"The Environmental Impacts Concealed by the Dictatorship"

Collab: Carolina Somoza, B.A. in Political Science (University of Buenos Aires), holds diplomas in Environmental Law, the Rights of Migrants and Refugees, and Comprehensive Environmental Education. Teacher and serves as an advisor at the Office of the Ombudsperson (Autonomous City of Buenos Aires).

The last Argentine civic-military dictatorship (1976–1983) has been widely studied in relation to state terrorism, forced disappearances, and the imposition of a neoliberal economic model characterized by deindustrialization, foreign debt, and wealth concentration. Over time, feminist perspectives have also been incorporated, highlighting the specific violence suffered by women and gender-diverse individuals.

However, there is a less-explored but equally structural dimension: the environment. This lens allows us to see how the regime used territory, cities, and natural resources as tools for social control and economic reorganization. Environmental and urban policies were not merely technical add-ons, but rather key elements of a broader strategy to impose a new order. This work seeks to analyze that silenced dimension: how the dictatorship dismantled the emerging environmental institutions of the preceding years, transformed cities and territories under the rhetoric of “sanitation” and “modernization,” suppressed the rise of ecological movements, and left lasting legacies that persist to this day.

Institutional Dismantling and Subordination of Environmental Policy:

Globally, the 1970s were pivotal for the emergence of environmentalism. The 1972 Stockholm Conference marked a turning point in the international environmental agenda. Meanwhile, in the U.S. and Western Europe, environmental movements were growing, denouncing pollution, nuclear energy, and biodiversity loss. In Latin America, discussions around “sustainable development” were just beginning. But in Argentina, the political violence of the era prevented the consolidation of an autonomous environmental agenda.

On May 21, 1972, from his exile in Madrid, Juan Domingo Perón published his now-famous Message to the Peoples and Governments of the World, warning of humanity’s “Suicidal March” in the face of pollution and the destruction of natural resources. This document, a pioneering international statement, inspired the creation in 1973 of the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Human Environment (SRNAH), led by Yolanda Ortiz, one of Argentina’s earliest environmentalists. For the first time, Argentina had a national institution specifically dedicated to environmental issues.

The SRNAH held broad responsibilities: conservation of water resources, land-use regulation, and oversight of basic services. In an international context where environmentalism was gaining traction, Argentina appeared to be ahead of the curve.

But the 1976 civic-military coup interrupted that progress. The regime viewed environmental policy as a Peronist remnant and proceeded to dismantle the Secretariat, dispersing its functions across various state entities, primarily under the Ministry of Economy (RedALyC, 2014). This was not a mere administrative decision—it was a political move to subordinate environmental concerns to the economic project led by Martínez de Hoz. The dictatorship applied the logic of the National Security Doctrine to the environment: territory had to be controlled and reorganized in line with strategic objectives. Natural resources ceased to be viewed as public goods and became raw materials for the international market.

Law 21.695 on Tax Credits for Afforestation:

A paradigmatic example was Law Number 21.695 on Tax Credits for Afforestation (1977). This law replaced the previous forestry promotion regime and granted tax credits to those who planted fast-growing exotic species such as pine and eucalyptus (CONICET, 2020).

The aim was not to conserve native ecosystems, but to supply raw materials for the pulp and paper industry. The policy encouraged monoculture plantations in provinces like Misiones, Corrientes, and Entre Ríos, severely impacting biodiversity, soil, and water. Additionally, the possibility of monetizing the tax credits benefited large business groups, including Ledesma, a company also implicated in crimes against humanity.

Thus, afforestation functioned as an economic tool for wealth concentration, rather than an environmental policy.

Urban Policy as a Laboratory for Reorganization:

The dictatorship turned cities and territory into experimental grounds. Under the guise of “modernization” and “sanitation,” it implemented policies that resulted in social displacement, foreign debt, and environmental degradation.

• CEAMSE and Waste Management:

  In 1977, the Coordinación Ecológica Área Metropolitana Sociedad del Estado (CEAMSE) was created, replacing open-air garbage burning in Buenos Aires with a system of sanitary landfills. Although presented as a technical solution to air pollution, in reality, it relocated environmental problems to the peripheral municipalities of Greater Buenos Aires. Landfills were built in low-lying, flood-prone areas, later rebranded as “green lungs.” The contamination of soil, water, and air disproportionately affected vulnerable communities (UB, 2012), consolidating a model of environmental injustice in which the capital city externalized its ecological costs to its poorest peripheries.

• Highways and Urban Fragmentation:

  Another central policy was the construction of urban highways. The 1977 Urban Planning Code authorized large-scale projects involving the demolition of thousands of homes and the creation of traffic corridors through established neighborhoods. Partially funded through foreign debt, these projects left behind a heavy economic burden for the democratic period (SciELO, 2014).

  Rubble from the demolitions was used to fill in parts of the Río de la Plata, where the Costanera Sur Ecological Reserve now stands—originally intended to house luxury buildings. The result: urban fragmentation, pollution, and gentrification.

• Slum Eradication and “Social Sanitation”:

  One of the dictatorship’s most brutal policies was the eradication of informal settlements (villas). Justified under the claim that they were “environmentally degrading spaces,” around 180,000 people were forcibly displaced from Buenos Aires (IDES, 2019). This was not a social housing policy—it was a policy of control and discipline. Poverty was pushed to the urban periphery, establishing a pattern of socio-territorial segregation that still persists.

Other Notable Cases:

1. The Salto Grande Dam (1979) led to the disappearance of the city of Federación, in the province of Entre Ríos. Its inhabitants were relocated to a new site constructed by the dictatorship. The experience left deep social trauma, symbolizing the violence with which the regime imposed its projects (El Miércoles Digital, 2019).

2. The landfilling of the Río de la Plata using highway rubble eventually led to the creation of the Costanera Sur Ecological Reserve. Today a conservation area, it originated in an act of environmental and urban violence.

3. The closure of the Riachuelo Port in 1976 also marked a turning point: the river lost its economic function and became a polluted, abandoned waterway, filled with scrap metal and sewage.

Civil Society, Repression, Resistance, and the Return:

State terrorism and systematic repression prevented the formation of a strong environmental movement. While major environmental organizations emerged in Europe and the U.S., in Argentina, political persecution silenced all autonomous organizing.

Nonetheless, some technical and academic initiatives emerged: the Argentine Academy of Environmental Sciences (1981) and FUNAM (1982). Their influence was limited, but they show that environmental concern never fully disappeared.

A key milestone was the “Kattan” ruling (1983), in which the judiciary recognized the collective right to a healthy environment by blocking the export of dolphins to Japan. This case introduced the concept of diffuse interest into Argentine jurisprudence, anticipating Article 41 of the 1994 Constitution (Sabsay, 1984).

This precedent shows that even in an authoritarian context, judicial avenues could open cracks for environmental defense. #ForABetterWorld

With the return of democracy in 1983, institutional rebuilding was not immediate. The economic crisis and foreign debt relegated environmental issues. The Secretariat of Natural Resources and Human Environment was only re-established in 1991. Minimum Standards Laws came in the 2000s.

These elements show that the dictatorship’s impact went beyond conventional human rights violations; it also deeply affected territorial and environmental structures in the country.

Conclusions:

The Argentine civic-military dictatorship used the environment as a central component of its authoritarian project. The dismantling of institutions, the expulsion-driven urban policies, the rhetoric of “sanitation,” and the debt-financed infrastructure were not isolated incidents: they were part of a coherent plan of control and accumulation.

The environment became a stage for violence: fragmented cities, displaced communities, devastated ecosystems, and polluted rivers. That is why understanding this chapter of history also means talking about human rights.

In a democracy, the environmental memory of those years is key to building environmental and social justice. Because when we say “Never Again”, we must also say it in the face of violence, dispossession, and environmental abuse—against our people and our natural commons.

References:

1. Asociación de Administradores Gubernamentales. (2010). Environmental Policies in Argentina: A Trajectory of National Institutions from 1970 to 2010. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

2. CONICET. (2020). Deindustrialization and Techno-Productive Destruction during the Last Argentine Civic-Military Dictatorship: The Closure Process of Industrias Mecánicas del Estado (1976–1980). CONICET Institutional Repository. https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/

3. El Miércoles Digital. (2019). The City that the Dictatorship Made Disappear. El Miércoles Digital.

4. IDES. (2019). “A New Urban Landscape”: The Production of Public Green Spaces during the Last Civic-Military Dictatorship in Buenos Aires. Revista IDES.

5. Página/12. (2023). Quilmes Heritage: The Dictatorship Bulldozed the Sacred City. Página/12. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/859980

6. Perón, J. D. (1972). Message to the Peoples and Governments of the World. Madrid, Spain.

7. RedALyC. (2014). Lights and Shadows of Argentina’s Environmental Policy between 1983 and 2013. RedALyC.

8. Sabsay, D. A. (1984). Sustainable Development in a Federal Court Ruling. El Derecho, 174, 448.

9. SciELO. (2014). The Emergence of State and Social Environmentalism in Argentina. SciELO Brazil.

10. Universitat de Barcelona (UB). (2012). City Under Dictatorship: Urban Processes in Buenos Aires. Universitat de Barcelona.