To gag the environmental information

by Silvia Musso

It is some weeks that the position of the Italian ONG Legambiente towards the legislative decree of the Italian government on interceptions has been clearly stressed. National press and blogs gave space to the opinions of the ONG according to which this law would patronize the so called eco-mafia because just the interceptions were able to discover and stop some dangerous trade of industrial waste managed by organized crime together with ruthless white collars. From these considerations, our editorial staff has decided to deepen this question with a particular attention on the communicative aspect and to the citizens’ right to the environmental information. Antonio Pergolizzi, coordinator of the Legambiente Observatory for Environment and Legality, answers to our questions.

Legambiente has often underlined how the interception decree would help the development of eco-mafia. Keeping on the environmental issue, but focusing on communication aspects, do you think that such a law would gag environmental communication?
The decree is inauspicious first of all for the investigations.Eco-mafia is the only environmental crime recognized by Italian law, and an investigative tool, such as the interceptions, is often the only way to discover the engagement of white collars and politicians in criminal activities. The impossibility to use this instrument is a gift to eco-mafia. Another evil consequence of the law would be also the impossibility to tell citizens the environmental destruction and the environmental criminal activities that happen around them. I don’t want to say that interceptions are the only investigation tool, but their abolition would penalize non only the investigations, but also the access of citizens to information about illegal trades dangerous for the environment. Think about the disposal of toxic waste at sea or in rivers and their consequences to the unsuspecting citizens’ health. This law would be a deathblow for environmental information.

According to you is it wrong to say that this law is against the Aarhus Convention and against the internationally recognized right to environmental information?
Absolutely not! The aim of the law is clear: ensure impunity to white collars. Privacy has nothing to do with this. In the name of privacy the citizens are kept in ignorance. But do you rather prefer the protection of public health and people’s right to be informed or the protection of privacy? It is possible to give regulations to the way interceptions are published, but to dispossess the investigations from this tool would have awful consequences either for inquiries or for the citizen’s right to access to environmental information. This right is enshrined at the international level, by the Aarhus Convention, but, missing sanction systems, international conventions aren’t very effective. It is a general problem of every Convention.

In the case of law approval, what instruments do the citizens have to collect environmental information?
In this sense changes wouldn’t be so important. Citizens can continue to address themselves to and speak with associations, police, as nowadays.
Surely information media would suffer big limitations and citizens that will want to get information, have to pay much more attention. Citizens mustn’t wait for being informed, mustn’t be just spectators, but must become actors and pay more attention on what happens around them. It is necessary to create a participated citizenship. Think that many environmental inquiries have been open under responsible citizens’ suggestions. Citizens have to be active and keener because the citizen who has been kept far from information, is not able to develop an environmental awareness.

The legislative decree, that will arrive at the Camera of the Parliament, on July 29th, is unleashing a strong resistance among the public and the media. For July 9th, a press strike has been declared. Also Envi’s editorial staff will adhere.