Local opposition, page-33

How can one quantify the opposition?

As a starting point, clearly the term 'open cut mine' is a sufficient trigger to generate instinctive opposition from a certain number regardless of the merits of the project. So much can be observed from the hyperbolic 'save the mountain' campaign with videos presented by children in rags showing WW1-esque explosions in every direction. Such instincts are intelligible - who of us, if we lived in a picturesque 2000-year-old world-heritage-listed town in the Spanish countryside, would go begging for such an operation to be established next door. The potential economic benefits are not understood at an individual level. Even to a potential local employee, what good is it to say that in two years' time we might have a job for you? And it is certainly true that the bulk of the profits will not materialise in Caceres.

Both INF's and EIT's responses from July 2020 (available at the 'business-humanrights' website) to the campaign offer a credible takedown of what appears at its core to be scaremongering. However, the 'save the mountain' platform clearly has energy and time available to it and, even if it is dishonest, has the potential to be a significant spoke in INF's wheel. Significantly, the platform appears to have the support of the Mayor of Caceres, Luis Salaya. But what kind of politician would let such an opportunity slip by? An article in Hoy from June 2019 around the time he was elected mayor, says (Google translated):

"Another of Salaya's stumbling blocks has been popularity, making a known face. He recognized it even after winning his second primaries against Susana Padilla last May 2018. Despite three years as a spokesperson and being among his maxims to burn shoes and get to know the neighborhoods, it has been difficult for him to establish his image among the people of Cáceres."

What's to say he won't make a name for himself and then blame external factors if/when the project goes ahead?

Given that the project appears to have the support of the Extremadura board, the key obstacle is the Caceres city council. It seems (though I'd be grateful for more information) that they control the municipal general plan which is presently incompatible with mining in the zone where the INF pit is planned. I don't know whether that means that, unless that council agrees to vote to change that general plan, the project simply faces a red light. Could permission from a regional or national level override the city? Currently, the exploratory permit granted by the Extremadura board does not include the planned pit area. I cannot find any information about the sorts of legal challenges or litigation that could ensue in relation to this, or whether that has the potential to suspend INF's plans. In any event, the recent INF appointee Cayetano Polo is a former city councillor, presumably hired partly for his nous in relation to dealing with the council.

But overall, some common sense ought to be applied. This may sound and, (full disclosure of my lack of expertise) probably is, highly naive, but it does not seem possible that greater minds have not entered into these considerations already. The amount of energy and expense already undertaken could not have proceeded on the basis that the mine will ultimately depend on a coin toss or the whims of ultra-environmentalists. And in that regard, even if the city council does hold some ultimate veto power, there will be negotiation. If the operation is as viable, significant, and valuable as it seems, the votes may be bought, ideally though proper channels. Extremadura was already suffering before the pandemic. It is also patently wrong to proceed on the 'save the mountain' platform's basis that there is a dichotomy between the environment of the city on the one hand, and the mine going ahead on the other. The EU has environmental regulations which EIT and INF presumably intend to follow. INF has explained in broad terms how it intends to minimise the impact. It has not been demonstrated that the mine cannot proceed without damaging the city, and the platform's resort to falsified claims tends to suggest the truth is far less harmful.

That said, such ventures must be a gamble in the sense that some level of work needs to be done before a case can be made that the project should go ahead. And, of course, these things can run on their own steam and take on a life of their own. After all, INF's employees are getting paid. With that in mind, the significant support and involvement by EIT seems telling. It might be one thing for a greedy corp to push a pie-in-sky project for several years, pay themselves a nice amount in salaries and then disappear, but such an operation would hardly be a vehicle for the EU's battery funding body. EIT's involvement is a credible independent endorsement of the viability of the project. And they too must think the city's opposition isn't insurmountable. As EIT said in their response in July 2020 referred to above, the detailed plans and permit applications cannot be drafted until tests are further advanced. In other words, one would not expect this project currently to hold the permits it ultimately needs.