Does the word of the people directly impacted by the project carry more weight in the consultation?

Response provided by the CNDP's guarantors:
Prior consultation shall make no difference in treatment between persons directly affected by the project and those who are interested in it for reasons of conviction or general interest. Everyone has the right to participate without having to prove an interest (Article 7 of the Environmental Charter). In this case, the guarantors apply in particular the following 3 principles of the CNDP:

• Equality of treatment (principle of equivalence). Every participant is treated equally, regardless of status, place of residence, or the nature of their interest. No contribution is weighted.
• Argumentative quality, not quantity (argumentation principle). The debate is not a vote: it reflects all the positions expressed. It is the diversity of the arguments that counts, not the number of people who put them forward. The two types of concerns are therefore legitimate and complementary:
  - the impacts experienced (noise, living environment, employment, health) shed light on the characteristics of the project;
  - Convictions shed light on its expediency.
• Inclusion. The guarantors ensure that all those involved can participate, especially those who are directly affected by the project but less present in the meetings. The terms of participation aim to meet them directly as much as possible. It is a question of guaranteeing their access to the debate, not of giving more weight to their words.

The report will give an account of all the arguments.

The developer will then have to explain how it takes this into account, in accordance with the public's right to be informed of how its contributions have been taken into account.