The Senate granted preliminary approval to the project that modifies the Glacier Law, a decision that immediately generated rejection from environmental organizations. However, the initiative still needs to be addressed in the Chamber of Deputies to become law.
The government of Javier Milei is pushing for the reform in extraordinary sessions with the argument of organizing the regulatory framework and consolidating a scheme of environmental federalism. Nonetheless, critical sectors warn about possible setbacks in ecological protection.
Additionally, specialists argue that the modification could contradict international commitments assumed by the country, such as the Escazú Agreement, aimed at guaranteeing environmental rights and access to information.
What does the current law establish?
The Glacier Law was enacted in 2010 and defines a glacier as any stable or slow-flowing ice mass, with or without water inside. It also protects the periglacial environment as a strategic regulator of the water resource.
The article 6 prohibits activities such as mining and hydrocarbon exploration, the installation of industries, and any work that alters the dynamics of the ice or the quality of the water. It also prevents the storage of polluting substances in these sensitive areas.
Furthermore, the law created the National Glacier Inventory, managed by the Argentine Institute of Snow Research, Glaciology, and Environmental Sciences, under Conicet. The registry counts 16,968 ice bodies, with a surface area of 8,484 square kilometers, mainly in the Andes mountain range and 890 in the South Atlantic islands.
The proposed changes and the constitutional debate
The project redefines the object of protection and limits the protection to glaciers that fulfill an effective and relevant water function for basin recharge. Consequently, the scope of protection would be reduced compared to the current scheme.
It also proposes that each province determines which glaciers to protect and in which to allow extractive activities. This point generates controversy, as it could alter the concept of minimum environmental standards provided in the article 41 of the National Constitution.
Those who question the reform warn that delegating this definition to the provinces could generate interjurisdictional conflicts over water access. On the other hand, supporters argue that the current regulations are too broad and block productive projects even in areas without significant water contribution.
Potential impact on ecosystems and the environment
The possible modification could affect high mountain ecosystems that depend on the balance between ice, frozen soils, and watercourses. The glaciers act as strategic freshwater reserves and regulate flows in drought periods.
Additionally, the periglacial environment fulfills key functions in the recharge of aquifers and soil stability. Reducing its protection could increase risks of degradation, pollution, and loss of biodiversity in Andean regions.
Therefore, the debate transcends mining and focuses on the water management model and common goods. In a context of climate change and glacier retreat, the legislative decision could mark a turning point in the country’s environmental policy.
