diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'assignment1')
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment1/discussion.tex | 59 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment1/references.bib | 10 |
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}, |