attempt to structure discussion

2 files changed, 103 insertions, 57 deletions

diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex
index 379f6be..0a7a56c 100644
--- a/assignment1/discussion.tex
+++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex
@@ -3,46 +3,84 @@
 % - evaluating NZ's approach  600
 
 \section{Discussion}
-TODO
 
-\subsection{Common deficiencies of EIA implementations}
+This section discusses common issues of EIA implementations in general
+and how these issues are addressed in New Zealand's approach (if
+applicable). New Zealand's integrated and devolved approach to
+environmental assessment also brings about difficulties that are not
+shared by the implementations in other countries; these issues will
+also be analysed in this section.
 
-\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}
+\subsection{The quality of assessments}
 
-- 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.}:
+\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.
 
-- 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}
+\subsection{Participation of the public}
 
-``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}
+Although the use of objective measurements and scientific methodology
+is considered EIA best practice \parencite{principles}, EIA is neither
+science nor is it an objective process.
+
+% TODO: not science: predictions made on the basis of very limited inputs
+
+As environmental impact statements are produced by project proponents
+with the goal to convince decision-makers of the benefits of the
+project in question, the report is a subjective statement of project
+advocacy \parencite{TODO}. In recognition of this inherent bias, the
+EIA process calls for the participation of the general public, in
+particular the participation of affected individuals or interest
+groups \parencite{wilkins}.
+
+- 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}
+
+  - limited opportunity for the public to influence decisions
+
+  - 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) \textcite{RMIT University \& UNU Online
+    Learning. (n.d). Environmental Impact Assessment Open Educational
+    Resource.}:
+  
+
+\subsection{The problems associated with 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[p 267]{furuseth}: little experience or resources to
+  scrutinise EIA on the local level
+
+
+\subsection{Monitoring and follow-up work}
+
+- insufficient monitoring (68\%) \parencite{rma-survey}
+
+- one-off projects that don't improve the knowledge basis or affect
+  the assessment of future projects \parencite{follow-up}
+
+
+\subsection{EIA at the policy level}
 
 ``Environmental Assessment in a Changing World'' (EAE_10E.PDF, Sadler)
 \begin{quote} (page 49)
@@ -67,30 +105,29 @@ the process of EIA for the public to be involved; where involvement is possible
   undertaking policy and pian-level assessments,
 \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}
+\subsection{TODO: Effective? Does EIA bring about sustainable development?}
 \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[p 267]{furuseth}: little experience or resources to scrutinise EIA on the local 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.
+
+  
+\subsection{Scratch}
+
+\parencite{beattie}:
+   - cannot be science because it makes predictions based on very limited data
+ - 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
+
+- poor communication
+- failure to predict important impacts
+
+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
+
+checklist from \textcite{intl-perspective}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/assignment1/main.tex b/assignment1/main.tex
index 79b884e..406c6be 100644
--- a/assignment1/main.tex
+++ b/assignment1/main.tex
@@ -102,6 +102,19 @@ The RMA
 
  three layers of plans
 
+- 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.
+
+``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}
+
+
 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
@@ -136,8 +149,4 @@ TODO
   - 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.
\ No newline at end of file
+  DISTRICT / city councils
\ No newline at end of file