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
|
- 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}
\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]
% TODO: split assignment into Theory / Legislation and Implementation
|
