days ago a student surprised me with a question about the conduct observed by the President to "settle" the dispute installed around the approval of the environmental study submitted to a power plant could operate at near an ecological reserve. With the urgency of the news (that just happened) I did not know too much to say, especially since at the beginning of the one-semester course of my general administrative law, regularity typical formal administrative law under the rule of law is the main message you try to inoculate students. Simply, it was anomalous that the President of the Republic to meddle in the decision of a collegial body that, as a body with decision-making power is sovereign to resolve as it deems appropriate (even more on environmental issues, considering the institutional design system of environmental impact assessment, which are strongly dependent on considerations of expediency). In technical legal issue raised by the intervention of the President is limited to whether, in the case of the environmental permit, the authority exercised hierarchical control of the Regional Commission for the Environment. As it does not, the intervention of the President is then understood as a purely de facto management.
this conclusion is that diverse opinions abound today in the press, criticism of the way the matter had been resolved. Carlos Pena estimated simply unacceptable. Suggestively, Jorge Correa titled his letter to the Mercury "The worst way of governing." Goes on.
shocked I do not know if it fits well. Beyond the impact that the management of the President is in the public or the press (and although it is possible that this impact has been the main motivation of this maneuver), it seems quite clear that in this way has got to stop in time a severe disruption of ecosystems protected, something that naturally integrates the equation defining the public interest. The industry expected argument will emphasize that in any case a power plant pollution, and then that the development assumes that man appropriates the environment and transform, but not be overlooked here is invulnerable has tried to keep protected wilderness area and, as pointed Luis Cordero, in these circumstances the risk of irreparable harm can not be run lightly.
Beyond the lack of elegance that conclude (because can be assumed that the President was not at great political risk to timely instruct the Mayor and the Governors - "natural and immediate representatives" own "them to vote against the project), this incident reveals the precariousness of the system of environmental permits. The intervention of the President should be understood as a sign of alarm at the lack of sensitivity that the system of environmental impact assessment may have against the environmental preservation of protected sites. One would expect that such considerations par excellence respond to the idea of \u200b\u200benvironmental impact. Apparently, the system is evaluating the projects themselves, ignoring the context circumstantial involved in the project.
The order establishing protection zones for different areas - natural or intended for infrastructure facilities (spa, railways, etc.).. In itself, a national reserve area for marine reserve and carries a certain level of protection, but that degree of protection alone is not absolute exclusion of extractive labor, industrial or other measures as may be established in the vicinity. The next step, apparently, is on strengthening the perimeters of protection built into rational planning instruments, similar to those that exist for the management cities. This solution also helps to provide legal certainty, that good that so many miss these days.
0 comments:
Post a Comment