The procedure was resolved in just over 12 hours from the deadline until it was communicated to the Assembly
The Junta de Extremadura has rejected the 12 allegations presented by platforms such as Salvemos la Montaña and other groups and backed by 36,000 signatures against the decree-law for the regulation of the use of lithium in Extremadura. It has done so in record time, since the deadline for the delivery of the documentation expired on the 22nd at 12 at night and on the 23rd at 1:29 p.m. the document with the denial of the allegations entered the Assembly of Extremadura.
Although the Board yesterday limited itself to confirming to this newspaper that it had already responded to the allegations, without specifying whether it had rejected them or not, TODAY has had access to the file in which the reasons for rejecting them are argued. Juan Antonio González, spokesman for the Board, recalled yesterday after the Governing Council that a decree-law does not need to go through a period of public information, but that in this case it has been done for transparency and so that whoever wants to can show their position about. This decree-law is part of the agenda of the plenary session of the Assembly that is being held today for its validation.
The regional spokeswoman for United for Extremadura, Irene de Miguel, yesterday questioned the speed of this process and criticized the fact that the citizen associations had not been informed.
The Ministry for the Ecological Transition rejects that it is a legislative measure without a title of competence, as argued by the allegations, which branded it a “mockery of public participation since it is granted once the norm is approved and published”, in addition to being an “unconstitutional” text. for violating the freedom of enterprise, the regime of distribution of powers between the State and the autonomous communities as well as for violating article 73 of the Mining Law. The document signed by the General Director of Industry, Samuel Ruiz, points out that “the statements made imply a lack of knowledge of the constitutional regime for the distribution of powers in matters of mines.”
It also rejects the damage to the environment to which one of the allegations refers, since, the Board indicates, “a series of damages are listed without any type of criteria and specification.” The impact on the environment of a project “would derive from a specific concession project” that are always subject to the environmental impact statement.
Regarding the lack of justification for the extraordinary and urgent need, it is pointed out that “it lacks any justification, as it consists of mere opinions and value judgments.” Here it is added that “the demand for lithium has skyrocketed in a completely anomalous way and without comparison with any other mining resource due to the very high demand for batteries for electric cars.”
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.