initial commit

8 files changed, 459 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/assignment1/conclusion.tex b/assignment1/conclusion.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b977044
--- /dev/null
+++ b/assignment1/conclusion.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+\section{Conclusion}
+
+TODO
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..03b10ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+% discussion 1000
+% - common issues in EIA      400
+% - evaluating NZ's approach  600
+
+\section{Discussion}
+TODO
+
+\subsection{Common deficiencies of EIA implementations}
+
+\subsubsection{Inherent limitations of EIA}
+\parencite{beattie}:
+ - EIA is not science
+   - cannot be science because it makes predictions based on very limited data
+   - may not be advertised as science because it would not stand up to scrutiny
+ - based on value assumptions and inherently biased
+ - EIAs are always political because they are part of a decision-making process
+ - EIAs are necessary because they add valuable information to public
+   discussions on specific proposals
+
+\subsubsection{Other deficiencies}
+
+- limited opportunity for the public to influence decisions
+- poor communication
+- one-off projects / lack of monitoring and follow-up \parencite{follow-up}
+- failure to predict important impacts
+- poor environmental models / baseline => precautionary principle
+
+The following is from \textcite{RMIT University \& UNU Online Learning. (n.d). Environmental
+Impact Assessment Open Educational Resource.}:
+
+- screening is political because it depends on the values of those who perform the screening
+- although political in nature, there is little opportunity throughout
+the process of EIA for the public to be involved; where involvement is possible it is often limited due to lack of resources (time and expertise)
+
+\subsection{Evaluating New Zealand's approach}
+
+``Social Assessment'' (Taylor et al in the Green Book, chapter 25)
+\begin{quote}
+   The New Zealand Resource Management Act (1991) is regarded by many as the
+   foremost and most innovative national legislation for environmental assessment in recent
+   years. This act has included mandatory requirements for the assessment of environmental
+   effects, with “social,” “cultural,” and “amenity values” clearly included in the definition
+   of environment. Also required are public involvement and community consultation, and
+   monitoring of effects once the plan or project has begun.
+\end{quote}
+
+
+checklist from \textcite{intl-perspective}:
+
+- opportunities for public involvement?
+  - only 6\% of resource consents were notified in some way, meaning that the vast majority were granted without involving the public \parencite{rma-survey}
+
+- insufficient monitoring (68\%) \parencite{rma-survey}
+\textcite{retrospect}:
+``EIA generally continues to bring about only relatively modest adjustments of development proposals.''
+  also seems to apply for NZ resource consents:
+  - only a little more than half a percent of all resource consents are declined \parencite{rma-survey}
+
+- problems of devolution:
+  - cannot deal well with cumulative effects, because that's best done on a national/regional level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art}
+  - most resource consents are processed at the district/city level, not at the regional level
+
+\textcite{practitioners}
+- volume of assessment work, enormous breadth in scale of covered projects
+- those producing an impact assessment are not necessarily skilled in AEE
+- EIA education is secondary concern for pracitioners (one day courses on AEE)
+- strong professional ``imprint'' on the AEE process, no common language
+- no strong central guidance on impact assessment practise --- what is considered adequate is not defined
+- according to survey of practitioners checklists are most often used, matrices and expert EIA systems are not; checklists are overly simplistic.
+- Fourth Schedule of the RMA was most often cited as an issues checklist for assessment
+- assessments are not seen as enabling affected parties to get involved in decision-making --- although this is one of the core principles of EIA
+- results: AEEs are primarily done to fulfill the requirements of the Fourth Schedule, not concerned with meeting international EIA standards/best practise.
diff --git a/assignment1/document.tex b/assignment1/document.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ff04b34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/assignment1/document.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+\documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
+\usepackage{mystyle}
+\bibliography{references.bib}
+
+% length: 2000 - 2500 words
+
+
+\begin{document}
+  \input{title}
+  \tableofcontents
+
+  % less than 100 words
+  \include{intro}
+  
+% Write a report critically assessing the approach New Zealand has
+% taken to environmental impact assessment (EIA) to date. Your report
+% should consider the purpose and principles of EIA and discuss to
+% what extent EIA is incorporated within New Zealand’s
+% environmental management arrangements.
+
+  % 750 to 1000 words
+  \include{main}
+  % 750 to 1000 words
+  \include{discussion}
+  
+  % 400 words
+  \include{conclusion}
+
+  \printbibliography[heading=bibnumbered]
+
+\end{document}
+
diff --git a/assignment1/intro.tex b/assignment1/intro.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..53c5b56
--- /dev/null
+++ b/assignment1/intro.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+% < 100 words
+\section{Introduction}
+
+This report describes the objectives and the procedures of
+Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and aims to evaluate the unique
+way in which New Zealand has integrated EIA principles into
+environmental management procedures. Particular attention is given to
+New Zealand's principal piece of environmental legislation, the
+Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), and how its requirements and
+procedures compare to international EIA best practise.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/assignment1/main.tex b/assignment1/main.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a82e74c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/assignment1/main.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+% background 1000
+% - EIA & SEA                 400
+% - sustainable development   200
+% - RMA                       400
+
+\section{Background}
+
+\subsection{Environmental Impact Assessment}
+
+The term ``Environmental Impact Assessment'' (EIA) is used to refer to
+a set of standardised procedures that are designed to inform the
+decision-making processes surrounding development proposals. According
+to the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), a major
+objective of EIA is to ``anticipate and avoid, minimize or offset the
+adverse significant biophysical, social and other relevant effects''
+of such proposals ``prior to major decisions being taken and
+commitments made'' \parencite{principles}.
+
+In order to provide decision-makers with sufficiently detailed insight
+into the potential positive and negative effects of a project on the
+environment, the participation of all parties that would be affected
+by the project, as well as the participation of the general public is
+explicitly encouraged \parencite{principles}.  The involvment of the
+public in the decision-finding process is a crucial component of EIA
+as those responsible for the project proposal and the prediction of
+its impacts on the social and natural environment do not necessarily
+share the values of affected communities.  Hence, public participation
+can provide balance to the biases of developers and the assessors they
+hire \parencite{wilkins}.
+
+
+\subsubsection{EIA activities and procedures}
+
+The EIA process generally involves the following
+activities \parencite{principles}:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+  \item[Screening \& Scoping]
+
+    The goal of the \emph{screening} step is to limit the application
+    of EIA procedures to those projects that are expected to have
+    significant effects on the environment.  What kind of projects require
+    an impact assessment varies from country to country. When a proposal
+    is subject to EIA, the \emph{scope} of the assessment is determined by
+    identifying the key impacts that are associated with the project.
+
+  \item[Consideration of alternatives]
+    TODO
+
+  \item[Impact analysis, mitigation, and evaluation of residual impacts]
+    (TODO: Evaluation of the significance of residual impacts)
+
+  \item[Reporting \& independent review]
+    TODO
+
+  \item[Decision-making]
+    TODO
+
+  \item[Monitoring and other follow-up activities]
+    TODO
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+\subsubsection{The role of sustainable development}
+TODO:
+- EIA --> SEA
+- broad definition of ``environment'' is adopted
+
+
+\subsection{The Resource Management Act 1991}
+
+The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is the overarching
+environmental management framework which governs the allocation and
+utilisation of New Zealand's natural resources and controls adverse
+effects on the environment. The RMA is the result of efforts to unify
+and simplify previous legislation relating to environmental management
+which had lead to what was perceived as an uncoordinated, complex
+network of confusing environmental management
+strategies \parencite{twp98}
+
+
+Unlike the aproach taken by other
+countries implementing EIA, the RMA is a 
+
+
+TODO
+- requirement: policy environmental assessment (SEA)
+
+\textcite{miller2010implementing}
+- three layers of plans
+  NATIONAL LEVEL
+  - Ministry for the Environment responsible for RMA
+  - should prepare national policy statements (NPS)
+                   - broad scope
+                   - issues affecting more than a region or the whole country
+                   - global agreements/commitments
+                   national environmental standards (NES)
+                   - very specific and technical
+                   - addressing standards of air quality, water quality/levels/flows, discharges, etc
+                   when deemed appropriate by minister
+  - very slow publication of NPS and NES
+  - 2009 establishment of the EPA (due to RMA amendments)
+  - 2010 extended functions of the EPA as Crown Agent, taking over
+    all regulatory functions of the MfE;
+    MfE focusses on policy + regulation not under RMA (Hazardous substances Act, Ozone Protection Act, Climate Change Response Act)
+
+  REGIONAL LEVEL
+  - regional councils need to produce regional policy statement (RPS)
+  - may produce regional plans
+  - concentrate on water, air, and land (as its use relates to water and air quality)
+
+  DISTRICT / city councils
+
+
+
+- devolved mandate, i.e. decision making is undertaken at the closest level to which it was given effect, e.g. land is a locally used resource and thus decisions are to be made by district and city councils.
+
+``effects-based approach'' without specific reference to EA procedure
+
+``Environmental Assessment in a Changing World'' (EAE_10E.PDF, Sadler)
+\begin{quote} (page 49)
+  The New Zealand Resource Management Act (RMA, 1991) is possibly the
+  most far reaching piece of sustainability legislation enacted by any
+  country. EA is incorporated as an integral part of an effects-based
+  approach to sustainability. It operates within the statutory planning
+  and consent system rather than as a separate procedure, applies
+  explicitly to projects and is indirectly specified for policy
+  statements and strategic plans which local authorities are required to
+  prepare to guide and implement sustainable resource
+  management. Application at this level is variable and, overall, it is
+  concluded that the unique way that EA is integrated into the Act makes
+  evaluation of the effectiveness of implementation difficult
+\end{quote}
+
+(page 164[pdf], 146[published])
+\begin{quote}
+  The Resource Management Act (1991) consolidates policy planning,
+  assessment, and regulatory functions previously exercised
+  separately. It provides a comprehensive framework with a single
+  purpose of promoting “the sustainable management of natural and
+  physical resources” (Section 5). A hierarchy of national and regional
+  policy statements and regional and district plans form the cornerstone
+  for implementing the Act.
+
+  SEA is intended to be an integral part of
+  policy and plan-setting, rather than being applied to them as a
+  separate procedure. The resulting framework, in turn, establishes a
+  context and parameters for subsidiary EIAs, which are required for all
+  resource use consents and where the presumption is for protection via
+  rigorous limits on discharges etc. However, in practice,
+  implementation of the Act is occurring slowly. Experience to date
+  indicates that local governments still rely on project EIA rather than
+  undertaking policy and pian-level assessments,
+\end{quote}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/assignment1/mystyle.sty b/assignment1/mystyle.sty
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4cf03e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/assignment1/mystyle.sty
@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+% adjustwidth environment
+\RequirePackage{changepage}
+
+% nicer ellipses
+%\RequirePackage{ellipsis}
+
+% nicer numbers
+\RequirePackage{numprint}
+\npthousandsep{,}
+
+% nicer tables
+\RequirePackage{tabularx}
+\RequirePackage{booktabs}
+\RequirePackage{color, colortbl}
+\definecolor{rowhighlight}{gray}{0.95}
+
+% fix overfull hboxes
+\setlength{\emergencystretch}{1.5em}
+
+% embed images
+\RequirePackage{graphicx}
+
+% add border around figures
+\RequirePackage{float}
+\floatstyle{boxed}
+\restylefloat{figure}
+
+% smaller caption, align with text instead of ``figure'', bold ``figure''
+\RequirePackage[hang,small,bf]{caption}
+
+% nicer descriptions
+%\RequirePackage{enumitem}
+% inparaenum
+\RequirePackage{paralist}
+
+\RequirePackage{fontspec}
+\setmainfont[
+  RawFeature={protrusion=default},
+  Ligatures=TeX,
+  Extension=.otf,
+  UprightFont=*-regular,
+  BoldFont=*-bold,
+  ItalicFont=*-italic,
+  BoldItalicFont=*-bolditalic
+]{texgyretermes}
+
+\RequirePackage{setspace}
+  \onehalfspacing
+
+% reset section counter for each part
+\usepackage{chngcntr}
+  \counterwithin*{section}{part}
+
+% mini-toc
+\RequirePackage{titletoc}
+
+% links
+\RequirePackage[usenames,dvipsnames,svgnames]{xcolor}
+\definecolor{link}{HTML}{224466}
+\RequirePackage[unicode,colorlinks=true,linkcolor=black,citecolor=black,urlcolor=link,linktoc=all,hypertexnames=false]{hyperref}
+\urlstyle{same}
+
+
+%\pdfprotrudechars2 % 1 if you don't want to change line breaking
+%\RequirePackage[protrusion=true,expansion]{microtype}
+
+%\RequirePackage{polyglossia}
+%  \setmainlanguage{english}
+
+\RequirePackage[american]{babel}
+\RequirePackage{csquotes}
+\RequirePackage[backend=biber,style=apa,mincitenames=1,maxcitenames=2]{biblatex}
+\DeclareLanguageMapping{american}{american-apa}
+
+% add 3cm margin on the left
+%\RequirePackage[left=3cm,right=2.5cm,top=2cm,bottom=2cm]{geometry}
+\RequirePackage[left=3cm,right=2.5cm,top=2cm,bottom=3.25cm]{geometry}
+
+% header: 1.25cm
+% footer: 1.25cm
+\usepackage{fancyhdr}
+\setlength{\headheight}{1.25cm}
+\setlength{\footskip}{1.25cm}
+\pagestyle{fancyplain}
+
+\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0.2pt}
+\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0.2pt}
+%\newcommand{\headline}[1]{{\begin{center}\linespread{0.9}\headlinefont\Huge\textbf{#1}\end{center}}}
+\newcommand{\headline}[1]{{\begin{center}\linespread{0.9}\Large\textbf{#1}\end{center}}}
+
+%\fancyhead{}
+\fancyfoot{}
+\fancyfoot[L]{\footnotesize{Ricardo Wurmus (3607635), Assigment 1, 72296 Environmental Impact Assessment}}
+\fancyfoot[R]{\thepage}
+
+\RequirePackage[toc,title]{appendix}
+\usepackage[nottoc,numbib]{tocbibind}
diff --git a/assignment1/references.bib b/assignment1/references.bib
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..82e3472
--- /dev/null
+++ b/assignment1/references.bib
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+@article{beattie,
+  title={Everything you already know about {EIA} (but don't often admit).},
+  pages={109--114},
+  journal={Environmental Impact Assessment Review},
+  author={Beattie, Robert B.},
+  year={1995},
+  volume={15},
+  number={2}
+}
+
+@article{wilkins,
+  title={The need for subjectivity in {EIA}: discourse as a tool for sustainable development},
+  pages={401--414},
+  journal={Environmental Impact Assessment Review},
+  author={Wilkins, Hugh},
+  year={2003},
+  volume={23}
+}
+
+@report{principles,
+  title={Principles of {E}nvironmental {I}mpact {A}ssessment best practice},
+  author={{International Association for Impact Assessment in cooperation with Institute of Environmental Assessment}},
+  year={1999}
+}
+
+@report{follow-up,
+  title={{EIA} Follow-up international best practice principles},
+  author={Morrison-Saunders, Angus and Marshall, Ross and Arts, Jos},
+  series={Special Publication Series},
+  number={6},
+  year={2007}
+}
+
+@report{twp98,
+  title={Devolution and the {N}ew {Z}ealand {R}esource {M}anagement {A}ct},
+  author={Kerr, Suzi and Claridge, Megan and Milicich, Dominic},
+  year={1998}
+  series={New Zealand Treasury Working Paper},
+  number={98/7}
+}
+
+@book{miller2010implementing,
+  title={Implementing Sustainability: The {N}ew {Z}ealand Experience},
+  author={Miller, C.L.},
+  isbn={9780203835142},
+  lccn={2010024670},
+  series={RTPI Library Series},
+  year={2010},
+  publisher={Taylor \& Francis}
+}
+
+@article{practitioners,
+  title = "Practitioners, professional cultures, and perceptions of impact assessment",
+  journal = "Environmental Impact Assessment Review",
+  volume = "32",
+  number = "1",
+  pages = "11--24",
+  year = "2012",
+  issn = "0195-9255",
+  doi = "10.1016/j.eiar.2011.02.002",
+  url = "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925511000308",
+  author = "Richard K. Morgan and Andrew Hart and Claire Freeman and Brian Coutts and David Colwill and Andrew Hughes",
+}
+
+@techreport{rma-survey,
+  title={{R}esource {M}anagement {A}ct: Survey of local authorities 2010/2011},
+  author={{Ministry for the Environment}},
+  series={INFO},
+  number={623},
+  year={2011},
+}
+
+@inbook{intl-perspective,
+  booktitle={Assessment of Environmental Effects: Information, Evaluation and Outcomes},
+  title={Environmental Impact Assessment: An International Perspective with Comparisons to {N}ew {Z}ealand},
+  author={Sadler, B.},
+  editor={Lumsden, J.},
+  year={2001},
+  notes={reading 2.7},
+  publisher={Centre for Advanced Engineering}
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/assignment1/title.tex b/assignment1/title.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..44c7e22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/assignment1/title.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+\begin{titlepage}
+  \begin{center}
+    \Large{Ricardo Wurmus}\\
+    \normalsize{Student number 3607635}\\[6em]
+    \Large{Assignment 1}\\
+    \normalsize{72296 Environmental Impact Assessment}\\[2.5em]
+    \vfill
+  \end{center}
+\end{titlepage}
+