Brazil & Southern Cone - May 2026

President Javier Milei’s deregulation drive has reached nearly all aspects of the Argentine economy, mostly recently even the peaks of the Andes mountains. In the hopes of attracting massive foreign investment and boosting economic growth, he got congress to approve legislation that eases environmental regulations for mining companies operating in glacial areas that had been hitherto protected as freshwater reserves.

Mining projects in Argentina are estimated to unlock over US$30bn in investment over the next decade. Argentina sits on the world’s fourth-largest copper reserves and the third-largest lithium reserves. With the global green energy transition demanding massive amounts of these minerals, the government argues that protecting inactive periglacial zones is a luxury the debt-ridden country cannot afford.

However, the move has ignited a firestorm of domestic and international criticism, with environmentalists and scientists warning of irreversible damage to the water reservoirs of the Andes.

The reform was initially introduced as part of the massive omnibus law passed in 2024 but was stalled due to intense opposition. In late 2025, the administration pivoted, reintroducing the reform as a standalone bill backed by a coalition of pro-mining governors from the Andean provinces of San Juan, Catamarca, Salta, and Mendoza. The campaign was framed by the government not as an environmental retreat, but as an act of federalism that returned the power over natural resources to the provinces that harbour them. That dovetailed with Milei’s broader rhetoric on dismantling restrictions and re-establishing freedom.

Following months of intense lobbying by multinational mining firms, the bill passed the senate in February and the chamber of deputies on 9 April. The lower house voted 137 in favour and 111 against.

Major shift

The reform of the national glacier law marks one of the most significant shifts in Argentine environmental policy since the return to democracy in 1983. The new law redefines what a glacier worthy of protection is and devolves the authority to decide over each case to provincial authorities. Under the previous legal framework, all glaciers and periglacial (or permafrost) environments were protected, regardless of their size or use.

The decision-making authority that defined the boundaries of protected areas and drew up the nation’s inventory of them was a scientific body called Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA). In total there were 16,078. Most glaciers and permafrost regions are not in the far south, like the famous Perito Moreno, but in the higher elevations of the central cordillera, in the provinces of Mendoza and San Juan.

Mining firms had argued that some formations on their properties were not key water sources for population centres and farmers, but because they were federally listed anyway, they became a legal liability.

Now, after the Milei government’s reform, only glaciers and periglacial areas with a strategic water function are protected and the decision-making bodies are political, not technical. If a provincial authority deems a specific periglacial area which used to be considered underground water reserves as not vital to the local water supply, mining activity can proceed.

Economic opportunities

Supporters of the law say that the inventory of glaciers and periglacial zones is massively oversized. Pro-development legislators in congress blasted the 2010 glacier law as a barrier and mockingly said it treated every rock and patch of frost as a sacred site.

Analysts suggest the reform could triple mining exports by 2030, reaching an estimated US$165bn by 2035 and generating tens of thousands of high-paying jobs in remote Andean regions. Mineral exports would also provide a critical source of hard currency to help stabilise the peso and pay down debt with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The reform is designed to work in tandem with the government’s incentive for large investments programme (Rigi), which offers tax, currency, and legal stability to projects. One of the largest projects in the pipeline is El Pachón, a copper-molybdenum deposit owned by multinational mining giant Glencore in San Juan. Another large-scale endeavour is Los Azules, one of the largest undeveloped copper deposits in the world. It is owned by Canadian miner McEwen, which plans to raise US$300m in an initial public offering later this year to help finance the project’s development.

Criticisms

The scientific community and environmental NGOs have protested and argued that the opening of geologically sensitive areas could threaten the water supply in various regions.

Glaciologist Pablo Villagra, the director of IANIGLA, has suggested that the distinction between strategic and non-strategic water sources is a scientific fallacy. He was cited in the press in April as arguing that there is no such thing as ice or frozen water that does not serve any hydrological function. Villagra added that the previously protected areas made up only 0.8% of the surface of the Andes mountains. Glaciers and permafrost also act as giant sponges that regulate river flows. Even inactive rock glaciers contribute to water security during severe droughts – which are becoming more frequent due to climate change.

Scientists warn that increased mining activity with heavy machinery can provoke erosion and accelerate melting by darkening ice with dust that attracts solar energy rather than reflecting it. The Andes are already experiencing accelerated glacial retreat, and removing legal barriers for mining could lead to desertification with loss of biodiversity, accelerated climate change, and human migration, they argue. They also warn of a threat to a unique biosphere with endangered species such as the Andean condor. High-altitude ecosystems are fragile and could take centuries to recover from industrial disruption.

Legal challenges

The battle now moves from the halls of congress to the halls of the supreme court. A collective lawsuit presented to a federal court in May led by groups including Greenpeace Argentina and the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (Farn) has gathered over 850,000 signatures in its support.

One argument brought forward is that the Argentine constitution guarantees the right to a healthy environment and establishes minimum standards for its protection. Another key argument of the legal challenge is that the new law denies the federal government a say in the matter. In a 2019 ruling that declared the 2010 glaciers law constitutional, the supreme court argued that the responsibility for glacier protection is shared between the national government and the provinces. It also reaffirmed that individual rights, such as property rights, yield to collective rights, such as the right to water.

IMF praises reforms

The IMF reached a staff-level agreement with Argentina in mid-April for the second review under the country’s US$20bn extended fund facility (EFF) arrangement. The agreement allows for the disbursal of around US$1bn, subject to approval by the IMF executive board. In a statement, the IMF highlighted legislative gains in recent months for the Milei government such as the approval of the annual budget and “critical legislation” aimed at “formalising holdings of financial assets by residents, enhancing labour market flexibility, ratifying critical trade agreements, and unlocking investments in mining”.

Previous ruling

The 2019 supreme court ruling to uphold the 2010 glacier protection law emerged from a legal challenge brought by the province of San Juan and by Canadian firm Barrick Gold, which petitioned for the law to be declared unconstitutional. The Canadian miner owns the Veladero gold mine, which Greenpeace claims operates in a periglacial environment and within the San Guillermo Biosphere Reserve, thereby putting the water, vegetation, and animal species in the area at risk. Veladero has experienced several toxic spills, including a serious incident in September 2015, when more than one million litres of cyanide solution contaminated rivers in San Juan province. It is considered among the worst environmental disaster caused by a mining operation in Argentina.