From 48e0c2d1cf9d8f8e70bcd59f4b6c9462be76cd64 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: rekado Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:36:37 +0800 Subject: contrast plan level vs resource consents --- assignment1/discussion.tex | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex index 3e437bc..2ac64c8 100644 --- a/assignment1/discussion.tex +++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex @@ -76,21 +76,29 @@ low level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art}. 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. According to the 2010/11 survey of local authorities the -New Zealand \textcite{rma-survey} carries out every two years, only -about six per cent of all resource consents in the two-year period -were notified in some way, with only four per cent being publically -notified (``poor provision of information''). Hence, there is limited -opportunity for the public to participate in the decision-making -process which may result in reduced participation in areas where it is +execution of participation methods; and regulatory constraints. + +Councils have created ``generous opportunities'' for public +consultation during the initial consultation stage of the plan +formation process by means of workshops and +meetings \parencite{miller2010implementing}. Upon completion the plan +is made available for comments from the public for a period of at +least forty working days, which is followed by a hearing period and +the opportunity to appeal to the Environment Court. The picture on +the resource consent level, however, is a different one. According to +the 2010/11 survey of local authorities the New Zealand +\textcite{rma-survey} carries out every two years, only about six per +cent of all resource consents in the two-year period were notified in +some way, with only four per cent being publically notified (``poor +provision of information''). Hence, although the public can influence +the framework relative to which resource consents are evaluated, there +is limited opportunity for the public to affect the outcome of the +actual decision-making process; this situation may result in reduced +willingness to participate in areas where public participation is still possible (``failure to influence the decision-making process''). -% TODO -% - opportunities for public involvement? -% - screening is political because it depends on the values of those -% who perform the screening; public participation in plan development? -% On the other hand, public participation ... leads to abuse, slow process miller2010implementing +% screening is political because it depends on the values of those +% who perform the screening \subsection{Cumulative effects and the devolved mandate} -- cgit v1.2.3