Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-22-Speech-1-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011022.6.1-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as many speakers have already said, the intentions behind this report are extremely commendable, particularly the aim of making it possible for the citizens to have a say in the process of establishing environmental rules. This point was discussed during the March plenary and it was already clear then that attitudes towards the methodologies and towards the influence of this participation too vary from North to South, so to speak. Indeed, the northern countries have a different attitude towards this type of involvement, towards the idea of this type of participation from the countries of central and southern Europe.
The rapporteur, clearly inspired by the way things work in her country, which is possibly democratically more developed, more advanced than others – proposes participation that is too peremptory, too authoritarian, participation that could ultimately slow down, if not block or paralyse certain decision-making processes, upon which there will never be total convergence between the direct democratic base and what is known as the authority, that is the administration appointed to deal with these issues. There you are: this authority must also take into clear consideration all the demands and comments of those who have to build, sell and create tourist, sporting and cultural concerns – in short, daily activities – in the environment.
Considering that this second debate contains points and issues which involve legality and access to levels of justice, including in the event of appeals, the roles and responsibilities must be quite clearly, fairly and unambiguously defined in terms of who the actors should be and how much influence they should have. The Aarhus Convention has been cited: that is all very well – we support it – but it must not be taken as Gospel. It too must allow for a healthy subsidiarity, for customs, for habits, and for the level of directly democratic involvement possible in the various countries.
In any case, I congratulate the rapporteur, who has put in an enormous amount of work, but I feel that there should be some adaptation, as I said at the beginning, to the different attitudes."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples