This Wednesday, December 29, the General Assembly met, in an extraordinary session, to analyze the communication of the Executive Power by which it observed (vetoed) the draft of the Open Town Hall Law that established norms related to forest priority soils.
The result of the vote was: Legislators of the Senate, 15 affirmative votes to lift the veto and 16 negative votes; and of the House of Representatives 44 affirmative votes and 53 negative. In other words, 69 legislators voted to maintain the veto, when 78 wills were needed to lift it (3/5 of the members of each Chamber). In this way, the Law was rendered ineffective. The banned project proposed limiting the approval of forestry initiatives for forests in areas with high agricultural performance.
In favor of the law
Guillermo Domenech (Cabildo Abierto) clarified that he has been the owner of a forest exploitation for more than 30 years, for which he requested authorization to remain in Sala, which was authorized.
Domenech said that the Executive adduces in its veto legal reasons, of opportunity, merit and convenience that Cabildo Abierto does not share because they pretend the ignorance of a State Power.
He assured that the legal basis for the observation is of the “greatest irrelevance”, because it cannot be pointed out that the project violates a constitutional norm. “The advance of the cellulose companies endangers food production and the social fabric,” he said, and stressed that the initiative protected food sovereignty.
Nelson Larzábal (Frente Amplio) said that it is possible that the Law has shortcomings, but without a doubt it intended “to advance in the regulation of forestry activity, which is appropriate and necessary.”
For his part, César Vega from PERI referred to “forest metastasis” and the “green desert” to refer to eucalyptus plantations.
While Alejandro Sánchez (FA) questioned that the presidential veto defends agricultural entrepreneurs, many of them members of the General Assembly
Against the law
Sebastián Da Silva (National Party) also asked the Corps to authorize him to speak for having “notorious links with the agricultural sector, for being a rural producer,” which he was authorized to do.
He said that the presidential veto mechanism does not generate any kind of institutional distortion. “The institutions will remain firm and the governing coalition even stronger.” He assured that the forestry sector is one of all the sectors that the National Party cares about.
From the Colorado Party, Iván Cianciarullo also requested authorization to speak, for directing a forest services company that employs more than 120 people in the interior of the country, and was authorized to do so. The Colorado legislator stated that the veto should not have been reached, but questioned that “there was excess political speculation by some political parties, mainly the Frente Amplio.” He highlighted the 1987 Forest Law, of the Colorado Party, which was supported by all political parties including the FA.
Meanwhile, Iván Posada (Independent Party) said that the economic development of a country requires an integrated vision of production processes, so it is important that in terms of afforestation, promotions are established that consolidate their development processes. He asked “to safeguard the State against commitments that the country has assumed.”
While Daniel Peña (People’s Party) pointed out that the Presidential veto provides a firm message inside and outside the country for legal security and guarantees.
