move plan consultation to background

1 files changed, 13 insertions, 18 deletions

diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex
index 164dad0..70a646d 100644
--- a/assignment1/discussion.tex
+++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex
@@ -78,24 +78,19 @@ poor knowledge of the public about the process; poor provision of
 information; failure to influence the decision-making process; poor
 execution of participation methods; and regulatory constraints.
 
-Councils have created ``generous opportunities'' for public
-consultation during the initial consultation stage of the plan
-formation process by means of workshops and
-meetings \parencite{miller2010implementing}. Upon completion the plan
-is made available for comments from the public for a period of at
-least forty working days, which is followed by a hearing period and
-the opportunity to appeal to the Environment Court.  The picture on
-the resource consent level, however, is a different one.  According to
-the 2010/11 survey of local authorities the New Zealand
-\textcite{rma-survey} carries out every two years, only about six per
-cent of all resource consents in the two-year period were notified in
-some way, with only four per cent being publicly notified (``poor
-provision of information''). Hence, although the public can influence
-the framework relative to which resource consents are evaluated, there
-is limited opportunity for the public to affect the outcome of the
-actual decision-making process; this situation may result in reduced
-willingness to participate in areas where public participation is
-still possible (``failure to influence the decision-making process'').
+While councils usually engange the public during the consultation
+phases of the plan formation process, the picture on the resource
+consent level is a different one.  According to the 2010/11 survey of
+local authorities the New Zealand \textcite{rma-survey} carries out
+every two years, only about six per cent of all resource consents in
+the two-year period were notified in some way, with only four per cent
+being publicly notified (``poor provision of information''). Hence,
+although the public can influence the framework relative to which
+resource consents are evaluated, there is limited opportunity for the
+public to affect the outcome of the actual decision-making process;
+this situation may result in reduced willingness to participate in
+areas where public participation is still possible (``failure to
+influence the decision-making process'').
 
 % screening is political because it depends on the values of those
 % who perform the screening