The friction point: The periglacial environment
While no one dares to question the protection of the "white" glacier (the visible ice mass), the real political and legal battle is fought in the periglacial environment. These are frozen soils that contain saturated ice, acting as critical water reserves in arid areas. Much of the most coveted metal deposits in the Andes Mountain Range are precisely located beneath this soil. For the industry, the periglacial environment is a geographical nuisance; for the ecosystem, it is the guarantee of water in times of drought.
Critique of implementation: A drip-fed inventory
The greatest Achilles' heel of the law has been its enforcement. The National Glacier Inventory, although completed by IANIGLA, has been subjected to constant judicial challenges from mining provinces and companies looking to redefine what is and what is not a glacier to "free up" areas for exploitation. The delay in effective implementation allowed mining projects in questionable areas to continue operating, functioning in a control void.
Current threats and setbacks
Recently, the spirit of the law has faced attempts at reform aimed at "flexibilizing" technical definitions. Under the argument of attracting investments and fostering economic development, there is a proposal to reduce protection to only large glaciers or those with "demonstrated" and "relevant" water contribution. This logic is dangerous. Science warns that in the global context, small glaciers are the most vulnerable and often the first to disappear, affecting the microclimate and soil moisture irreversibly.
Open-Pit Mining: The direct impact
Metal mining in the mountain range is not a low-impact activity. To extract a few grams of gold or copper per ton, massive volumes of rock need to be removed. In glacial and periglacial areas, this creates three critical problems:
Destruction of "permafrost": By removing soil in the periglacial environment, the layer of frozen ground that retains water is destroyed. Once that ice melts due to land removal, the ecosystem loses its ability to regulate water for the low valleys.
Atmospheric dust: The transit of heavy machinery and blasting generate clouds of dust. When this dust settles on the white ice, it decreases the albedo (the snow's ability to reflect sunlight). The ice becomes darker, absorbs more heat, and melts much faster.
Acid Rock Drainage (ARD): When rocks that were underground are removed, they come into contact with oxygen and meltwater, generating acids that can contaminate water basins that originate precisely in those glaciers.
The National Glacier Inventory (ING), coordinated by IANIGLA, is not just a map; it is a legal document. If an area is in the inventory, it is untouchable.
The debate over "size"
One of the most criticized points by pro-mining sectors is that the inventory includes ice bodies of up to 0.1 hectares (a small area, similar to a third of a soccer field).
The mining position: They argue that protecting "ice patches" that small hinders multi-billion dollar projects without a real hydric benefit.
The scientific position: Argues that the sum of thousands of small ice bodies and frozen soil is what keeps rivers alive in arid provinces like San Juan, Mendoza, or Catamarca. Eliminating the small ones, drop by drop, dries the basin.
Why is it so difficult to oversee?
Here comes the critique of political management. Although the law exists and the inventory does as well, the oversight is weak for two reasons:
Jurisdiction: Natural resources belong to the provinces (per Constitution), but the law is national. This creates a constant clash where mining provinces feel the Nation is "stepping on them."
Lack of budget: Monitoring glaciers at 4,000 meters requires technology, helicopters, and specialized personnel. Without funding, the law is a "paper tiger."
Key Fact: Iconic projects like Pascua-Lama (halted in Chile but impacting Argentina) and Veladero have been in the eye of the storm precisely for their proximity or overlap with areas that the inventory defines as protected.
Where are we headed?
After a debate of over ten hours and in the context of extraordinary sessions, the project promoted by the ruling party (La Libertad Avanza) was approved with 40 votes in favor, 31 against, and 1 abstention.
The most striking political aspect was the break of traditional blocks:
Strategic allies: The ruling party received support from sectors of PRO and, fundamentally, from PJ senators linked to mining provinces (such as San Juan and Catamarca).
The argument of "Federalism": Defenders of the change, such as the governors from the lithium and copper table, argued that the current law is "centralist" and that the provinces must regain authority over their natural resources.
What exactly changed? (The essence of the critical note)
The reform approved in the Senate does not repeal the law, but pierces its technical heart. The key points are:
Reclassification of the Periglacial Environment: A differentiation was introduced between periglacial areas with "demonstrated hydric function" and those without. This allows that if a funded study (often by the mining company itself) says that this frozen soil does not contribute "relevant" water to the basin, it can be dynamited.
End of the Absolute Prohibition: It shifts from a "minimum standards" logic (a floor of national protection) to a logic where provinces have more leeway to decide which areas are exploitable.
The RIGI factor: This reform is closely linked to the Regime of Incentive for Large Investments (RIGI). Without the change in the Glacier Law, several world-scale copper and gold projects (like Vicuña in San Juan) could not advance legally.
Political Stage: What comes next?
The law is not yet in force; now the ball is in the Chamber of Deputies.
The parliamentary battle: It is expected that in the Chamber of Deputies the resistance will be greater. Environmentalist blocks and the stauncher opposition will try to block the quorum or introduce modifications that return the project to the Senate.
Social pressure: Organizations like the Association of Environmental Lawyers and citizen assemblies have already declared a "state of alert," arguing that this reform is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of "no regression" in environmental matters (a law cannot protect less than the previous one).
We are facing a "commodification" of scientific criteria. By subordinating the protection of a glacier to its current "economic relevance," the Senate has ignored that the water cycle does not understand accounting balances or fiscal closures.
Comments