assessment quality

1 files changed, 22 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex
index 249766b..d060daf 100644
--- a/assignment1/discussion.tex
+++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex
@@ -11,22 +11,33 @@ devolved approach to environmental assessment brought about.
 
 \subsection{The quality of assessments}
 
-Applicants of resource consents are required to produce ...
-The RMA requires an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) to be
-prepared for every activity
+Since the RMA does not prescribe a specific process that ought to be
+followed in preparing and reviewing an AEE, the quality of assessments
+and the efficacy of their review through the councils varies
+greatly. Furthermore, due to the very broad definitions of
+`environment' and `effects' that the RMA adopted, a wide range of
+projects falls into the set of proposals that require assessment,
+creating an enormous volume of assessment and review
+work \parencite{practitioners}.
+
+According to a survey of EIA practitioners \parencite{practitioners},
+the lack of central guidance on impact assessment practice makes it
+difficult for the assessors---planning professionals and engineers who
+are often minimally trained in EIA---to produce adequate
+assessments. The guideline presented by the Fourth Schedule of the RMA
+is often overvalued as an issues checklist for assessment. As a
+result, assessments are not seen as a means to enable affected parties
+and decision makers to find a well-informed compromise that is
+acceptable by all participants, although aiding decision-making
+processes is a core principle of EIA; instead, a majority of survey
+participants primarily aimed to fulfill the requirements of the Fourth
+Schedule in preparing an AEE and was not concerned with following
+international EIA best practice \parencite{practitioners}.
 
 - poor environmental models / baseline => precautionary principle
 
 \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.
 
 
 % TODO