blob: 1a0cc9114644abfef4a147b2885b36ff7b701565 (
about) (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
|
\section{Conclusion}
Although the RMA anticipated some of the core principles of SEA in
that it provides an integrated framework for the assessment of
policies, plans, and projects, insufficient monitoring and the lack of
a well-defined process to feed assessment experiences at the local
level back into nation-wide guidelines limits the suitability of the
RMA for SEA. The fact that the RMA purposefully omits prescribing
explicit assessment procedures does enable a more flexible approach to
environmental assessment that is guided by local needs but has also
allowed an overwhelming number of poor-quality assessments to enter
the process.
While the broad definitions of the terms `environment' and `effects',
and the integration of EIA principles in the resource consent process
do ensure that most proposals with potentially significant impacts
fall under the activities that require assessment, the sheer volume of
resource consents that are to be reviewed by local councils result in
high workload which negatively affects the councils' consent review
performance. The effects of these performance issues are particularly
obvious in the disappointing monitoring practises and the severely
limited opportunity for the general public to provide input on all but
a minor fraction of resource consents. Since the lack of well-defined
procedures allows local authorities to disregard the results of an
assessment, it is unclear to what extent AEE is actually used as a
means to promote sustainable development.
|
