La Pampa Argentina
In late April 2026, a broad coalition of actors—comprising members of citizen assemblies from various provinces across the country, as well as civil society organizations such as the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers (AAdeAA), the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), Greenpeace Argentina, Amnesty International, the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), and the Center for Argentine Political Economy (CEPA)—filed a class-action lawsuit in a Federal Court in Santa Rosa (La Pampa) against the National Government to halt the implementation of the Glaciers Law reform, which had been approved by the Senate. With the support of more than 850,000 people, they are seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Law No. 27,804 and requesting an injunction ordering the immediate suspension of its application nationwide to protect water resources.
The Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers (AAdeAA) and Greenpeace Argentina requested that the application and implementation of the law that weakens the protection of glaciers and the periglacial environment be suspended throughout the national territory.
Law No. 27,804, enacted on April 8, 2026, substantially amended Law No. 26,639 on Minimum Environmental Standards for the Preservation of Glaciers and the Periglacial Environment. Its main modifications consisted of: (i) restricting the scope of protection by requiring that glaciers perform specific hydrological functions to be legally protected; (ii) transferring to provincial authorities the power to determine which glaciers and periglacial environments should be protected, thus displacing the scientific role previously assigned to the Argentine Institute of Snow Science, Glaciology and Environmental Sciences (IANIGLA) under the previous legislation; (iii) replacing the absolute prohibition of extractive activities in glacial areas with a prohibition subject exclusively to the assessment by provincial authorities of whether the activity "significantly alters" the ecosystem; and (iv) distorting the purpose of an instrument such as environmental impact assessment, effectively turning it into a means to authorize all kinds of activities in this environment, and establishing strategic environmental assessment as an option available to provincial authorities.
The collective action is especially relevant because it challenges a legislative reform that could substantially modify Argentina's minimum environmental standards system.
The plaintiffs argue that Law No. 27,804 violates the principle of non-regression in environmental matters, the principle of progressivity, environmental federalism, and the standards of public participation established in the Escazú Agreement.
One of the most significant aspects is the transfer of powers to provincial authorities to determine which glaciers and periglacial environments should be protected. This change could create discrepancies in protection levels between jurisdictions and weaken a national environmental policy for ecosystems that perform interprovincial hydrological and climatic functions.
The case is also important from the perspective of climate justice, since the loss of glaciers and the alteration of water reserves can disproportionately affect communities that are more vulnerable and depend directly on these ecosystems.
This litigation constitutes an example of the articulation between the defense of strategic ecosystems, the human right to a healthy environment and state obligations in the face of climate change.
Its main climatic dimension lies in the fact that the protection of glaciers and periglacial environments is essential to guarantee water security, preserve the adaptive capacity of the territories and reduce the vulnerability of communities to the effects of global warming.
The legal action incorporates climate-related arguments, maintaining that weakening the protection of glaciers and periglacial environments is incompatible with Law No. 27,520 on Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, and the commitments made by Argentina in its First Biennial Transparency Report to the UNFCCC. It also invokes Advisory Opinion 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which recognized the right to a healthy climate as an autonomous right and established that States must refrain from adopting regressive climate and environmental measures.
The response adopted by the courts could have important consequences for Argentine environmental federalism, the protection of common natural resources, and the scope of state obligations of non-regression in environmental and climate matters.
The climate component is one of the central tenets of the collective legal action filed by environmental organizations, members of citizen assemblies, and human rights organizations. The lawsuit argues that reducing the protection standards for glaciers and periglacial environments represents a setback in the protection of ecosystems that are fundamental to addressing climate change. This is because glaciers perform essential functions in regulating the hydrological cycle, conserving freshwater reserves, and maintaining the resilience of mountain ecosystems.
From a climate perspective, the controversy has three main dimensions:
a) Climate vulnerability and water security.
The retreat of glaciers, linked to rising global temperatures, threatens the availability of freshwater and alters runoff patterns and water regulation in watersheds. Consequently, weakening their protection can increase the vulnerability of populations and ecosystems that depend on these resources, especially in arid and semi-arid regions of Argentina. Therefore, glacier protection is not only a matter of environmental conservation, but also a measure for adapting to climate change and preventing socio-environmental risks.
b) Risk of increased extractive pressures on strategic ecosystems.
The modification of the protection regime could facilitate extractive activities in glacial and periglacial territories by replacing environmental prohibitions with assessments subject to the criteria of provincial authorities. This transformation raises concerns about the potential cumulative impacts on mountain ecosystems, freshwater reserves, and watersheds. Furthermore, it could increase the exposure of these territories to activities incompatible with their conservation, particularly in a context of increasing water stress and global warming.
c) Regression of environmental protection and climate obligations of the State.
The legal action argues that the legislative reform is incompatible with Argentina's national and international environmental and climate obligations. The central argument is that the State cannot weaken the mechanisms for protecting ecosystems that are fundamental to climate adaptation and water security without considering the environmental and climate consequences of that decision.
- Members of citizens' assemblies from various provinces of the country
- The Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers (AAdeAA)
- The Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN)
- Greenpeace Argentina, Amnesty International
- The Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS)
- The Center for Political Economy of Argentina (CEPA)
- National Government
The litigation is taking place in Argentina, a country whose diverse geography and climate encompass high-mountain ecosystems, arid and semi-arid regions, river basins, and territories particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. In this context, the glaciers and periglacial environments of the Andes Mountains constitute strategic freshwater reserves and play a vital role in maintaining the balance of hydrological systems.
Argentina's glaciers are distributed primarily along the Andes mountain range, traversing various provinces and regions of the country. Their territorial importance transcends provincial boundaries, as they feed river basins that supply water to populations, agricultural activities, ecosystems, and different productive sectors.
Periglacial environments also play a fundamental environmental role, particularly due to their capacity to store water as ice and contribute to the regulation of water resources. These ecosystems are especially important in arid and semi-arid regions, where water availability depends significantly on the contribution of cryospheric systems.
The vulnerability of these territories has increased due to global warming, which causes glacial retreat, the loss of ice mass, and alterations in water availability cycles. These transformations pose risks to communities that depend on watersheds fed by glacial systems, as well as to biodiversity and ecosystem services.
In this context, Law No. 26,639, known as the Glaciers Law, established minimum environmental protection standards to preserve these ecosystems. However, its amendment through Law No. 27,804, enacted on April 8, 2026, raises concerns about the potential fragmentation of environmental protection standards among the provinces and the reduction of protection for ecosystems that are strategic for national water security.
The controversy takes on a territorial and federal dimension, since decisions about the protection of glaciers do not exclusively affect the provinces where they are located, but also the populations and activities that depend on the watersheds linked to them.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
- Escazú Agreement
- United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
National laws
- Constitution of Argentina
- Law on Minimum Environmental Protection Standards for the Preservation of Glaciers and the Periglacial Environment (Law No. 26,639)
- Law on Minimum Budgets for Adaptation and Mitigation to Global Climate Change (Law No. 27,520)
- General Environmental Law (Law No. 25,675)
- Law No. 27,566)
Beginning
- Principle of non-regression in the environment
- Principle of progressivity
- Principle of prevention
- Precautionary principle
- Principle of intergenerational equity
- Principle of sustainability
- Principle of citizen participation
This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .