Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-283"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environment: public participation in respect of the drawing up of plans and programmes2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020904.9.3-283"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-04-Speech-3-2842
lpv:speaker	lp:Jean-Louis Bernié2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Chasse, Pêche, Nature, Traditions (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EDD (2001-07-05--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2003-01-28)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, after having supported public access to environmental information in May 2000, today we back public participation in environmental programmes. The objective remains the same, that is to say to make decisions more transparent and to allow the citizens concerned to bring a civil action. But let us avoid hindering public lawsuits with the burden of costly inquiries. In our opinion, the limits of the directive must be based on Amendment No 3, that is to say, 'effective public participation in the taking of decisions enables the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public support for the decisions taken.' In the same manner, Member States must, in accordance with their national legislation, be able to exclude these provisions from programmes affecting national defence. Furthermore, certain amendments approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are not acceptable as they stand. Providing the public with information relating to decision-making is, in my opinion, a matter for citizens’ associations. Achieving widespread public participation in the entirety of Community legislation seems utopian. If this is the case we will soon witness a marked increase in litigation. This type of procedure should be reserved for certain directives, such as Seveso or Natura 2000. In this particular case, owners affected by zoning have not even been consulted. The concept of the public has also not been defined, this wide and all-embracing concept ranging from a physical person to an association, as well as the more specific concept of the public concerned. In my opinion, only the public concerned should be included. Yet, the directive recognises non-governmental organisations working for the protection of the environment as having an interest in this context, which considerably increases the scope of our measures to the detriment of public prerogatives."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph