Home » News » A video of Ence unleashes the environmental controversy about the pastera | Galicia

A video of Ence unleashes the environmental controversy about the pastera | Galicia


View of the Ence plant in PontevedraEnce

The Asociación pola Defensa da Ría (APDR) is studying a possible complaint and the request for the precautionary closure of the Ence plant due to the statements of its president, Ignacio Colmenares, in a video in which he allegedly warned that the Lourizán plant (Pontevedra ) could give “an environmental scare” due to lack of investment.

The controversy occurs in the process of the Climate Change and Energy Transition Law in Congress, which has forced the pasta company to issue a statement. In it, he affirms that the video is an “illegal recording”, “taken out of context”, and denies that Ignacio Colmenares has questioned the future of the company. Colmenares himself has come forward to emphasize that his objective “is to maintain the activity of the Lourizán plant, employment and its investments.” “This extract, about four minutes long, is part of an intervention lasting more than three quarters of an hour” and the words spread about an eventual environmental disaster “do not reflect its meaning or meaning,” the company has detailed.

However, these explanations have not convinced the APDR, which interprets that the president of Ence has admitted the lack of investment, which is “an absolutely irresponsible situation that could have legal implications.” Also the deputy mayor of Pontevedra, Tino Fernández, has entered the controversy, putting the focus on what he has defined as a “major environmental scare.”

According to the APDR, the company intends to pressure so that the eventual law adapts to its demands, while Ence clarifies that the modification of article 18.4 of the future legislation (which contemplates the 75-year limit for concessions on land located in the domain maritime-terrestrial public, state competence) would give “legal certainty” to the factory by “eliminating doubts” about its retroactive application, reports Europa Press.

This “would undoubtedly greatly facilitate the situation and the future of this plant, as well as the significant volume of employment linked to it in Pontevedra and throughout Galicia”, which amounts to more than 5,000 people, as explained by the company. This has also had an impact on the “robust security management system of the Ence Pontevedra complex, endorsed by the certificate of the international standard ISO 45.001. “The safety indexes, year after year, ten times better than those of the industry in Spain”, affirms the company.

In this context, the company has insisted that the safety of the plant has not been questioned at any time by its president. “It has only been alluded to the annoyances that the smell can suppose for the people of the surroundings next to the plant”, clarifies. “Safety, along with sustainability and respect for the environment, are Ence’s priorities in Pontevedra, as in the rest of the locations where it operates,” adds the company.

Since the extension of the concession in 2016, Ence has invested 132 million euros in the Lourizán biofactory and another 200 million remain pending investment, according to the company. The company has announced that “it would continue to deepen so that the plant continues to advance in competitiveness and sustainability”, but, it insists, only in case of having that “legal certainty” in the future law. If not, it admits that future locations of the pasta factory are being considered outside of Galicia, both in Portugal and in Brazil.

But the president of the APDR, Antón Masa, believes that Ence “intends to modify the Climate Change Law as he wishes.” “This is a new attempt to put pressure on administrations and citizens, taking advantage on this occasion of the current health and economic situation, causing greater sensitivity for the defense of employment,” denounces Masa.

“With or without this law, Ence’s time in Lourizán has come to an end,” insists the APDR spokesman. And it defends that the maximum time of permanence in the maritime-terrestrial public domain was already set at 75 years, including the extensions, both in the Coastal Law of 2013 and in the State Heritage Law of 2002. The company defends the validity of the extension granted for the plant to continue operating. The issue is settled in court.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.