- general ideas taken from the readings: - EIA often done too late, so only options are mitigation or acceptance - economic benefits often outweigh environmental damages in decision-makers' eyes. This could be avoided with a limits-based approach / SEA. - councils may simply be too busy or understaffed to properly evaluate an application, especially when it is a complex application. <---- KEY IDEA ---------------------------------------- - according to survey (section 2.8)\parencite{ME1069}, number of pre-hearing meetings (for notified applications) went down; also the number of successful pre-hearing meetings went down. - upward trend: number of objections against consent decisions (see section 2.10)\parencite{ME1069} - side agreements: applicants can buy consent by paying directly affected people, incurring poor environmental outcomes for the community or future generations. \parencite{PCE1998} \begin{quote} The environmental risks associated with side agreements depend on the council’s knowledge and treatment of any contractual arrangements by consent applicants. Good practice by the consent authority can help to minimise these risks. For example, where a private agreement does not necessarily result in effects on the environment being mitigated, consent authorities should impose appropriate conditions to mitigate these effects. \end{quote} \parencite[][p 9]{PCE1998} - wider example may be the golden link mine where the applicant promised to do unrelated work for the community to secure approval - councils are not capable of processing consent applications to the standards that are detailed in the plans: \begin{quote} It appears a substantial number of consents are being granted without clear or detailed information, due in part to pressures for time-compliance as commitment to economic growth [...] prevails over environmental protection and enhancement. \end{quote} [executive summary, xii / p 13]{confessions}