundación Tantí. “Corte de Apelaciones de Antofagasta tuvo por interpuesto Recurso de protección de la Comunidad de Coyo frente a Corfo tras el acuerdo con Codelco/SQM para la explotación del litio”. Fundación Tantí, July 2025.

https://fundaciontanti.org/2025/07/24/corte-de-apelaciones-de-antofagasta-tuvo-por-interpuesto-recurso-de-proteccion-de-la-comunidad-de-coyo-frente-a-corfo-tras-el-acuerdo-con-codelco-sqm-para-la-explotacion-del-litio/

Tags: Land rights