diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment1/discussion.tex | 15 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment1/main.tex | 10 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment1/references.bib | 3 |
3 files changed, 17 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex index 489f905..38fc85a 100644 --- a/assignment1/discussion.tex +++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex @@ -104,9 +104,16 @@ applications to be considered \parencite{fookes}. % - screening is political because it depends on the values of those % who perform the screening; public participation in plan development? -When the cumulative effects of more than one proposal are to be -considered, ... need coverage by plan/policies at national/regional -level + monitoring. +The same problem exists for `Permitted Activities' whose impact is +considered too minor to warrant an assessment of effect. The RMA does +not demand an assessment of the cumulative impacts of `Permitted +Activities'. According to the RMA Survey 2010/2011, a surprisingly +large percentage of regional councils (91\%) carried out monitoring +procedures and reported on `Permitted Activities' for the sake of +assessing cumulative impacts \parencite{rma-survey}. According to the +same survey, however, only 68 per cent of those activities that +required both resource consents and monitoring were monitored by +regional and territorial councils. % This is one of the reasons for the birth of Strategic Environmental Assessment. @@ -114,8 +121,6 @@ level + monitoring. \textcite{miller2010implementing} - hence: few constraints on local plans, leading to regional differences -- 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} diff --git a/assignment1/main.tex b/assignment1/main.tex index 18e4352..6c310dc 100644 --- a/assignment1/main.tex +++ b/assignment1/main.tex @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ preparing their AEE; beyond the requirements of the Fourth Schedule, however, there are few guidelines to assess the quality of an AEE \parencite{miller2010implementing}. After a review of the AEE, the council that received the resource consent application may decide to -involve the public by means of public notification or declare that +involve the public by means of public notification or determine that public notification is not required when the activity is expected to only have minor effects and all affected parties agree on the proposal \parencite{fookes}. When an application is publically @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ Environment Court. EIA in New Zealand under the RMA can thus be said to happen on two levels: first, during the development of regional and district plans -which are an implementation of the screening and scoping steps of -standard EIA; and second, in the process surrounding resource -consents, involving the actual assessment of potential impacts, an -independent review, and public participation.
\ No newline at end of file +which are a consultation-heavy implementation of the screening and +scoping steps of standard EIA; and second, in the process surrounding +resource consents, involving the actual assessment of potential +impacts, an independent review, and public participation.
\ No newline at end of file diff --git a/assignment1/references.bib b/assignment1/references.bib index 442be8d..918c2ab 100644 --- a/assignment1/references.bib +++ b/assignment1/references.bib @@ -103,7 +103,8 @@ @techreport{rma-survey, title={{R}esource {M}anagement {A}ct: Survey of local authorities 2010/2011}, author={{Ministry for the Environment}}, - number={INFO 623}, + publisher={Wellington: {Ministry for the Environment}}, + number={ME 1069}, year={2011}, } |