29 environmental protection as general economic concerns have declined (Pew Research Center, 2020). In addition, a study using data from the European Union similarly found that a country’s economic stability is a greater predictor for its citizens’ positive perceptions of green policies than the yearly temperature changes (Shum, 2011). The global demand for lithium is bound to increase as the concern to mitigate environmental decline continues to increase, and Argentina should situate itself opportunistically to capitalize on that rising demand. Despite huge prospects, there has been minimal discussion around the longterm socioeconomic and environmental sustainability of lithium mines and the surrounding habitats. Little consideration has been given to the local impacts of lithium extraction on human rights (Marchegiani, et al., 2019). In fact, local communities have challenged such projects time and again, citing human rights violations and water resource depletion (Roth, 2019). It is essential to understand the risks involved and develop infrastructure only after proper safeguards have been installed for these stakeholders. Argentina faces three major types of hurdles on its journey to lithium supremacy—environmental, social, and economic. Lithiummining poses significant risks to local environments and their human and nonhuman inhabitants. Lithium mining also introduces new economic hurdles to both local and national economies. Haphazard mining efforts and outdated mining laws can further hinder growth in the local economies and could upend the lives of indigenous communities. Careful consideration of these risks and their solutions is imperative for Argentina to produce to meet global demands so that it can help pave the way to Argentina’s escape from its longtime economic turmoil while ensuring positive local impact. Mining Laws It is necessary to consider Argentine mining rights when exploring the viability of lithium mining for long-term economic gains. Although the rights to minerals are owned by the government of each province, mining law is dictated by two different sets of rules. The first and most important, for this analysis, is the 1886 National Code of Mining (NCOM), which the National Congress passed in accordance with the National Constitution. Second are the Provincial Codes of Procedures, passed by each province separately, which cover the processes that fall under the aegis of the provincial mining authorities (Lucero, 2020). The regulator at the federal level is the Secretariat of Mining from the Ministry of Productive Development and at the provincial level it is either the executive branch or the judicial branch, depending on the province (Siboldi & Fanelli, 2020). A close examination of the NCOM is important for understanding how it might be leading to positive or negative economic, social, and environmental outcomes for local mining communities. The NCOM governs these parts of mining: the ways to acquire mineral exploration and mining rights; (ii) the contents (fine print) of such exploration rights (characterized as “exploration permits”—EPs) and of such mining rights (characterized as “mining concessions”—MCs); (iii) a limited number of contractual rules as to MCs dealing with leasing, usufruct and liens that allow MCs to serve as collateral; and (iv) environmental obligations and procedures that apply to all stages of mineral exploration and mining, including sanctions that apply where those obligations are violated (Lucero, 2020). Although the province owns mineral rights, the landowners, including indigenous communities, have legal rights, and any mining entity needs their permission before carrying out operations in the land. Argentina modified its constitution in 1994 so that indigenous people can hold communal land titles. Moreover, in 2000, the country adopted an international standard to insure indigenous peoples’ rights that states, “the peoples concerned shall wherever possible participate in the benefits of such activities and shall receive fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of such activities” (Frankel & Whoriskey, 2016). Despite these efforts, provinces have no clear guidelines regarding a formal process for negotiations between indigenous communities
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==