Home English ‘Urirama-project is already settled’
‘Urirama-project is already settled’ PDF Afdrukken E-mail
Thursday, 31 January 2013 10:24

ORANJESTAD — Although early on in the parliamentary debate this morning the majority of the opposition agreed that the decision for a wind park at Urirama had already been made, there was still a heated discussion – especially during the raised points – with support from a crowded and unruly gallery.By our reporter


Sharina Henriquez


Chris Dammers (AVP), who had taken over the chairman’s gavel from fellow fraction member Paul Croes, adjourned the meeting briefly owing to the commotion. Guards had subsequently removed a woman from the gallery because or her unruly behavior during the debate. Dammers had warned her earlier for ‘stirring up the audience’. Independent parliamentarian Booshi Wever stood up for her, mentioning ‘misuse of power’ and asked if the woman could return to the gallery. However, the commotion in the gallery continued until noon (at the closing of this edition).

This commotion was also caused by the emotional speeches from MEP-members, for instance from party leader Evelyn Wever-Croes, who mainly focused on the human aspect and the fact that the government is apparently prepared to put the health of ‘thousands of people (including children) at risk’.


Effect on health

One of the most important points in the discussion on the wind park is always the effect it will have on the people’s health. The speakers in the first round used the various reports on this aspect at their discretion, for instance the independent advice from the Dutch Committee for the MER. In the autumn of 2011 the Parliament had requested this committee to study effects on health from the Environmental Effect Report (MER), namely the report Vader Piet had asked Kema to make for the wind part Urirama. First speaker, Juan David Yrausquin (AVP), stated this morning that this advice proved there will be no effects for the people’s health. However, MEP-leader Evelyn Wever-Croes thought this advice proved the committee could not guarantee any effects on the people’s health. Also independent parliamentarian Mervin Wyatt-Ras produced this argument. “The committee doesn’t preclude any trouble or consequences for the people’s health. Perhaps there will not be direct but indirect consequences.” She believes the government should take this into account and asked the government if laws or rules were being drawn up to protect people against health effects, for example noise pollution.