‘The smell hurts’: why has the supreme court washed its hands of Argentina’s ‘rotten river’?

Campaigners fear ruling on the toxic Matanza-Riachuelo basin will worsen the region’s many health crises and sends the message that environmental damage is not a priority

Two decades ago, the waters in Argentina’s basin flowed over abandoned shipwrecks and rusting cars. Animal residue from abattoirs bled into its rivers, along with household waste and toxins from factories, including arsenic, lead and cadmium.

Today, those living along the riverbanks, which snake around Buenos Aires’ southern edge and by the tourist district of La Boca, continue to complain of skin rashes, headaches, breathing problems and vomiting. They say their animals die inexplicably.

“We started to realise there was a problem in the 1980s, but we didn’t fully understand what was happening,” says Juan Carlos Longhi. “Children began suffering from illnesses, and it was difficult to breathe. It was terrible.”

The 40-mile (64km) river served as the capital’s dumping ground for more than 200 years – mid-19th century chroniclers described it as “rotten” – and has long been considered one of the most polluted rivers in the world. Thousands of businesses, such as tanneries, chemical plants and factories, are situated in the basin, while an estimated 4.5 million people call the area home.

In 2008, amid growing pressure, Argentina’s supreme court issued a historic ruling demanding the river’s cleanup and making restoration the state’s responsibility. Now, in a move that has shocked environmentalists, the court has decided to terminate its monitoring.

The court has ended its oversight of the Riachuelo River pollution suit after more than 15 years as it deemed its intervention “successful in driving structural reforms necessary to align state actions with constitutional principles”. The Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Authority (Acumar), a state agency which has been responsible for the physical clean-up operation since 2006, will continue its work, but without being monitored by the court.

The water remains contaminated and lifeless, toxins continue to flow and pollution levels are significantly above acceptable levels, lawyers and activists say. That is despite authorities removing debris, relocating inhabitants and the ongoing monitoring of industry.

Even if environmental progress has been slow, residents and campaigners now fear that without the court’s oversight and monitoring, and with cost-cutting of public services biting more deeply, progress may be reversed, industries may resume polluting with impunity, and efforts to restore the environment could come to an end.

“This 2008 ruling was really important for environmental rights for Argentina, setting the tone nationally,” says Cristian Fernández, a lawyer at the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (Farn). “The supreme court was guarding the river; now it will not. It is like saying to judges across the country there are no environmental rules any more. They’re risking all we have achieved.”

Maria Ducomls has lived in one of the capital’s most heavily polluted neighbourhoods, Villa Inflamable, since childhood. She says cleanup operations have mostly failed to improve the environment, which is severely affecting her health. “The smell hurts your eyes, throat, nose,” she says. “We suffer a lot of health problems, skin rashes, tight chests. There is a lot of cancer here. My son had a test, and they found chemicals in his blood.”

A 2013 report found that 25% of children living in the Matanza-Riachuelo basin had lead in their bloodstream, and an even higher portion were living with respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses. “The factories are burning harmful chemicals and toxic waste all the time, day and night,” Ducomls says, as a gas flare shoots close to her home.

Experts, campaigners and the people living in the basin agree that progress has been made in clearing the debris from the river, but say the improvements are not enough. A putrid stench still hangs over the river and clumps of plastic and rubbish collect on its banks.

Raúl Estrada Oyuela, president of the Argentine Academy of Environmental Sciences, says the main problems lie beneath the surface. He believes that penalties for non-compliance are minimal. “For companies, paying fines is often cheaper than addressing the pollution,” he says.

A study published in June by Acumar reported that phosphorus levels were higher than ever in some of the sites tested. The authority argues that the data collected could be seasonal and that the river and basin have changed dramatically for the better, but acknowledges that the “cleanup process is not over” and says “there is still a lot of work ahead”.

However, as of July, authorities have carried out only 40% of the agreed housing relocations to safer areas. The completion of a sewage system, which started in 2016, is still eagerly awaited.

Javier García Elorrio, the director of urban hygiene operations for the city of Buenos Aires, is pleased with his team’s work cleaning waste but says sewage remains the biggest challenge. “The sewage of about 2.5 million people goes straight into the river. For each litre of water, there is only one milligram of oxygen. For life, you need four milligrams,” he says.

The 2008 supreme court’s decision used to be considered one of the most important in Argentine environmental jurisprudence. The new ruling, says Fernández at Farn, means compliance supervision of Acumar will end and hundreds of files will be archived.

He believes the decision will send a message to courts nationwide that “environmental damage is not a priority now” and signals “the start of a new era”. “With no oversight or monitoring, industry will pollute. And there will be no one to intervene,” says Fernández. “We will go backwards in time.”

In an appeal, a group of environmental lawyers warned the decision would lead to a “monumental setback”. “The objectives set out in the 2008 ruling, today, 16 years later, remain largely unfulfilled,” their appeal says.

The decision comes almost a year into the presidency of far-right libertarian Javier Milei, who has pushed for a rollback in environmental regulations to aid investment into the crisis-stricken country. The president, a climate science denier who won the election with pledges to slash state spending and fix the economic crisis, has tried to ease restrictions on mining near glaciers and remove forest protections.

During his presidential campaign, Milei said: “A company can pollute a river all it wants.”

“We have a president that doesn’t care about the environment – maybe the supreme court was trying to be in harmony with his narrative,” says Alfredo Alberti, president of the La Boca neighbourhood association.

The supreme court says its role in the trial culminated, having “fulfilled its purpose of generating the structural reform”, including approving a comprehensive sanitation plan and creating Acumar.

Ignacio Baistrocchi, secretary of public space and urban hygiene for Buenos Aires, says the court’s decision will not affect the will or legal obligation to clean the area.

However, critics say Acumar has not managed to control chemical and organic discharges into the river. Acumar also faces budget cuts, which could bring its sanitation work to a standstill.

Acumar says that while it has reduced spending, it has optimised resources and maintained compliance. It also says it will continue implementing its sanitation plan and conducting inspections. The agency also says it has removed 80 boats from the riverbed, extracted 1,500 tons of waste monthly and monitored more than 4,000 premises.

Still, people feel discouraged and angry. Enrique Caporaletti, a river captain, says trying to fix the pollution is like “trying to dig in water”. “In a normal, organised country, it would be OK if the case were closed. But here in Argentina, it’s a real trouble,” he says.

Alberti acknowledges the river is cleaner than 45 years ago but says the pollution persists. “The river was full of waste, oil, and dead animals,” he says. “All of the improvements have been cosmetic, as the quality of the river hasn’t improved much.”

Alberti believes that if the environmental goals were not fulfilled while being monitored by the supreme court, they are unlikely to be accomplished now. “I am fed up, I am tired, I am angry,” he says. “All we can do is mourn.”

 

Cover photo: By The Guardian