public participation

2 files changed, 53 insertions, 16 deletions

diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex
index d7aaf33..b340e7a 100644
--- a/assignment1/discussion.tex
+++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex
@@ -25,6 +25,15 @@ devolved approach to environmental assessment brought about.
 - results: AEEs are primarily done to fulfill the requirements of the Fourth Schedule, not concerned with meeting international EIA standards/best practise.
 
 
+% TODO
+http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/review-consent-processing-performance-round-one-jan08/html/page4.html
+poor quality applications are rarely refused as permitted by section
+88(3) of the RMA. Once they have been accepted, inadequancies within
+the application are addressed through the use of section 92; this
+approach not only delays the processing of resource consents, but also
+increases the likelihood of poor quality applications to be granted.
+
+
 \subsection{Participation of the public}
 
 Although the use of objective measurements and scientific methodology
@@ -35,30 +44,48 @@ science nor is it an objective process.
 
 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}.
-
+project in question, the report is a subjective statement or even a
+piece 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}.
+
+It is therefore rather disappointing that even in recent reviews of
+international EIA practise, public participation remains on a fairly
+low level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art}. According to
+\textcite{RMIT University \& UNU Online Learning. (n.d). Environmental
+Impact Assessment Open Educational Resource.} ``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)''. Some of the main barriers to
+public participation cited by \textcite{eia-state-of-the-art} are:
+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. As a
+review of resource consent processing performance in New Zealand
+indicates, especially the latter three are significant obstacles to
+public participation in New Zealand. According to the 2010/11 survey
+of local authorities the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment
+carries out every two years, only about 6 per cent of all resource
+consents were notified in some way, with only 4 per cent being
+publically notified \parencite{rma-survey}. This means that of 36,154
+resource consents that were processed across the country over a period
+of two years, the public was able to provide input on only 1,414
+proposals.
+ 
 - 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}
 
+What sets apart New Zealand's approach to environmental assessment
+from those of other countries is the devolved mandate, meaning that
+most resource consents are processed at the lowest level of
+governance, by district or city councils.
+
 - cannot deal well with cumulative effects, because that's best done
   on a national/regional level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art}
 
diff --git a/assignment1/references.bib b/assignment1/references.bib
index 2e1593a..c194d0d 100644
--- a/assignment1/references.bib
+++ b/assignment1/references.bib
@@ -17,6 +17,16 @@
   volume={23}
 }
 
+@article{eia-state-of-the-art,
+  title={Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art},
+  pages={5--14},
+  journal={Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal},
+  author={Morgan, Richard K.},
+  year={2012},
+  volume={30},
+  number={1}
+}
+
 @article{furuseth,
   title={An institutional framework for sustainable resource management: the {N}ew {Z}ealand model},
   pages={243--279},