Chilean salmon-farming and industrial fishing firms Camanchaca and Blumar have separately filed claims for compensation of damages against the government of Chile over the passing of a fishing quota bill last year.
The firms claim that the new law violates acquired economic rights by reducing the quota of fish they are allowed to land well before the term for established catch expires, thereby seriously affecting legal security within the sector.
Chile President Gabriel Boric introduced the fishing quota bill last year, aiming to reduce quotas allocated to industrial fishing firms while also increasing artisanal quotas for species such as anchovies, Spanish sardines, horse mackerel, and common hake. Chile’s Senate then voted the new fishing quota bill into law in June 2025 to replace the nation’s previous fishing law, enacted in 2013 and originally set to last until 2032. Boric had called the previous fishing law “illegitimate and illegal.”
While the new bill was still being crafted, industrial fishing company Landes filed legal action against the Chilean government for “covert expropriation,” asserting that the technical, financial, and regulatory impact reports – required by current regulations to ensure the legality and constitutionality of any bill making its way through Chilean Congress – never took place during the bill’s preparation.
“The new fisheries legislation promoted by the executive [branch] is a tombstone for a company like ours, which employs more than 600 people in Talcahuano, Biobío region, in a key area for the country’s development,” Landes CEO Andrés Fosk said at the time. “Even more serious, it affects the well-being of hundreds of families by pushing initiatives that violate the constitution and affect property rights that have been developed with more than 70 years of investments and business work.”
Now, Camanchaca has followed suit and is seeking damages.
The firm noted concrete productive and economic damage caused by the change in the rules, stating that with the new quotas defined in 2026 alone, the company faces a reduction of approximately 33,000 metric tons (MT) of horse mackerel. Based on this, as well as “a rigorous economic-financial analysis” the company conducted, it is seeking compensation to the tune of CLP 90 billion (USD 105 million, EUR 88.6 million).
Under the previous law, Chile designed, offered, and consolidated a fisheries administration system based on tradable fishing licenses, explicitly guaranteeing a certain division of quotas between the industrial and artisanal sectors until at least 2032. Camanchaca said in a statement that the system was the result of a broad sectoral agreement prior to the legislative process, providing order to the sector, allowing depleted fisheries to recover, and generating certainty for investment.
“The state offered clear rules for a defined and renewable term, and Camanchaca made profound, costly decisions trusting in that which was enshrined in the law. When that promise is unilaterally broken before its time, not only does it affect a company – confidence in the country as a whole is damaged,” Camanchaca CEO Ricardo García said.
The company further added that it voluntarily accepted the new governance system in 2013 on the basis of the quota system offered, renouncing longstanding indefinite authorizations, assuming an initial reduction of its rights, paying a high royalty, and making long-term investments of tens of millions of dollars to innovate and drive regional employment – decisions adopted under a legitimate expectation of regulatory stability.
Camanchaca said that the new law has modified the system around which the firm has strategized – seven years before its expiration and possible renewal – without any basis in technical, scientific, or sustainability studies, reducing the possibilities of future development. It added that the case of horse mackerel is especially serious, as the fishery was “severely affected” before the 2012 law but was able to recover precisely thanks to the now-replaced law.
“This is not an ideological discussion or a conflict between sectors. It is a matter of respect for acquired rights and a system that worked, which allowed for the recovery of [biological] resources and allowed us to invest responsibly,” García said. “This is a matter of justice: When the state expropriates, the law and the constitution oblige it to compensate; not doing so is illegal. Defending our rights is not defending privileges; it is to defend our shareholders’ legitimate assets, the legal certainty with which we invest, the employment of thousands of workers, and the possibility of continuing to produce quality food for Chile and the world.”
Blumar, meanwhile, took a similar stance in its lawsuit, saying it had invested in good faith, created jobs, and developed productive activity in underdeveloped regions – all under conditions including fishing quotes that were agreed upon until 2032.
Due to the lower catch totals under new quotas as outlined by the latest law, Blumar’s preliminary studies estimate damages at around USD 216 million (EUR 181 million), which the company said affects its own sustainability and future investment projections – including a USD 45 million (EUR 37.8 million) horse mackerel development plan in the town of Coronel, which would generate 250 new direct and indirect jobs.
The company said that the previous legislation led to a relevant modernization of the national fishing system, in which the industrial sector renounced indefinite fishing authorizations in favor of 20-year licenses and determined conditions for development.
However, the previously established regulatory framework was unilaterally changed without compensation, Blumar noted, so it has resorted to legal recourse to safeguard legal certainty and protect workers, communities, and shareholders.
The move to replace the fishing law is equivalent to regulatory expropriation, which violates essential principles of legal certainty that the government must guarantee, the company said.
