npsfm

1 files changed, 20 insertions, 21 deletions

diff --git a/assignment2/significance.tex b/assignment2/significance.tex
index fb6ecf1..fa41258 100644
--- a/assignment2/significance.tex
+++ b/assignment2/significance.tex
@@ -13,10 +13,14 @@ level of detail, and the number of interactions that can reasonably be
 considered.  To set these limits, judgments must be made on how
 significant each potential impact is, a decision on how much detail
 and how much effort in avoiding or mitigating the impact is
-appropriate, and whether the residual impacts is insignificant enough
+appropriate, and whether the residual impact is insignificant enough
 to be acceptable.  These judgments are crucially guided by the
 practitioners' own values and the values they consider in the
-evaluation process \parencite{lawrence}.
+evaluation process \parencite{lawrence}.  As the determination of
+significance is inherently subjective, it should not be an activity
+performed only by experts and with a claim to objectivity, but should
+aim to be a collaborative procedure guided by reasoned
+discourse \parencite{lawrence-approach}.
 
 According to \textcite{lawrence-approach}, the approach to determining
 impact significance is usually ``limited to ad hoc and inconsistent
@@ -33,20 +37,24 @@ re-litigated'', resulting in ``decision-making processes [that] are
 litigious, resource-consuming and create
 uncertainty'' \parencite[p. 18][]{freshwater-reform}.
 
-Since the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2011),
-the ``national values of fresh water'' have been made explicit % TODO
-
-- national values are specified in the NPSFM (2011), but as they
-contradict there is no clear implication
-
+Since the National Policy Statement for Freshwater
+Management \parencite{2011TODO} the ``national values of fresh water''
+have been made explicit, but their postulation does not give rise to a
+guideline by which the significance of activities affecting these
+values could be determined. For example, the statement made in the
+NPSFM that water is valued for ``cleaning, dilution and disposal of
+waste'' conflicts with the statement about respecting water's
+intrinsic values such as ``the natural conditions of fresh water, free
+from biological or chemical alterations resulting from human
+activity'' \parencite{2011TODO}.  Resolving this ambiguity, the NPSFM
+intends a limits-based regime to be established where regional
+councils are expected to collaborate with the community to translate
+individual values and freshwater objectives into enforcable limits for
+individual waterbodies \parencite[][p. 14]{npsfm-guide}.
 
 
 - freshwater reform: collaborative approach to planning
   - talk about drawbacks mentioned in \textcite{lawrence-approach}
-  - As the determination of significance is inherently subjective, it
-   should not be an activity performed only by experts and under the
-   aim/appearance/restriction of objectivity.
-  ... the technical, the collaborative, and the reasoned argumentation approach
       \begin{quote}
         The collaborative approach is viewed as too quickly equating
         public concerns and issues with impact significance, at the expense of
@@ -60,15 +68,6 @@ which rarely exists
 
 
 
-- three approaches:
-  - the technical approach
-    - led by EIA specialists
-    - heavy reliance on expert and technical data, analyses and knowledge.
-    - 
-  - the collaborative approach
-  - the reasoned argumentation approach
-
-
 (third part of lawrence): important to assess significance of
 *positive effects* to see if they are worth the negative impacts.