A broad spectrum of experts, scientific institutions, and civil organizations expressed their strong rejection of the Executive’s proposal seeking the reform of the Glacier Law and to amend Law 26.639, a regulation that establishes the minimum standards to protect glaciers and the periglacial environment.
This stance was presented during the plenary session of the Senate’s Mining, Energy and Fuels, and Environment and Sustainable Development committees. Despite the objections, the ruling party managed to issue a ruling after an expedited process of just 48 hours.
However, it was confirmed that the debate in the chamber will not be on December 26, as originally planned, but will be postponed until the first days of February.
At the meeting held in the Arturo Illia Hall, specialists agreed that the government’s project alters the structure of the current protection system.
They argued that the reform fragments the preservation of strategic resources such as water and weakens the national standard of minimum standards. The speakers warned that a change of this nature represents a setback in environmental law, proving counterproductive in the face of a water and climate crisis that demands more rigorous policies.
On this point, Andrés Nápoli, head of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), explained that the reform operates under two critical axes: “Firstly, it reduces the protected area —which today represents only 0.21% of the country— to enable megamining in high mountain areas currently restricted. Secondly, it delegates to the provinces the power to choose which glaciers to protect, breaking the uniformity of environmental protection mandated by the National Constitution.”
Meanwhile, Agostina Rossi Serra, representative of Greenpeace Argentina, emphasized that in the face of increasing environmental risks, laws should be strengthened. She described as “scientifically erroneous” the premise that only certain parts of the periglacial environment deserve protection, adding that “the glaciers are not obstacles, but vital elements against climate change.”
The entities warned that the project’s goal is not to optimize the care of water sources, but to meet the requirements of mining companies, something that, according to them, is derived from the foundations of the initiative itself.
In the same vein, Enrique Viale, head of the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers, criticized the legislators that the project destroys the constitutional structure of the minimum standards. He expressed concern about whether this precedent would open the door to unprotect forests, rivers, or even alter the General Environmental Law.
Furthermore, the lack of plurality in the debate and the speed of the ruling were questioned. The organizations pointed out as a serious irregularity that no prior technical consultations were conducted with specialists for drafting the proposal.
From the Argentine Wildlife Foundation, its director Manuel Jaramillo described it as “inadmissible” that the IANIGLA, a key scientific body responsible for the National Glacier Inventory, was not consulted. Jaramillo stated that “although responsible mining is necessary, it cannot be carried out on glacial or periglacial areas“, criticizing the advancement of the ruling while ignoring the reported technical flaws.
Eugenia Testa, from the Circle of Environmental Policies (CPA), added that the legislative process shows a “capture” of public policies by economic interests. According to Testa, the mining sector directly influenced the project through a block of governors, prioritizing a particular benefit over a State policy of more than 15 years.
Finally, Hernán Casañas, director of Aves Argentinas, argued that serious investors do not seek “absolute freedom“, but certainty and high standards. “The economic reasoning of the project is inverse: the most important investments flow to nations with higher environmental demands,” he stated.
According to the organizations’ analysis, the reform aims to force general legislation to fit with specific mining projects that are currently legally unfeasible. They warned that, far from providing legal certainty, this will generate more regulatory conflicts and weaken the social license of the companies.
At the conclusion of their presentation, the speakers urged the Upper House not to approve a reform that endangers water security and violates constitutional principles. “In the face of water scarcity, retreating in the protection of glaciers is illegal and irresponsible. The Glacier Law must be respected in its entirety, not emptied of content,” they concluded.
Institutions such as FARN, Aves Argentinas, Greenpeace, CPA, AAAA, and Vida Silvestre participated in the meeting. Also present were Pablo Villagra (director of IANIGLA), CONICET specialists such as Gabriela González Trilla and Laura Isla Rafaele, and representatives of the mining chambers CAEM and CAPMIN.
