The Pilar Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Services (SCIPA) has expressed its “deep concern” and “firm opposition” to the environmental protection tariff introduced by the Municipality of Pilar through the Tariff Regulation 2026.
This rate imposes a rate of 2% or 0.98% on the total purchase receipt for certain commercial items.. SCIPA’s main objection focuses on three critical areas: the complete lack of advice prior consultation with the private sector, the foreseeable negative economic impacts – including loss of competition and tax distortion – and the lack of a clear justification about the intended use of the funds raised.
The situationand was exacerbated by a public call from the nation’s economics minister:“Don’t buy anything in Pilar”, which has impacted the entire commercial and industrial sector. In response, SCIPA officially calls for the regulation to be reviewed or for the immediate opening of a dialogue table to look for alternatives that do not harm the local economy.
SCIPA expresses its opposition to the measure based on consensus among its partners and highlights the following critical points:
Direct and indirect negative economic impacts
The company warns of damaging economic consequences for the district’s commercial network.
Increased costs: This leads to an increase in costs that cannot be transferred to the final price, a situation aggravated by the context of the decline in consumption and the recession.
Loss of competitiveness: This puts it at a disadvantage compared to neighboring municipalities such as Escobar, Malvinas Argentinas and Benavídez, as wholesale purchasing is expected to shift to these locations.
Tax distortion: It is seen as a form of double taxation of already taxed activities.
QDisruption of local economic circulation: Direct impacts on the money circulation chain within Pilar are predicted, negatively impacting employment and the development of local suppliers. As quoted in the letter, the measure threatens to “slow down consumption, trade and employment.”
Lack of involvement and predictability
A central point of the complaint is the one-sided nature of the decision, as it represents a setback in public-private coordination.
Implementation without consultation: The measure was adopted “without proper institutional consultation and without prior dialogue” with the representative units of the sector.
Communication through the media: SCIPA regrets having learned about the regulation through the media, which it interprets as a “devaluation of the role of the economic chambers” and “friction in the spirit of cooperation”.
Lack of transparency and consideration
The lack of justification and clarity regarding the purpose and application of the fee is also questioned.
Lack of specific consideration: The letter highlights the “lack of specific consideration” as the purpose of the collected funds was not explained in more detail.
No specific environmental measures: The specific environmental measures that the funds will implement have not been explained, weakening the stated purpose of the fee.
Inquiries and suggestions
Given the scenario described, SCIPA presents the Mayor with two formal courses of action:
1. Review of the regulation: The review of the regulations implementing the environmental protection quota is formally requested.
2. Institutional dialogue table: As an alternative, the “immediate opening of an institutional dialogue table” is proposed to find solutions that do not harm local economic development.
Conditions for future fiscal measures
Although they do not question the need for environmental action, SCIPA sets a framework of conditions for any future action that imposes additional economic burden on consumers:
- Condition
- Description
- Real dialogue
- Actively involve the private sector in the discussion and design of the measure.
- Impact study
- Carry out an economic impact analysis in advance to estimate the consequences.
- Transparent plan
- Develop a clear implementation plan with specific and measurable goals.
- Guarantee and control
- Ensure that proceeds are used exclusively for environmental purposes, with mechanisms for citizen oversight.
Complicating factors and urgency
Due to external factors that increase the negative impact of the tariff, communication takes on an urgent nature.
Statements by the Minister of Economics: The situation is aggravated by the country’s Minister of Economy’s public request to “not buy anything in Pilar” due to this tariff. SCIPA rejects this comment but recognizes its profound impact on the entire commercial and industrial segment it represents.
Type of “Open Letter”: The decision to publish the letter is justified by the expectation that a request for a formal interview “will certainly take the usual amount of time” as the problem worsens.
The letter ends with a request to correct course. Although the rejection of the tariff is firm, SCIPA reiterates its assessment of other works and improvements carried out during Mayor Achával’s term of office. The tone is collaborative and expresses their willingness to “actively collaborate to develop superior solutions.” The final message is a clear warning: the proposed measure has a direct impact on “the wallets of the citizens of Pilar” and encourages the migration of consumption to other places.
About The Author
