blob: c4cd2c76bc4ff71d75d52ce47ace7db273ec688a (
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
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
|
- 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.
- 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}
\parencite{practice}
- criticism from all sides:
- developers don't like the additional compliance costs incurred
- professionals:
\begin{quote}
Implementation does not appear to be progressing as it was
envisioned, in an integrated fashion and by employing a range of
policy mechanisms. Instead, economic decisions are made without
consideration of environmental impacts and the quality of the
environment is treated as a second tier policy objective after
customer service delivery and economic efficiency. Maori values and
concerns are not successfully incorporated into implementation
programs and state-of-environment monitoring, a cornerstone of an
effects-based framework, is still not a management priority.
\end{quote} [Frieder, as quoted on page 6]
\begin{quote}
Planners have thus been subjected to criticism from all
directions in relation to RMA implementation: they favour the
developers, they obstruct the developers; they are unduly cautious in
relation to legislative intent, they are not cautious enough; they are
administratively cautious; they are administratively cavalier; they
are environmentally conservative, they are not conservative enough.
\end{quote} [p 8]
|
