Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-22-Speech-1-090"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public participation in drawing up environmental plans and programmes2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011022.6.1-090"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-22-Speech-1-0912
lpv:speaker	lp:Jean-Louis Bernié2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Chasse, Pêche, Nature, Traditions (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2001-07-02--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2001-06-12--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EDD (2001-07-05--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, to advocate transparency and public participation in drawing up environmental plans and programmes is a laudable objective, which we fully agree with. However, the report gives rise to some fundamental problems. First of all, the possible overlapping of texts prescribing public participation and, in particular, the directives on environmental impact studies and on the prevention or reduction of pollution. Secondly, the ratification of the Aarhus Convention. This convention has been signed by the Community and by all the Member States, but has only been ratified by Italy or Denmark: it is therefore not in force. This report must not be an opportunity for the Union to replace, by means of a directive, the desire of the Member States to be bound by an international convention. Furthermore, to add environmental policies to the plans and programmes seems to me premature at this stage, given that the Aarhus Convention is yet to be ratified. There is also the concept of ‘public affected’, which we are in favour of so as not to widen the scope of the text in an unrestricted fashion. Nevertheless, the two concepts of ‘public’ and ‘public affected’ should be able to coexist, and it should be for the Member States to decide on the most appropriate level of consultation. In the case of cross-border projects, for example, it would be sensible to broaden the consultation to the public as a whole. We will support Amendments Nos 30, 31 and 32. Finally, like the Commission, we believe that we should lay down the minimum conditions required in order to guarantee effective participation by the public and leave it to the Member States to regulate the practical details in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph