From 6f382d8c6430dbd77a3adb9a9b213aa10ff0b47b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: rekado Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:21:27 +0800 Subject: attempt to structure discussion --- assignment1/discussion.tex | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- assignment1/main.tex | 19 ++++-- 2 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) (limited to 'assignment1') diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex index 379f6be..0a7a56c 100644 --- a/assignment1/discussion.tex +++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex @@ -3,46 +3,84 @@ % - evaluating NZ's approach 600 \section{Discussion} -TODO -\subsection{Common deficiencies of EIA implementations} +This section discusses common issues of EIA implementations in general +and how these issues are addressed in New Zealand's approach (if +applicable). New Zealand's integrated and devolved approach to +environmental assessment also brings about difficulties that are not +shared by the implementations in other countries; these issues will +also be analysed in this section. -\subsubsection{Inherent limitations of EIA} -\parencite{beattie}: - - EIA is not science - - cannot be science because it makes predictions based on very limited data - - may not be advertised as science because it would not stand up to scrutiny - - based on value assumptions and inherently biased - - EIAs are always political because they are part of a decision-making process - - EIAs are necessary because they add valuable information to public - discussions on specific proposals -\subsubsection{Other deficiencies} +\subsection{The quality of assessments} -- limited opportunity for the public to influence decisions -- poor communication -- one-off projects / lack of monitoring and follow-up \parencite{follow-up} -- failure to predict important impacts - poor environmental models / baseline => precautionary principle -The following is from \textcite{RMIT University \& UNU Online Learning. (n.d). Environmental -Impact Assessment Open Educational Resource.}: +\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. -- screening is political because it depends on the values of those who perform the screening -- 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) -\subsection{Evaluating New Zealand's approach} +\subsection{Participation of the public} -``Social Assessment'' (Taylor et al in the Green Book, chapter 25) -\begin{quote} - The New Zealand Resource Management Act (1991) is regarded by many as the - foremost and most innovative national legislation for environmental assessment in recent - years. This act has included mandatory requirements for the assessment of environmental - effects, with “social,” “cultural,” and “amenity values” clearly included in the definition - of environment. Also required are public involvement and community consultation, and - monitoring of effects once the plan or project has begun. -\end{quote} +Although the use of objective measurements and scientific methodology +is considered EIA best practice \parencite{principles}, EIA is neither +science nor is it an objective process. + +% TODO: not science: predictions made on the basis of very limited inputs + +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}. + +- 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} + +- cannot deal well with cumulative effects, because that's best done + on a national/regional level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art} + +- most resource consents are processed at the district/city level, not + at the regional level + +- \textcite[p 267]{furuseth}: little experience or resources to + scrutinise EIA on the local level + + +\subsection{Monitoring and follow-up work} + +- 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} + + +\subsection{EIA at the policy level} ``Environmental Assessment in a Changing World'' (EAE_10E.PDF, Sadler) \begin{quote} (page 49) @@ -67,30 +105,29 @@ the process of EIA for the public to be involved; where involvement is possible undertaking policy and pian-level assessments, \end{quote} - -checklist from \textcite{intl-perspective}: - -- 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} - -- insufficient monitoring (68\%) \parencite{rma-survey} +\subsection{TODO: Effective? Does EIA bring about sustainable development?} \textcite{retrospect}: ``EIA generally continues to bring about only relatively modest adjustments of development proposals.'' also seems to apply for NZ resource consents: - only a little more than half a percent of all resource consents are declined \parencite{rma-survey} -- problems of devolution: - - cannot deal well with cumulative effects, because that's best done on a national/regional level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art} - - most resource consents are processed at the district/city level, not at the regional level - - \textcite[p 267]{furuseth}: little experience or resources to scrutinise EIA on the local level -\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. + + +\subsection{Scratch} + +\parencite{beattie}: + - cannot be science because it makes predictions based on very limited data + - EIAs are always political because they are part of a decision-making process + - EIAs are necessary because they add valuable information to public + discussions on specific proposals + +- poor communication +- failure to predict important impacts + +The following is from \textcite{RMIT University \& UNU Online Learning. (n.d). Environmental +Impact Assessment Open Educational Resource.}: + +- screening is political because it depends on the values of those who perform the screening + +checklist from \textcite{intl-perspective} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/assignment1/main.tex b/assignment1/main.tex index 79b884e..406c6be 100644 --- a/assignment1/main.tex +++ b/assignment1/main.tex @@ -102,6 +102,19 @@ The RMA three layers of plans +- devolved mandate, i.e. decision making is undertaken at the closest level to which it was given effect, e.g. land is a locally used resource and thus decisions are to be made by district and city councils. + +``Social Assessment'' (Taylor et al in the Green Book, chapter 25) +\begin{quote} + The New Zealand Resource Management Act (1991) is regarded by many as the + foremost and most innovative national legislation for environmental assessment in recent + years. This act has included mandatory requirements for the assessment of environmental + effects, with “social,” “cultural,” and “amenity values” clearly included in the definition + of environment. Also required are public involvement and community consultation, and + monitoring of effects once the plan or project has begun. +\end{quote} + + It provides a comprehensive framework with a single purpose of promoting “the sustainable management of natural and physical resources” (Section 5). A hierarchy of national and regional @@ -136,8 +149,4 @@ TODO - may produce regional plans - concentrate on water, air, and land (as its use relates to water and air quality) - DISTRICT / city councils - - - -- devolved mandate, i.e. decision making is undertaken at the closest level to which it was given effect, e.g. land is a locally used resource and thus decisions are to be made by district and city councils. \ No newline at end of file + DISTRICT / city councils \ No newline at end of file -- cgit v1.2.3