A Nation Standing Tall: Progress and Setbacks in the Dismantling of Environmental Protection in Argentina Under the Administration of Javier Milei
Historically, Argentina has positioned itself as a pioneer, a model, and a guarantor of human rights worldwide. Over the past 40 years, it has been one of the few countries to ratify all international treaties protecting human rights, granting them constitutional status (OHCHR 2024) and, as highlighted by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in South America, “the country has also assumed notable leadership in the negotiation of these treaties and contributed Argentina’s experience to the advancement of rights beyond its borders” (OHCHR 2024).
Environmental issues have not been excluded from this process. Although Argentina is primarily an agro-exporting country—with the environmental challenges that this entails—since the 1970s, the country has undergone a process of institutionalizing environmental protection. In 1983, the Council for the Restoration of Democracy recommended:
“a. To recognize the human right—and the corresponding duty—to an environment capable of sustaining the lives of present and future generations. Likewise, to recognize the right of individuals to defend the environment in the courts.
b. Establish the State’s duty to guarantee an environment capable of sustaining the lives of the nation’s inhabitants, for the sake of present and future generations” (Gutierrez y Isuani 2014).
These ideas were ultimately incorporated into the Constitution through its 1994 amendment, with Article 41 establishing the “right to a healthy, balanced environment conducive to human development and to productive activities that meet present needs without compromising those of future generations.”
However, what we have seen over the past two years is a serious setback on this path. Measures promoted by the national government itself—led since December 10, 2023, by Javier Milei—have included: setbacks in Argentina’s role as an international leader in human rights, with votes in the General Assembly opposing various resolutions on the matter (Amnesty International 2025); attacks on freedom of expression and the personal safety of journalists and human rights defenders (Amnesty International 2026); setbacks on environmental issues, with the relaxation of protective laws to benefit the mining and extractive industries.
Since his election campaign, Javier Milei has made it very clear that he does not “believe” in climate change, considering it “an invention of socialism,” but what we have witnessed over the past year is not merely rhetorical provocation but an excessive rollback of the protective laws that Argentine society has managed to build under the Constitution over the past 50 years.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review the two most serious environmental setbacks Argentina has faced in 2026: the reform of the Glacier Law (Law 26,639)—approved by Congress on April 9—and the proposal to reform the Land and Fire Management Laws, as part of the Private Property Inviolability bill. These developments are part of a broader regression the South American country has experienced in the area of human rights in general, and they set irreversible precedents regarding land protection and the commitments made in the interest of both the Argentine people and the international community.
Reform of the Glacier Law
In 2010, Argentina succeeded in passing Law No. 26,639 on Minimum Standards for the Protection of Glaciers and the Periglacial Environment, a legislative success in the environmental field, as it is considered a cutting-edge law and a pioneer in the protection of the periglacial environment—an environment that is often neglected and ignored, yet is an integral part of an ecosystem that helps regulate the Earth’s temperature, prevent extreme weather events, and serve as a freshwater reservoir for millions of people (Greenpeace, 2026). In this regard, it is stated that: “Glaciers store water that falls as snow and release it during periods of melting, feeding rivers and other surface watercourses, and it also infiltrates to recharge aquifers. But they are not only sources of water storage and supply; they also play a role in regulating the hydrological cycle, regulating the climate, supporting ecosystems, and providing other environmental services” (FCEN 2026).
In Argentina, 16,968 glaciers have been identified, distributed throughout the Andes mountain range and spanning 12 provinces, from Jujuy to Tierra del Fuego. They are a central ecosystem of the country.
The law established that the protection of glacial and periglacial environments would be overseen by the Argentine Institute of Nivology, Glaciology, and Environmental Sciences (IANIGLA). In other words, it was scientific experts who determined which areas should be protected from mining and other harmful activities in order to ensure the proper functioning of the ecosystem and the supply of fresh water to millions of Argentines.
Currently, with the reform to the law introduced in early 2026 in Congress by the executive branch and approved on April 9, protection is being removed from previously protected areas, such as the periglacial environment, while IANIGLA’s authority to determine whether the exploitation of an area may have environmental repercussions is also being eliminated. The decision now rests with the authorities in each province, who, at their own discretion, may determine whether the area sought to be exploited fulfills a “relevant hydrological function” or not. However, experts have emphasized that “there is no body of water—not even solid water such as a glacier—that does not fulfill a hydrological function. The proof of the hydrological function of a body of water, and of a glacier as such, is its very existence” (FCEN 2026).
The national government defended this measure on the grounds that it would promote greater federalism and legal certainty. But what it actually achieves is exactly the opposite: the result is the fragmentation of the country into 12 distinct legal systems, reducing the power of some provinces while maximizing that of others. In other words, each of the 12 provinces with glaciers on their territory will be able to decide independently which glaciers are water-relevant and which are not, without scientific criteria and without national coordination.
On top of this, the trivialization of the discussion by public officials has been equally concerning. Both in the legislative debate and in statements by the national executive branch, a clear lack of understanding was evident, leading to the spread of misinformation on an issue that—given the repercussions it will have—is particularly sensitive for society. Enzo Fullone, a national senator for the ruling party La Libertad Avanza, referred to glaciers during the debate as “rocks frozen at 4,000 meters that serve no purpose today.” For their part, members of the ruling party defended the reform by repeating the phrase: “If the kukas [a pejorative reference to the opposition party] are crying, it’s a great measure for the country.”
This demonstrates that the setbacks in Argentina affect various levels: it is a legislative setback in terms of environmental rights, a setback in democratic quality due to the trivialization of public debate, and a setback in freedom of expression and democratic coexistence due to attacks by the ruling party on the main opposition force, reinforcing social polarization and the assault on those who defend a different position.
This was reflected in another issue that affected the debate surrounding the reform: the public hearing. Article 7.2 of the Escazú Agreement, ratified by Argentina, states that:
“Each Party shall ensure mechanisms for public participation in decision-making processes, reviews, re-examinations, or updates relating to projects and activities, as well as in other environmental authorization processes that have or may have a significant impact on the environment, including when they may affect health.”
According to this instrument, the Argentine government has an international obligation to ensure public participation in the debate. In that regard, when a public hearing was called, the public responded: more than 100,000 Argentines from across the country signed up to express their views and make their voices heard. This is an unprecedented number. The last public hearing that had generated such interest was for the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy Act in 2018, when 738 speakers registered and were given 15 days to present their views over a two-month period. For the reform of the Glacier Law, even though 135 times as many people registered, only two days were set aside for presentations—and one of those was reserved exclusively for virtual participation.
Inviolability of Private Property: Land and Fire Management
In line with the stated goal of promoting foreign investment, on August 6 the Executive Branch submitted two additional reforms to the Senate as part of the Private Property Inviolability Bill: an amendment to the Rural Lands Act and an amendment to the Fire Management Act. What do these reforms entail, and how are they related to one another?
Law No. 26,737 on the Protection of National Sovereignty over the Ownership, Possession, or Tenure of Land—known as the Land Law—was enacted in 2011 with the aim of limiting the number of hectares in productive areas that can be held by foreign interests and prohibiting the sale of strategic areas. In this regard, the proposed reform seeks to relax those limits so that foreign capital can gain access to larger tracts of land in the country, which could increase the concentration of land in the hands of foreign capital and, consequently, undermine national sovereignty.
However, the bill does not only include this amendment but also provides for a reform of Law 26,815 on Fire Management. Enacted in 2020, this law establishes minimum standards for forest fire prevention and prohibits the sale and change of land use on burned land for the next 60 years (or 30 years, in the case of agricultural and livestock areas). The goal, precisely, is to prevent the proliferation of commercial development on fire-damaged land in a country where thousands of hectares of native forest are reduced to ashes every year. As a point of reference, 437,000 hectares were burned nationwide last year, and it was determined that 95% of the fires were caused by human activity.
The simultaneous amendment of the Land Law and the Fire Management Law opens up a line of interpretation that deserves special attention: in practice, this regulatory framework leaves fire-affected lands in a state of legal vulnerability that could facilitate their conversion to productive uses, thereby creating more favorable conditions for business development and, eventually, for the inflow of foreign investment into these areas.
Forest fires are one of the main environmental problems in Argentina. They destroy the land, affecting native species, air quality, and the lives of local residents. This year, more than 3,000 people were evacuated, and more than 120 families lost their homes.
Civil society is deeply aware of this situation. In this regard, under the slogan “Argentina is not for sale,” artists, NGOs, athletes, scientists, community leaders, and citizens from across the country mobilized on social media and took to the streets of Argentina’s major cities to halt the bill’s progress.
Faced with pressure and a lack of votes in the Senate, the national government was forced to withdraw the Land Law chapter from the bill—marking the sixth setback since the president first attempted to enact this amendment as an Emergency Decree in 2023. What did ultimately make it to the floor was the reform to the Fire Management Act. However, during the session—once again due to a lack of sufficient votes and with the streets surrounding Congress packed with protesters—that section was withdrawn.
This, however, does not mean that these regressive reforms will not be debated again in Congress. As we have analyzed, they are part of the government’s vision for the country, aimed at legally establishing and consolidating its policies. Both bills have been sent back to committees and are expected to return to the floor in the coming months.
Who said all is lost?
What we have been seeing in Argentina in recent years—and particularly sharply in 2026—is an increasingly rapid rollback in environmental protection, specifically, and in human rights and democratic consensus, generally.
Javier Milei’s government is not only pushing through reforms that undermine environmental protection—laws achieved after decades of struggle and considered pioneering on the international stage—but is also trivializing the debates surrounding them, associating environmental protection solely with the views of the political opposition, misinforming the public about the consequences of the reforms, and systematically attacking those who oppose them. The disproportionate repression in the vicinity of Congress during the August 6 protest began practically from the start of the—peaceful—rally and left at least 1,500 people injured (Amnesty International).
Despite all this, Argentine civil society remains vigilant and active. In response to the reform of the Glacier Law, organized civil society filed a class-action lawsuit and denounced the violation of the Escazú Agreement, which Argentina is obligated to comply with under the principle of non-retroactivity of environmental legislation. In response to the Private Property Inviolability Bill, it was social pressure—led by political and social movements and championed by artists and public figures—that halted a crucial push in Congress.
What is advancing is economic speculation on land. But we still have time to draw on science and knowledge to defend Argentina’s role as a guarantor of human rights and respect for the commitments it has made.
By Milena Maceiras, who holds a bachelor’s degree in International Relations from the National University of San Martín and is pursuing a master’s degree in Governance and Human Rights at the Autonomous University of Madrid.
This article was selected through the Call for Papers issued by FIBGAR’s ALERTA Latam Observatory, which was open to students in the Master’s Program in Governance and Human Rights at the Autonomous University of Madrid. We thank the author for his valuable contribution to this forum for analysis and critical reflection on the challenges facing Latin America, and for his commitment to promoting human rights, justice, and democracy in the region.
REFERENCES
OHCHR. 2024. OPINION. Argentina: In a Turbulent World, More Human Rights. Published on December 10, 2024. Last accessed May 4, 2026. Available at: https://acnudh.org/opinion-argentina-para-un-mundo-convulsionado-mas-derechos-humanos/
Amnesty International. 2025. What the UN General Assembly Left for Argentina: Isolation, Stern Warnings, and a Country That Made Headlines Once Again. Published on December 1, 2025. Last accessed on May 4, 2026. Available at: https://amnistia.org.ar/noticias/lo-que-dejo-la-asamblea-general-de-la-onu-para-argentina-aislamiento-duras-advertencias-y-un-pais-que-volvio-a-dar-la-nota
Amnesty International. 2026. Challenges in Human Rights: Two Years into Javier Milei’s Administration. Available at: https://amnistia.org.ar/storage/uploads/f873aff2-afe1-405d-8ecf-a596b9df2b4e/Informe-DDHH-Retos-2025.pdf?utm_source=perfit&utm_medium=email& utm_campaign=Annual%20Report%2020252026
Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences (FCEN). 2026. On the Reform of the Glacier Law. National University of Mar del Plata. Published on February 27, 2026. Last accessed May 4, 2026. Available at: https://exactas.mdp.edu.ar/sobre-la-reforma-en-la-ley-de-glaciares/
Greenpeace. 2026. #SaveTheGlaciers. Last accessed May 4, 2026. Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/argentina/participa/glaciares-en-peligro/
Gutierrez, R.A.; Isuani, F.J. 2014. The Emergence of State and Social Environmentalism in Argentina. Rev. Adm. Pública 48 (2). Apr. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-76121700
