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
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
|
% discussion 1000
% - common issues in EIA 400
% - evaluating NZ's approach 600
\section{Discussion}
This section discusses common problems of EIA implementations as they
relate to the RMA, as well as issues that New Zealand's integrated and
devolved approach to environmental assessment brought about.
\subsection{The quality of assessments}
- poor environmental models / baseline => precautionary principle
\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{Participation of the public}
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)
[EA under the RMA] ... is indirectly specified for policy
statements and strategic plans which local authorities are required to
prepare to guide and implement sustainable resource
management. Application at this level is variable and, overall, it is
concluded that the unique way that EA is integrated into the Act makes
evaluation of the effectiveness of implementation difficult
\end{quote}
(page 164[pdf], 146[published])
\begin{quote}
SEA is intended to be an integral part of
policy and plan-setting, rather than being applied to them as a
separate procedure. The resulting framework, in turn, establishes a
context and parameters for subsidiary EIAs, which are required for all
resource use consents and where the presumption is for protection via
rigorous limits on discharges etc. However, in practice,
implementation of the Act is occurring slowly. Experience to date
indicates that local governments still rely on project EIA rather than
undertaking policy and pian-level assessments,
\end{quote}
\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}
\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}
|
