merge paragraphs
[study/eia.git] / assignment3 / outline
1 - general ideas taken from the readings:
3 - EIA often done too late, so only options are mitigation or
4 acceptance
6 - economic benefits often outweigh environmental damages in
7 decision-makers' eyes. This could be avoided with a limits-based
8 approach / SEA.
10 - councils may simply be too busy or understaffed to properly
11 evaluate an application, especially when it is a complex
12 application. <---- KEY IDEA
14 ----------------------------------------
16 - according to survey (section 2.8)\parencite{ME1069}, number of
17 pre-hearing meetings (for notified applications) went down; also the
18 number of successful pre-hearing meetings went down.
20 - upward trend: number of objections against consent decisions (see
21 section 2.10)\parencite{ME1069}
23 - side agreements: applicants can buy consent by paying directly
24 affected people, incurring poor environmental outcomes for the
25 community or future generations. \parencite{PCE1998}
28 \begin{quote}
29 The environmental risks associated with side agreements depend on
30 the council’s knowledge and treatment of any contractual
31 arrangements by consent applicants. Good practice by the consent
32 authority can help to minimise these risks. For example, where a
33 private agreement does not necessarily result in effects on the
34 environment being mitigated, consent authorities should impose
35 appropriate conditions to mitigate these effects.
36 \end{quote} \parencite[][p 9]{PCE1998}
39 - wider example may be the golden link mine where the applicant
40 promised to do unrelated work for the community to secure approval
42 - councils are not capable of processing consent applications to the
43 standards that are detailed in the plans:
45 \begin{quote}
46 It appears a substantial number of consents are being granted
47 without clear or detailed information, due in part to pressures for
48 time-compliance as commitment to economic growth [...] prevails over
49 environmental protection and enhancement.
50 \end{quote} [executive summary, xii / p 13]{confessions}
53 \parencite{practice}
54 - criticism from all sides:
55 - developers don't like the additional compliance costs incurred
56 - professionals:
58 \begin{quote}
59 Implementation does not appear to be progressing as it was
60 envisioned, in an integrated fashion and by employing a range of
61 policy mechanisms. Instead, economic decisions are made without
62 consideration of environmental impacts and the quality of the
63 environment is treated as a second tier policy objective after
64 customer service delivery and economic efficiency. Maori values and
65 concerns are not successfully incorporated into implementation
66 programs and state-of-environment monitoring, a cornerstone of an
67 effects-based framework, is still not a management priority.
68 \end{quote} [Frieder, as quoted on page 6]
70 \begin{quote}
71 Planners have thus been subjected to criticism from all
72 directions in relation to RMA implementation: they favour the
73 developers, they obstruct the developers; they are unduly cautious in
74 relation to legislative intent, they are not cautious enough; they are
75 administratively cautious; they are administratively cavalier; they
76 are environmentally conservative, they are not conservative enough.
77 \end{quote} [p 8]
82 % TODO: split assignment into Theory / Legislation and Implementation