The discussion about the Glacier Law once again took the center of public debate. It is an issue that is often presented as a confrontation between “development” and “conservation”. But this is a false dilemma. Argentina does not need to choose between protecting its strategic resources or growing productively: It needs institutions capable of ensuring both at the same time.
Glaciers and the environment surrounding ice are not just an environmental whim. They are critical water reserves for the country’s present and future security, and in the context of accelerating climate change – which some still question without serious arguments – they constitute essential natural infrastructure for regional economies, energy, agricultural production and the daily lives of millions of people. Maintaining it is not a luxury: It must be state policy.
It is not about stopping production activity or creating enemies for mining or oil. Well-designed – and well-enforced – laws allow economically relevant projects to coexist with clear environmental protection rules. Many developed mining countries operate this way (Australia, USA, Canada, etc.).
As for the Argentine problem, it is another, deeper problem: Chronic institutional fragility. This weakness translates into oversight bodies without real independence, without technical capacity, and without sufficient political weight to exercise their role. In this context, any organization risks becoming a dead letter.
Added to this is a factor that cannot continue to be ignored: the close links between some provinces and the mining sector. Generate an increased perception of opacity. When local governments appear overly biased towards the activity they should supervise, there is inevitable alarm about the independence of their policies and their ability to resist sectoral pressures. This is not about stigmatizing mining, but about recognizing that in the absence of strong institutions the boundaries between public policy and private lobbying blur, and with them social trust.
Pretending that the only way to unlock investment is to reduce regulations protecting strategic assets is effective marketing simplification, but it is detrimental to building a predictable state. Recognizing the perfection of rules is not wrong – every complex rule can be improved – but this requires serious, transparent, technology-based work. It is not a temporary motivation.
The National Constitution (Article 41) clearly stipulates that the state sets minimum budgets for environmental protection, and provinces can supplement them, never reduce them. To do otherwise would be tantamount to fragmenting environmental protection along political lines, with consequences that are as predictable as they are negative. There are many biological and environmental arguments that confirm that environmental problems go beyond the boundaries that humans draw on maps.
True competitiveness arises from reliable institutions, It is not an erosion of standards that other countries consider minimum.
Moreover, this approach runs counter to Argentina’s stated desire to move toward joining the OECD, a path that requires exactly the opposite: solid regulatory frameworks, transparency, environmental governance, and effective supervisory capacity. In addition to the commitments made in the recent agreement with the United States, environmental provisions occupy an appropriate place. This is the direction in which the world is moving, including the international financial sphere.
It is also not true that all voters of the current administration support these positions without nuance. Many of them supported political and economic change, but also expressed appreciation for the protection of natural resources and responsible international integration. Reducing the debate to “productivists vs. environmentalists” This complexity is ignored.
Finally, the political sectors that once so convincedly raised environmental flags are expected to maintain their cohesion. Society needs them not to adapt their rhetoric to the pressing demands of short-term negotiations. Credibility – which is difficult to build – is maintained through consistency, not through convenience. Without this cohesion, it will also not be possible to rebuild confidence that the environment can truly be a shared priority.
Argentina needs strong institutions, not pendulum discussions. Clear rules provide predictability, an effective state capable of control, and productive sectors that operate within those frameworks. This is the path to sustainable and modern development. Protecting glaciers and promoting economic activity are not only compatible: ultimately, The only way to build the future.
CEO of Aves Argentinas