Most political parties have stated that the Government has ignored the concerns of the population with the approval of more contracts for mining concessions, and that the legislation is ambiguous and ends up facilitating mining in any location.
Three parliamentary appraisals were discussed, by BE, PCP and PEV, and PSD parties regarding the decree-law that regulates the legislation that changed the bases of the legal regime for the disclosure and use of geological resources existing in Portugal, in terms of respect to mineral deposits.
Inconsistencies
PSD, BE, PCP, PAN and PEV focused their criticism on what they consider to be the gaps present in the legislation that end up facilitating mining in protected areas, and on the inconsistency between the opposition of the population and the decisions of the Government.
PSD deputy Luís Leite Ramos defended that “it is not worth everything in the fight against climate change”, considering that, “to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions” one cannot “devastate protected areas” and “sacrifice the health and quality of life for populations living close to mineral deposits”.
Leite Ramos accused the Government of acting "as a promoter of mining projects, touting the merits of the ecological transition and the wonders of lithium", without, however, "assuming in a clear and transparent way the defense of the environment”.
"Therefore, the minister cannot be surprised at the loss of confidence that mining causes among mayors and local communities: it was his Government who turned the word 'lithium' into a swearword, due to the opacity in the licensing processes, the web of interests and negotiations that grew around them, due to the Government's deafness to the appeals and complaints of the populations in the defense of their territories and their lives”, he said.
Blocist deputy Nelson Peralta considered that the legislation "is written at the customer's will", since it "prohibits everything and at the same time allows everything".
“Contrary to what was promised, it is not a law for green mining. It is a green way for the mines and, in the case of lithium, there is no speed limit”, added the deputy.
Nelson Peralta argued that for populations in areas targeted for mining “the risks and transfer of wealth remain”, since “with a mine, many other traditional economic activities are at risk”.
For the PCP, deputy Duarte Alves said that the State is playing a “mere role of promoting agent and facilitator of business”.
Survey needed
The PCP bench proposes that a survey of the country's resources be carried out and, based on this information, "decide based on economic, environmental and quality of life criteria for the populations, whether in each concrete case these resources should or should not be explored”.
The PAN party, through Deputy Bebiana Cunha, recognised that "there are implicit principles" in the mining law that, "if they were to be clarified, would in fact better protect the environment and people", but said that what the law clarifies is that these principles only materialise “whenever possible”.
Now, 'whenever possible' does not protect our habitats, our natural heritage, the populations that have been, in practice, a verb in the passive form, so ignored that they have been, in recent decades, by successive Governments", he stressed.
Rigorous response
In response to the parties, the Environment Minister acknowledged that mines “clearly” have environmental impacts, but assured that, in Portugal, mining “will be the most rigorous from an environmental point of view” and guaranteed that “there will never be any mine that has not previously had an environmental impact assessment”.
“The purpose of the regulation of the mining law is to defend environmental conditions, involve communities, and to share and promote the creation of contracts of value as much as possible,” he said.
With regard to coordination with local populations, Matos Fernandes defended that the exploitation of mines is done in a way to “share with those who live close to the spaces where these mines will exist, as much of the wealth generated and created as possible” and recalled that in law, municipalities issue a binding opinion when “the purpose of exploitation is a purpose that comes from a private individual”.
Originally from the UK, Daisy has been living and working in Portugal for more than 20 years. She has worked in PR, marketing and journalism, and has been the editor of The Portugal News since 2019. Jornalista 7920
Mining, like any other human activity, should always serve the higher interests of the society in a manner as sustainable as possible. Many pseudo new thinkers forget that mankind has since prehistoric times interfered with and changed its environment! Pretending that from now on we no longer do that is just hypocrisy and a lie that is permeating fragile minds!
By Tony Fernandes from Other on 21 Nov 2021, 19:03
Show me any evidence of past min8n* projects that actually shared profits with th3 surrounding communities in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, there is a lo5 of evidence worldwide of polluted air, water and soil, which is rarely cleaned up when the mine is exhausted. Politicians take generous “sweeteners”, greed prevails over environmental and human health, and the whole thing goes on and on. For what? Making rich corporations and their shareholders richer.
By Jude Irwin from Beiras on 22 Nov 2021, 09:35
Stop voting for the parties that support mining! Unfortunately, the gullible voter will vote for their preferred party irrespective of the policies of that party. It’s the same the world over: you get the government you deserve!
By Ian from Lisbon on 22 Nov 2021, 13:30
Most industrial rich countries in the world, they progressed through intensive mining and exploration for raw materials, manufacturing, and commerce. That's how the most rich countries developed their economies, and infrastructure. And provided jobs and work for their citizens. So their citizens can have a high standard of living. It's through hard work that countries have developed.
By Tony from Other on 22 Nov 2021, 21:13
Ian start by yourself by throwing away or not buying anymore anything that may contain metals: start by your car, fridge, solar panels, cell phone, etc., basically most things that make our lives so much easier, longer and healthier than those of our forefathers!
By Tony Fernandes from Other on 24 Nov 2021, 16:35
Why so annoyed, Tony? Better be reminded that most of the "industrial rich countries" plundered their own resources already a while ago, with most mining richness being today and since colonial times generated through exploitation of others, maintaining the upstream value chain tied to those territories that you call developed. If some portuguese sheep farmers prefer a poor and reduced life insteat of a progress imposed to them, we should tolerate this.
By Bob from UK on 25 Nov 2021, 12:49