Manuscript Details

Manuscript number EIR_2019_326

Title Megaproject environmental public regulation: stalemates and challenges in

Brazil and Australia.

Article type Review Article

Abstract
The recent history of environmental regulation in some countries could be narrated as a continuing, nonlinear, trend of
political and institutional discontinuity. This process has its roots in the economic, social, political and cultural
transformations that subject communities, in their entirety and diversity, to the dynamics of the expansion of capitalism
from the 1960's. Embedded in this logic, large-scale development projects (LSDP) and major infrastructure projects
(MIP), hereafter referred to as megaprojects, irrespective of their purpose and whether initiated by governments or
private companies, are shaped to become significant vectors of territorial transformations. These projects are
challenging all who seek less aggressive actions which impact communities and the environment. This paper seeks to
identify and reflect on the issues in Brazil and Australia that are contributing to the increasingly apparent negative
impacts of megaprojects by providing a theoretical analysis of Social Impact Assessments (SIA). The results
demonstrate that, in these two countries, the environmental licence processes contain several shortcomings which
have led to failures and are conducted in a technocratic and fragmented manner. To this end, this paper intends to
highlight a few challenges and possible improvements to these processes and shows that these issues should be
addressed through environmental regulation.

Keywords megaprojects, social impact, Brazil and Australia.

Corresponding Author Lucas G de Sousa

Corresponding Author's University of Canberra

Institution

Order of Authors Lucas G de Sousa, Charles Lemckert, MARIA DE ZUQUIM

Suggested reviewers Chris McGrath, Frank Vanclay

Submission Files Included in this PDF

File Name [File Type]
Cover letter.docx [Cover Letter]

highlights.docx [Highlights]

Title Page.docx [Title Page (with Author Details)]

Megaproject environmental public regulation in Brazil and Autralia.docx [Manuscript (without Author Details)]

Autor Biografy.docx [Author Biography]

Autor photos.docx [Author Photo]

To view all the submission files, including those not included in the PDF, click on the manuscript title on your EVISE
Homepage, then click 'Download zip file'.
Lucas Gomes de Sousa
University of Canberra
University Drive, Belconnen.
Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2617.
(02) 6201 5111
Lucas.sousa@canberra.edu.au

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Editor-in-Chief
Elsevier

September 5, 2019

Dear
Dr. Editorian

I am pleased to submit an original research article entitled “Megaproject environmental public regulation:
stalemates and challenges in Brazil and Australia” by Professor Charles Lemcker, Professor Maria de Lourdes
Zuquim Postdoc and Lucas Gomes de sousa for consideration for publication in the Journal Environmental Impact
Assessment Review.
This article seeks to identify and reflect on the issues in Brazil and Australia that are contributing to the increasingly
apparent negative impacts of megaprojects by providing a theoretical analysis of Social Impact Assessments (SIA).
The results demonstrate that, in these two countries, the environmental license processes contain several
shortcomings which have led to failures and are conducted in a technocratic and fragmented manner.
In this manuscript, we show that there is an explicit inadequacy in environmental policy added to the gaps and
shortcomings observed in the environmental licensing processes of megaprojects. Australia and Brazil fail when they
do not require monitoring and control of environmental impacts. There is still much to be clarified in terms of the
description and definition of the megaproject and its potential direct and indirect impacts, since this activity is
performed considering a factual scenario. Australia does not consider the social dispute surrounding environmental
regulation instruments it demonstrates adopting an environmental policy similar Brazil. One of the principal issues is
the social participation and negotiation whish take place throughout the whole process.
We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by Elsevier - Environmental Impact Assessment Review
because it help institutions and professionals advance and improve performance for the benefit of humanity and
environmental. Our manuscript creates a paradigm for future studies of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no
conflicts of interest to disclose. we do respectfully request that you review our manuscript If you feel that the
manuscript is appropriate for your journal.
Thank you for your consideration!

Sincerely,

Lucas Gomes de Sousa

Researcher, Department of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Canberra
Highlights:

There is still much to be clarified in terms of the definition of the megaproject.

There are gaps and shortcomings in environmental policy of megaprojects.

Environmental regulation does not require monitoring and control of impacts.

Environmental regulation does not consider the social dispute.

The social participation is not considered in the environmental license process.

 University of Canberra and University of São Paulo

Urban and Regional Planning

Megaproject environmental public regulation. stalemates and challenges in Brazil and

Australia.

Lucas Gomes de Sousa

Charles Lemckert

Maria de Lourdes Zuquim

Canberra – Australia

September 2019
Megaproject environmental public regulation: stalemates and challenges in Brazil and
Australia.

ABSTRACT

The recent history of environmental regulation in some countries could be narrated as a

continuing, nonlinear, trend of political and institutional discontinuity. This process has its
roots in the economic, social, political and cultural transformations that subject communities,
in their entirety and diversity, to the dynamics of the expansion of capitalism from the 1960's.
Embedded in this logic, large-scale development projects (LSDP) and major infrastructure
projects (MIP), hereafter referred to as megaprojects, irrespective of their purpose and whether
initiated by governments or private companies, are shaped to become significant vectors of
territorial transformations. These projects are challenging all who seek less aggressive actions
which impact communities and the environment. This paper seeks to identify and reflect on the
issues in Brazil and Australia that are contributing to the increasingly apparent negative impacts
of megaprojects by providing a theoretical analysis of Social Impact Assessments (SIA). The
results demonstrate that, in these two countries, the environmental licence processes contain
several shortcomings which have led to failures and are conducted in a technocratic and
fragmented manner. To this end, this paper intends to highlight a few challenges and possible
improvements to these processes and shows that these issues should be addressed through
environmental regulation.

Keywords: megaprojects, social impact, Brazil and Australia.

Introduction
The well-documented historical experience has often shown how megaprojects produce
significant spatial reordering and induce profound social, economic, political and cultural
impacts. This process demands compatible responses from governments, which through public
policies can develop planning and management tools to avoid or mitigate the potential negative
effects and increase the benefits received by communities.
In terms of environmental regulation, Brazil and Australia present many shortcomings
gaps in the processes that regulate the planning and implementation of megaprojects, whose
procedures have been conducted technocratic, centralistic and fragmented manner. In both
cases, Social Impact Assessments (SIA) are often constrained by guidelines that inhibit the
identification of important issues and do not promote proper dialogue with the comunnities
(Carolino 2016; Rothman 2001, Lane et al. 1997, Lockie et al. 1999, Vanclay 2002). In Brazil,
while environmental inspection, management and control public structures are constantly being
modified, megaprojects continue to promote and propel socio-environmental disasters1 (Agra
Filho 1999; Mirra 2002; Wanderley 2016). In Australia, academic and technical publications
on the effects of public infrastructure projects (Howitt 1989; Lockie et al. 1999; Syme 1991)
and mining industries (Brereton et al. 2008; Joyce & Macfarlane 2001 ) have been significantly
expanded since the 1990s, but the negative impacts from these activities are still recurring in
many local communities of the country (Sincovich et al. 2018).
Even though, in the international context, scientific researches have brought significant
advances, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as an instrument for planning and
managing the social effects of megaprojects remain fraught with gaps, distortions, omissions,
exclusions and shortcomings (Carolino 2016). These are usually implemented in rural areas or
near small urban centers, where they imply profound changes in the nature and way of life of
the inhabitants. Before implementation of these projects, the population begins to have its
routine changed due to several processes including the increase in the non-resident workforce,
changes in land use and occupation and the compulsory displacement often made during the
execution of this type of venture (Vanclay 2017).
In both countries, environmental public regulation has not kept pace with scientific
advances; on the contrary, it has been relaxed and limited, spatially and temporally. In this
process there have been inadequate and inaccurate analysis, which has resulted in negative
social impacts, as well as the misuse and unequal distribution of the benefits generated. In this
context, this article seeks to identify, through a bibliographic and documentary analysis, gaps
and flaws in the procedures adopted by the Australian Government and the Brazilian Federal
Government, which identify the contradictory and selective character of environmental
regulation regarding megaprojects.
To answer the central question posed, surveys addressing three public initiatives were
selected: The Transposition of San Francisco River’s in Northeast Brazil and the Hydro
Scheme Mountain and Murray Darling Basin in South-Eastern Australia. The territorial
reflexes triggered by these ventures point to the need to adjust environmental regulation in
order to integrate political decisions, improve technical methods and expand social
participation and inclusion.

1The disruptions of the dams in Itabirito, Mariana and Brumadinho over the last decade illustrate the sad Brazilian
scenario.
International theoretical advances in Social Impact Assessments (SIA)

The effects, whether positive or negative, material or immaterial, of physical

intervention or activity that are experienced or perceived by individuals, families and
communities are often referred to as socioenvironmental or social impacts (Vanclay 2002).
These effects can also be defined as an estimate of the consequences that will potentially occur
from the implementation of actions, interventions or development of the most diverse types of
projects (Esteves et al. 2012).
In developing countries like Brazil, the SIA2 should incorporate not only individuals,
but also the forms of interaction between them, considering at least their social, political,
economic and cultural contexts. Potentially affected populations, directly and indirectly, should
participate in the planning and implementation process, contributing to the scope of the study
and working to avoid indiscriminate use of a list of variables based solely on technical opinion
or expertise. Regarding the content provided for in an SIA, Vanclay (2002, p. 190-191) states
that constitute:
An umbrella or overarching framework that encompasses all human impacts
including aesthetic (landscape analysis), archaeological and heritage, community,
cultural, demographic, development, economic and fiscal, gender, health, indigenous
rights, infrastructure, institutional, political (human rights, governance,
democratisation etc.), poverty-related, psychological, resource issues (access and
ownership of resources), the impacts of tourism and other impacts on societies. SIA
is not limited to a narrow or restrictive understanding of the concept social.

According to Burdge (1994), there are many ways to categorize social impacts and their
claims are corroborated by Vanclay (2002)3 who has developed a list of over 80 variables
grouped into seven social impact categories. For this author, studies should consider, at least,
issues4 related to: 1) health and social welfare; 2) quality of life of the environment; 3) economy
and material welfare; 4) culture; 5) family and community; 6) institutions, legal norms, politics,
equity; and 7) gender relations.

2 There are huge academic studies involved in social impact assessment (AIS) research. The International
Association for Impact Assessment (http://www.iaia.org) provides practitioners and researchers with professional
support.
3 Vanclay (2002), even opposing ready-made listings, has developed some categories of analysis, claiming

didactic purposes and the need to expand understanding of potential social impacts.
4 This activity was developed from a comprehensive analysis of some of the weaknesses in existing international

lists.
 This proposal represented a considerable
advance towards ensuring a more appropriate place for
social issues, expanding its integration with the other
dimensions addressed in the environmental licensing
processes. Its content advances in the sense of thinking
the interactions and links that exist between the various
elements that transit within the regulatory mechanisms.
This also brings up the need to think through
evaluations, not just in the pre-approval phase of
projects, but in the course of their implementation and
operation.
Another significant debate that has advanced in
recent decades concerns the appropriate methodology
for the development of SIA. An interesting synthesis
effort that sought to gather the empirical experiences
and theoretical assumptions about the theme was done
by Arce Gomez (et al. 2015). These authors have
proposed a procedural script (Figure 1) whose content
includes monitoring actions aimed at management and
evaluation. Through this roadmap it will be possible to
identify flaws, point out areas that need to be improved
and indicate improvements in the implementation path
of a large project. One of the main points defended is
that popular participation (properly trained) should take
place at each of these stages, not only in a consultative
Figure 1: A consolidated SIA
framework. From: Arce Gomez (et al. but deliberative manner.
2015)
Another emerging theme is regional
contextualization, which highlights the costs and benefits accrued in different projects, called
regional and cumulative impacts. These can be obtained by crossing the various impact
assessments carried out in the same place or region. The applied logic would be to recognize
the need for integration and connection of the various actions that are being implemented
concurrently. This exercise, obtained from the coordinated accumulation of the burdens and
bonuses resulting from megaprojects, would form a territorial pact, expand the advantages and
reduce the disadvantages arising from these interventions. (Franks et al. 2010).
 The studies also demonstrate a continuous progression (at least in discourses) towards
overcoming a technocratic and centralistic view that develops environmental impact
assessments in fragmented and incoherent manner. Often, the social component tends to have
a different weight in relation to the biophysical and the economic, almost always occupying a
less important place in relation to the others. In this sense, it is necessary to understand that the
degree of significance attributed to each one will be different, when interpreted in specific
contexts whose analyze should be done across a collaborative process. The government and
proponents need to be involving with multiple stakeholders who are mobilized to achieve
common objectives.
Thus, it will be possible to move towards the development of more integrated and less
unequal approaches. The starting point for this proposal for an integrated approach is to
recognize that:
Human societies depend on the services and goods offered by the biophysical
environment, while these environmental services and goods (i.e., environmental
functions) can only be valued from a cultural framework and specific social context.
(Carolino 2016, p. 106) (Our translation).

From this perspective, the valuation of environmental components can only be

attributed in an unbalanced manner, if it is inserted in a context where the parameters have
previously been identified. Within this process, social participation becomes an indispensable
factor to expand the understanding and specificities of the multiple dimensions that make-up
the territory5. All these factors are critical to the development of environmental assessments.
Importantly, efforts to improve SIA should not be used by proponents to obtain personal
favours from governments or regulatory institutions, especially when megaprojects are
potentially harmful to the nature and community. O'Faircheallaigh (2010) warns that some
entrepreneurs, wishing to approve their projects, often hide many of the possible negative
impacts or, instead, exaggerate the positive impacts. In the course of major project
implementation, this type of evaluation is insufficient and biased. Regulatory mechanisms, as
well as the State, lose credibility with the population and come to be advocates of the project,
when they should act as neutral behavior for the common welfare.

5Saquet (2007) claim the territory is formed by a conjugation of economic, politic, culture and nature outside
men.
Brazil and Australia: Gaps and failures in the social issues of environmental regulation
mechanisms.

If on the one hand the constant changes, carried out in the norms and environmental
institutions were considered a political milestone, on the other, they made emerge several
weaknesses in the mechanisms of environmental regulation. Brazil and Australia began to
require, during the 1970s, to develop analyses for issues that affect the environment in a
meaningful way, but so far there are insufficient means in which to implement such a practice.
The environmental mechanisms regulations that have emerged over the last decades can be
interpreted as a response by national governments to internal and external pressures on
environmental measures. On the other hand, the shortcomings and fails which persist in their
content and processes, demonstrate that there are still many issues to be discussed in order to
achieve much-desired development in a more equal manner which better serves communities.
An example of this problem often occurs in Brazil, where communities affected by
megaprojects, remain disadvantaged and with little openness to the consultants responsible for
preparing Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). This statement was made by Carolino
(2016 p. 117) where she highlighted that these kinds of studies are predominantly “contracted
and funded by the proponents of the interventions” (Our translation). In this situation, from the
outset, the environmental processes and their technical managers are predestined to follow a
logic dictated by the contractor, which imposes a series of problems and challenges for the
fulfillment of the objectives and principles initially proclaimed.
As a rule, research still shows little interest in deepening social conflicts around the
instruments of environmental regulation. Often dispute between stakeholders remains
camouflaged and is seldom discussed. Under such circumstances, even if there are some
technicians who defend public participation, based on the principle of equality and democracy
or even those who advocate for collective benefits, they have little autonomy to effect change.
Moreover, during the implementation phase, the state often invokes its power by adopting
displacement and resettlement actions, for example, based on cohesion, rather than
strengthening ties with the community (Vanclay 2017). It is a scenario marked by the restriction
of the decision-making power of the affected population, as well as of little autonomy by the
technicians responsible for the elaboration of the EIA.
The announcement of progress and modernity for the region receiving these
investments, stamped in colorful prospectuses, is rarely realized. What has happened is the
recreation of territorial enclaves that bear a character of imposition and opposition to local and
regional dynamics. In the case of Brazilian hydroelectric, the results as for the affected
population included increased unemployment, slum dwellings, social marginalization, poverty,
prostitution, criminality, diseases, among other negative impacts. Vainer (1992 p. 37),
reinforces the thesis that “in the absence of inductive effects that would boost the local and
regional economy, the consequence is the simple proliferation of needs”.
Such project is justified, according to the Brazilian Federal Government, due to the
need to attract new business and access international markets. In this context, managers make
the weakening and relaxation of national environmental regulation the preferred option for
expanding the country's competitive advantages. This stance of immediate choices, imposed
by the mobility of capital, has led to deregulation of norms, resulting in increased social
vulnerability and environmental degradation (Acserald et al. 2009).
According to Santos (1999, p. 02), this is because we are living in a global economic
context marked by the “war of places”. Through the political and technical decisions adopted,
each country constitutes:
A true deposit of surplus value flows, transferring value to the firms based therein.
Productivity and competitiveness are no longer defined because of the internal
structure of each corporation, but also become an attribute of places. And each place
goes into the accounting of companies with different value. The tax war is a global
war between places.

The author also argues that in the globalized world, large corporations’ elect places of
their interest and start making demands on governments to expand their competitive
advantages. In addition to material and technical conditions, they require political adequacy,
achieved through financial subsidies, tax exemptions, relaxation of labour rights and
environmental regulation.
It is through the expansion of these offerings that countries have struggled with each
other to attract new investors, obeying beyond internal pressures, to exogenous demands that
imposes another territorial logic upon them. This prioritization and governmental readiness,
focused on serving the interests of global corporations, not only harms local businesses but also
devalues areas that have not been developed. In other words, it means surrendering to the
private the regulation of the territorial uses, especially in its essential slices, points and
articulations, to the detriment of the vast majority.
An interesting effort to deepen the knowledge about the strategies adopted by Brazil
during the implementation of this process was made by Carolino (2016). She developed an
analysis based on a large road infrastructure project located on the North Coast of São Paulo,
called Contorno Sul. The research sought to understand the place that has been reserved for
social issues in the Brazilian environmental regulation. To this end, the researcher investigated
to what extent the new legal, theoretical and discursive formulations, from the 1980s, reflected
or influenced the professional practices linked to the environmental licensing processes of
megaprojects.
Among her notes, it is noteworthy that the mere existence of legal norms has not been
enough for effective social equity and environmental justice in the country. One of the reasons
is that the social component, inserted in the field of disputes over the appropriation of the
environmental licensing process of megaprojects, “has been assigned a marginal, fragile and
quite delimited spatially and temporally role, corroborating historical criticism of this
instrument of planning" (Carolino 2016, p. 10) (Our translation). Among the results of her
research, she highlights the presence of poorly designed assessments that do not properly
address indirect, cumulative and second-rate social impacts that result in the adoption of
insufficient measures that are unable to mitigate or control impacts.
Corroborating with these statements Esteves et al. (2012, p. 34) also defend that one of
incumbent on social impact assessment (SIA) practitioners is:
To educate proponents, regulators and colleagues about these concepts, and to embed
them into practice norms. Stronger engagement with the emerging trends of free,
prior and informed consent (FPIC); human rights impact assessment; social
performance standards; supply chain management; governance, etc.

Amid numerous inadequacies, materialized challenges emerge, for example, in the still
distant dialogue between the state and civil society, as well as in the integration with urban
regulation. Such distances are aggravated by the conflicts of competences existing between the
different federative instances, because between the Federal Government, the States and the
municipalities there are still many issues to be resolved (Oliveira 2014). Even if the Brazilian
Environmental Policy sets guidelines and incorporates the social component in the
environmental licensing processes, in practice, what is noticeable are political and institutional
obstacles that still need to be overcome.
In Australia, the extractive industry has experienced sustained growth from intensive
use of natural resources through a highly polluting system, attracting and exploiting the
immigrant workforce that has grown considerably in the country in recent decades. Mineral
production received a strong boost after the 1930s, “with the abandonment of natural resource
conservation policies, since then the country has been consolidating itself as one of the world
leaders in exploration technologies” (Furtado & Urias 2013, p. 61) (Our translation). If this
process is seen concomitantly with the recent expansion of mineral exploration technologies,
which has made the country an important world leader in the sector, the adoption of a posture
focused on the relaxation and weakening of environmental national regulation becomes
evident. Through this conduct, the country has been applying its bargaining power, thus
ensuring a more competitive position in the international market.
From 2005 onwards, a considerable number of local, state and territorial government
guidelines6 began to emerge, aimed at understanding and analysing social impacts. This change
is believed to have been driven, among other factors, by the release in 2003, of a US document
has entitled International Principles for Social Impacts7. Another reason is also a considerable
number of previously published academic researches that have discussed this issue.
These publications demonstrate that social issues, which are at the centre of
environmental public regulation, remain challenging with inconsistencies among various levels
of government. Although it has frequently been cited in federal laws and state/local guidelines
since the 1990s, only in the last decade that Australian Government have tried to clarify them8.
This perception reveals the segregation and marginalization that social component has been
suffered within environmental licensing processes over the years.
For more than two decades, scientific research has criticized Commonwealth
Government environmental licensing and decisions made on political (largely unknown),
centralistic9 and imperative criteria. Processes are often evaluated without effective social
control mechanisms, the factors of which indicate that the Australian Government needs to
advance the development of more integrated approaches, improving also:
Both the predictive capacity of the analyst and the ability of the analyst to
recommend the establishment of more appropriate planning and decision-making
processes irrespective of the land use outcomes resulting from inquiry processes
(Lane et al. 1997, p. 309).

As in Brazil, the requirement for environmental impact studies continues to be prepared

only at the preliminary or planning stage, when the viability of the project is being undertaken.
There is no proper deepening and detailing of the procedures that should be applied during and

6 Among the local governments that have published Social Impact Assessment Guideline are: Lake Macquarie
City Council, Parramatta City Council, East Gippsland Shire Council, all in 2013. In addition to City of Greater
Dandenong in 2014 and Hume City Council which launched in 2016. Among the territories are Australia Capital
Territory in 2011 and Western Australia in 2013. Among the states are New South Wales in 2017 and Queensland
in 2018.
7 The document represented the updating of the previous contents, establishing values and principles that started

to guide the practitioners of the discipline, as well as clarifying terminologies and concepts still poorly understood.
One breakthrough has been in detailing the appropriate scope of social impact assessments that should encompass
not only negative impacts but also intentional and positive impacts.
8 See the Guideline: Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth

agencies. Significant impact guidelines 1.2 (Australian Government, 2013)

9 Conduct based on consolidating power under central control.
after the implementation of the project. Legislation and guidelines do not mention the
monitoring, evaluation and control of social impacts.
It was noted that even in the most recent Guideline there is only brief guidance on how
proponents should proceed to prepare preliminary assessments, deciding on their own whether
the intervention may have a significant impact on the environment.
The self-assessment process set out on the following pages is intended to assist you
in deciding whether your action is likely to have a significant impact on the
environment. Your self-assessment should be as objective as possible and based on
enough information to make an informed judgement (Australian Government 2013,
p. 05).

After being prepared by the proponent, without any consultation with the population,
the process is sent to the Minister. If he decides that the action requires approval, the proponent
shall carry out an environmental assessment of the action, which may be jointly reviewed with
the state or territory if there is a bilateral agreement. Even where an action is considered
significant and therefore potentially generating social and environmental impacts, the
Commonwealth does not require that any social control mechanism be implemented10.
This gap has been noted in the content described in the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC Act 1999). Although this law regulates environmental
licensing processes in Australia, it does not mention the need to identify regional or cumulative
impacts. It does not recognize that the proponents need to consider other actions that are being
implemented simultaneously in the territory. As a result, the benefits of megaprojects, may not
be properly harnessed, as well as their damages may be increased, because consequently the
mitigating measures are insufficient. Each State and Territory adopts its own posture and
therefore, “despite these requirements, the treatment of cumulative impacts in such assessments
is mixed” (Franks et al. 2010, p. 306).
Only in 2013, the Commonwealth Government has launched two Guidelines aimed at
clarifying issues poorly explained or misunderstood in EPBC Act 1999. In these manuals, this
is a very brief summary of several issues, the one that seeks to clarify that significant impacts
might occur on landscapes and soils, coastal landscapes and processes, ocean forms, ocean
processes and ocean life, water resources, plants, animals, people and communities and
heritage.

10 The Significant impact guidelines 1.2 (Australian Government 2013) demonstrates whether a referral is
required under the EPBC Act, as well as details the procedures to developing environmental assessment and
approval process.
 They also had advances in recognizing the existence of indirect and offsite impacts
whose include downstream or downwind, upstream and facilitated impacts, which result from
further actions. The Guideline determine that:
Indirect impacts will be relevant where they are sufficiently close to the proposed
action to be said to be a consequence of the action, and they can reasonably be
imputed to be within the contemplation of the person proposing to take the action
(Australian Government 2013, p. 6).

Although the proposal advances in the detailing of important questions that must be
considered, it simultaneously opens a gap in interpretation, because it does not explain the
procedures that will be used to determine which will be the distance, or proximity the impact
that makes it be significant in the analysis process environmental.
Specifically dealing with the environmental regulation of megaprojects, there are
numerous challenges to be overcome. Viola (1996) states that in Brazil there is still much to
discuss, especially regarding the persistent inequality in the correlation of forces of social
stakeholders. In this term, the environmental regulation mechanisms are empty, and little about
it has been discussed. An example is the project called Transposição do Rio São Francisco
(Figure 1) which is in the final stages of construction in the Brazilian semiarid, whose work
was announced by the Brazilian Federal Government as the solution to the historical problems
related to water scarcity in the region.

Figure 1: Transposição do Rio São Francisco. Image from: Federal Senate of Brazil (2019)

A field survey published in 2015 sought to identify whether the anticipated

socioeconomic impacts had been confirmed throughout the construction work. The results
showed that:
The socioeconomic impacts provided by RIMA were confirmed. But beyond this, the
research revealed other impacts that were not foreseen by the RIMA. It was found
though these impacts were relatively contradictory way, that is, according to the
 respondents, while the work on the translation caused positive socio-economic
impacts also caused negative impacts on society (Lima 2015, p. 09) (Our translation).

According to Silva (2017), the environmental licensing process presents numerous

problems, among which, numerous important social issues have not been discussed. Thus,
numerous conflicts of interest11 arose before and during project implementation. The result of
a political arrangement aimed at serving the agribusiness, contrary to the interests of the local
communities.
These problems are not unique to Brazil and occur even in developed countries, because
environmental regulation, understood as a representative element of the State's action, is guided
by a unique process. It should be noted that this is guided by two logics of power, the capitalist
and the territorial, which although they are different, “intertwine in complex and sometimes
contradictory ways. Thus, in each place, their results, although different, present similarities.
(Harvey 2005 p. 34)
In Australia, it is also common occurring to trigger a series of social impacts that were
not foreseen in environmental licence processes. There are often pressure on urban
infrastructure, housing and services; widening income inequality; precariousness in child
development with worsening educational outcomes; pressure on families and relationships;
drug and alcohol abuse, as well as cultural disruption in Aboriginal communities (Ivanova et
al. 2005; Lockie et al. 2008; O'faircheallaigh 1999; Sincovich et al. 2018).
The Snowy Mountains Scheme12 (or Scheme as it is known) began construction in 1949
and completed in 1974 (Figure 2). This was the main mechanism of attraction of immigrants
in the period called “populate or perish” aimed at promoting territorial occupation and
strengthening the sovereignty of the country. The work is also pointed as the driving force of
a reaction against the advance of the expansion of communism across the Malaya Peninsula in
the context of the Cold War (John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library, 2002).

11 Among the social actors stand out the traditional communities, the Catholic Church, environmentalists,
municipal, state and federal government agencies, political parties, local and transnational entrepreneurs, etc.
(Silva 2017)
12 The Scheme is an integrated water supply and power generation system whose operation is to collect water

from a large mountain range east of the country (Great Diving Range). From there it is transported to the south
and set aside in some dams to then, in a controlled manner, supply the two largest and most important Murray-
Darling Basin rivers, the Murray and the Murranbidgee. It currently also supplies about 32% of all available
renewable energy to Australia's continental grid, used in the country's largest cities (Sydney, Melbourne,
Canberra, Brisbane and Adelaide) through the National Electricity Grid, which runs from Rockhampton, in
Queensland, around the east coast, to Adelaide and Tasmania (Snowy Hydro 2019).
 Figure 2: Dam of the Lake Eucumbene that makes up the Scheque. Image from: Water NSW
(2018)

Estimates indicate that approximately 100,000 male and female workers migrated to
work in Australia during the 25 years of construction. Workers came from over 30 countries,
some of which had been devastated by World War II. At the beginning of the system operation,
some cities such as Adaminaby, Jindabyne and Talbingo were partially or totally flooded by
the waters of Lake Eucumbene, Lake Jindabyne and Jounama Reservoir, respectively. (Snowy
Hydro 2019).

Figure 3: Employers in 1970. Image from Snowy Mountains Scheme archives (2019)

This considerable volume of people, from different places, with different cultures,
added to the actions implemented during the construction, certainly resulted in numerous social
and environmental impacts, as well the resettlement has changed living conditions and social
reproduction, resulting in changes in the biophysical, social, economic and cultural
environment resulting from compulsory displacements and changes in water flows. (Bergmann
1999).
The Scheme has generated profound changes in social and environmental dynamics due
not only to the flooding of dams, but also to other installations. Numerous impacts began to
occur even before construction began and continued to exist after system operation. Some of
them remain active, such as disputes over access to water, for example.
Non-irrigators expressed a sense of injustice towards government policies and river
regulation that favored the interests and expansion of the irrigation industries and
small-scale farming, such as fruit, vegetable, and nut farming, small-scale dairies, and
viticulture. (O’Gorman 2010 p. 2)

This statement demonstrates that not only the physical and biotic dimensions were
affected, but also the economic and social ones. According to Vainer & Araújo (1992 p. 29)
these enterprises are characterized by moving “in great intensity elements such as capital,
labour force, natural resources, energy and territory”. Moreover, they carry a great power of
territorial transformation, both to compose and to decompose, unify or differentiate regions
and, therefore, constitute important vectors of the process of territorial fragmentation.
Scheme transposed water is distributed through the Murray-Darling Basin system
(Figure 4), whose management plan has undergone numerous changes over the past three
decades (Grafton & Wheeler 2018).

Figure 4: Map of the Murray-Darling Basin in southeaster Australia, illustrating the

southern and northern basins. Major rivers are shown as blue lines. Abbreviations:
ACT, Australian Capital Territory; NSW, New South Wales; QLD, Queensland;
SA, South Australia; VIC, Victoria. From: Grafton & Wheeler, 2018.
 The Australian Government, relying on the justification for the prolonged drought at
the turn of the 21st century, initiated a restructuring of the river system with changes ranging
from reduced consumption to repurchase of water (Alston et al. 2018; Moggridge et al. 2010;
Wheleer et al. 2013). The use of the resource by indigenous and agricultural populations has
been restricted, a fact that has generated numerous social and environmental impacts in the
region. Such changes have directly influenced the emergence of social tensions, the widening
of social vulnerability and fragmentation of rural communities, which have suffered from
health problems related to stress, anxiety, depression and suicide (RMCG 2016; McGowan,
2017; TC&A with Frontier Economics, 2017).
The dispute for water has generated social conflicts, whose main complainants are non-
irrigating agricultural producers, who claim financial losses and increased difficulty in
continuing to live on agriculture. In some cases, farmers feel threatened by the possibility of
those operating in other regions being favored by new arrangements in the management of the
system. The restructuring created a competing market between the old and new water users,
whose dispute arena was occupied by both the old farmers, the irrigation industry (fruit,
vegetables and nuts), dairy and viticulture.
It is well known that the Scheme did not manage without Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA). Although there was discussion regarding erosion, “this was for the purpose
of ensuring the long-term viability of the Scheme, not for any feelings or beliefs that the
environment should be protected for reasons outside productivity” (Bergman 1999). The
reasons cannot be simplified by the fact that environmental legislation did not exist at the time
of its implementation, especially when it is observed that this practice was already being
developed or at least discussed in other countries (Elliot 2014).
When observing that social impacts continue to occur in the Murray Darlin Basin, this
observation brings to the surface questions related to the interests of the Australian Government
which continues ignoring the negative impacts to the communities. This leads us to believe that
the discourse aimed at guaranteeing the nation's sovereignty hides the prioritization of
economic growth.
Due to their nature, Scheme and Murray Darlin Basin can be considered emblematic
examples that design and impose different dynamics in the localities, interweaving and
converging all the planning scales. Due to their great transformative potential, they are
considered important vectors of the territorial structuring process. If executed today, they
would certainly be subject to other criteria and guidelines, but as we have seen, without much
assurance that the ventures would bring fewer negative results and broaden the benefits, given
the weaknesses, gaps and flaws that persist in the legal framework. and environmental
institutional in Australia.

Discussion/Conclusion

There is an explicit inadequacy in environmental policy added to the gaps and

shortcomings observed in the environmental licensing processes of megaprojects. It opens the
way for the emergence of an incoherent territorial approach by both the Australian and
Brazilian governments. There are conflicts over the competencies of each of the federation
entities that publish laws and guidelines individually. As a result, sectoral environmental
studies emerge, whose components are separated and analyzed in isolation. There is a
persistent, centralistic and fragmented view which does not consider the multiscale and
multidimensional nature of environmental assessments.
Also, these countries fail when they do not require monitoring and control of impacts,
during and after completion of work or when they do not require to identify potential regional
and cumulative impacts. There are similarities even in the governmental stance adopted, as
both prioritize the technique translated by the recommendation of guidelines and good
practices, almost always postulated in guides and manuals.
There are legitimate obstacles to overcome when proposers will identify cumulative
impacts. Lack of information about the community, as well as about other ongoing activities
or even future actions, are made even more difficult when carried out in regions undergoing
intense territorial transformation. Despite these difficulties, although many of them still need
empirical testing and validation (Arce Gomez et al. 2015), there are “assessment methodologies
relevant to project-level impact assessments that have the potential to address cumulative
impacts, including forecasting, scenario analysis, impact pathway analysis and modelling”
(Franks et al. 2010 p. 307).
Similarly, there is still much to be clarified in terms of the description and definition of
the megaproject and its potential direct and indirect impacts, since this activity is performed
considering a factual scenario. Addressing this issue still under discussion in Australia, Chris
McGrath (2016) states that:
Until further case law clarifies the concept, the most practical advice that can be given
to a person considering what constitutes “an action” under the EPBC Act is to
describe the activity in question as widely as logic, common sense and ordinary
terminology allow. It is also vital to fully explain the action in the context of other
related actions.
 Even today, when this kind project result in displacement, the evaluations reveal that
people and communities are usually made worse off by being resettled. According to Vanclay
(2017 p. 03), “the governments often invoke the power of eminent domain and implement
expropriation procedures instead of building support for a public or private project by
negotiating with project-affected peoples”. However, when these processes are conducted
under right conditions13, they have the potential to be an opportunity for development. One of
the principal issues is the social participation and negotiation which take place throughout the
whole process.
When Australia does not consider the social dispute surrounding environmental
regulation instruments it demonstrates adopting an environmental policy similar Brazil. Both
still prioritize economics and the competitive insertion in the global market (crossed by a
national interest), in determining the interests of the directly affected population. In this
country, the continuing ecological degradation and the increasing complexity of social and
environmental problems have provoked a significate change in political and scientific views.
They have started advocating in favor of the New Environmental Governance - NEG14.
However, “the shift between traditional regulation, markets and NEG is ongoing and has not
seen each stage entirely replaced with another. Rather, different phases very often coexist and
relate to each other in a variety of ways” (Holley, 2017).
The affected population still has been disadvantaged compared to other groups
interested in the implementation of megaprojects, because the social participation is not being
valued which usually ignore local knowledge. The broader environmental reforms that have
been occurring in Australia and Brazil over the last 10 years, and particularly a shift in the
institutional arrangement of public regulations, needs to be developed within a more
democratic framework, with the engagement of several governmental and nongovernmental
stakeholders.
Empirical research during and after the implementation of the works would contribute
significantly both to understand when to look for solutions to this problem:
Researchers in project management seem to have accepted the transition from the
traditional “tools and techniques” view to a more innovation driven approach. Better
outcomes in megaproject management depend upon continuous improvement in
research that involves experiential knowledge and observations from the field
(Greiman 2014: 175).

13Some conditions are highlighting by Vanclay (2017)

14“The new environmental governance (NEG) emphasised collaboration, integration, participation, deliberative
styles of decision-making, adaptation and learning” (Holley 2017, p. 742).
 It is of fundamental importance to advance the development of empirical research,
including self-ethnographic research, that can better understand the complexities and causes of
megaprojects. Debates also need to broaden understanding of basic concepts such as culture,
community, human rights, gender, justice, place, sustainable livelihoods and resilience. Such a
change would significantly contribute to the reversal of the processes of income concentration,
the widening of social and environmental vulnerability, the widening of inequalities (Regional
and intraurban) and the widening of housing, infrastructure and urban services deficits. Another
result would be a better distribution of the burdens and bonuses arising from public
investments, as inequality and injustice are increasingly common marks in the field of Brazilian
and Australian environmental regulation.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial
holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior (CAPES) - Brazilian Government, University of São Paulo and University of
Canberra.

LITERATURE CITED

Agra Filho SS. 2009. The Environmental Impact Studies in Brazil: an analysis of its
effectiveness. (Os Estudos de impactos ambientais no Brasil: uma análise de sua
efetividade). Documento de Política, 3. Brasília: IPEA, 1993, 93 p.4 In: ROTHMAN,
Franklin Daniel et al.. Research Project: Interdisciplinary Analysis of Environmental
Impact Assessment - EIA - Environmental Licensing of Hydroelectric Power Plants in
the Mata Zone of Minas Gerais: scope and limitations. Viçosa: 1999. (Our Translation).
Arce-Gomez A, Donovan JD, Bedggood RE. 2015. Social impact assessments: Developing a
consolidated conceptual framework. Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne
University of Technology, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50. Australia. pp.
85–94.
Australian Government. 2013. Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and
actions by Commonwealth agencies. Significant impact guidelines 1.2. Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Commonwealth of
Australia. Jun. 33p.
Bergmann M. 1999. The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme: How did it Manage
Without an EIA? Discussion Paper nº. 60. Available from: https://openresearch-
repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41879/1/dp_60.html.
Brereton, D, Moran C, McIlwan G, Mcintosh J, Parkinson K. 2008. Assessing the Cumulative
Impacts of Mining on Regional Communities: An Exploratory Study of Coal Mining in
the Muswellbrook Area of New South Wales. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining,
Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry, and the Australian Coal Association Research.
Program. ACARP Project C14047.
Carolino AK. 2016. The place of social in environmental impact assessment: public regulation
in Brazil, theoretical advances and challenges for regional planning (Our Translation). (O
lugar do social na avaliação de impacto ambiental: regulação pública no Brasil, avanços
teóricos e desafios para o planejamento regional). Masters dissertation. University of São
Paulo. São Paulo, 2016. 280p. (Our Translation)
Elliott M. 2014. Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia: Theory and Practice,
Federation Press, Sydney. 6th edition. 348p.
Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal. 30:1, 34-42.
Franks DM, Brereton D, Moran, CJ, Sarker T, Cohen T. 2010. Cumulative Impacts - A Good
Practice Guide for the Australian Coal Mining Industry. Centre for Social Responsibility
in Mining & Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry, Sustainable Minerals Institute.
University of Queensland. Australian Coal Association Research Program. Brisbane.
28(4). pp 299–312.
Furtado J; Urias E. 2013. Natural resources and development: studies on the dynamizing
potential of mining in the Brazilian economy. (Recursos naturais e desenvolvimento:
estudos sobre o potencial dinamizador da mineração na economia brasileira). 1 ed. São
Paulo: Ed. dos Autores/ABRAM. (Our Translation)
Greiman V. 2014. Megaproject Research Paradigms: The Value of Empirical Evidence.
European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies,
pp.169-176.
Grafton RQ, Wheeler SA. 2018. Economics of Water Recovery in the Murray-Darling Basin,
Australia. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 10:487–510.
Harvey D. 2005. O Novo Imperialismo. 2. ed. São Paulo: Loyola.
Holley C. 2017. Environmental regulation and governance. Regulatory Theory: Foundations
and applications. ANU Press, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Howitt R. 1989. Social impact assessment and resource development: Issues from the
Australian experience. Australian Geographer 20(2): 153-166.
John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library. 2002. Populate or perish. War & peace. Rationing and
rebuilding. 1940’s life in Cottesloe, Western Australia. Available from:
http://john.curtin.edu.au/1940s/populate/.
Joyce, S, Macfarlane M. 2001. Social Impact Assessment in the Mining Industry: Current
Situation and Future Directions. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Lane M, Ross H, Dale A. 1997. Social impact research: Integrating the technical, political, and
planning paradigms'. Human Organization 56(3): 302-310.
Lima LLC. 2015. Socioeconomic impacts of the São Francisco River Basin Integration Project
(Impactos socioeconômicos do projeto de integração do rio São Francisco com bacias
hidrográficas do nordeste setentrional). Master Thesis in Business Administration.
Unifor. 97p. (Our translation).
Lockie S, Momtaz S, Taylor B. 1999. Meaning and the construction of social impacts: water
infrastructure development in Australia’s Gladstone/Calliope region. Rural Society, 9(3),
529–542.
Mcgrath C. 2016. Federal environmental laws consider direct and indirect impacts of an action.
Available from: http://envlaw.com.au/nathan-dam-case/
Mirra ÁLV. Environmental Impact - Aspects of Brazilian Legislation. (Impacto Ambiental –
Aspectos da Legislação Brasileira). 2ª Ed. São Paulo: Juarez de Oliveira. 2002. 108p.
(Our Translation)
O'Faircheallaigh C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment:
Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 30. 19–27.
O'Gorman E. 2009. 'Flood Country: Floods in the Murray and Darling River Systems, 1850 to
the Present.' PhD thesis. Australian National University.
______ .2010. Unnatural River, Unnatural Floods? Australian Humanities Review; Bundoora
Iss. 48. Available from:
<https://search.proquest.com/docview/608798519/F51BCCD486FD42A8PQ/1?accounti
d=28889>.
Oliveira CA. 2014. Environmental Competencies in the Brazilian Federation. (Competências
ambientais na federação brasileira). Revista de Direito da Cidade. Rio de Janeiro: UERJ,
v. 4, n. 2, p. 61-62. (Our translation)
Rothman FD. A Comparative Study of Dam-Resistance Campaigns and Environmental Policy
in Brazil. Journal of Environment & Development. Vol. 10, nº 4. December 2001 317-
344. Sage Publications.Saquet M. As diferentes abordagens do território e a apreensão
do movimento e da (i)materialidade. Geosul, Florianópolis, v. 22, n. 43, p 55-76, jan./jun.
2007.
Silva AC AB. 2017. The waters of the São Francisco River’s: disputes, conflicts and
representations of the rural world. (As águas do rio são francisco: disputas, conflitos e
representações do mundo rural). Doctoral thesis.. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Campinas, SP. (Our translation)
Sincovich A, Gregory Tess, Wilson A, Brinkman S. 2018. The social impacts of mining on
local communities in Australia. Rural Society, 02, Vol.27(1), p.18-34.
Snowy Hydro. 2019. The Snowy Mountains Scheme. Retrieved from:
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-energy/hydro/the-scheme/. Accessed 05 January
2019.
Syme G. 1991. Public involvement in Australian water resources decision making: A review
and prospectus. In Challenges for sustainable development: International hydrology and
water resources symposium, Vol 2. Perth: Institute of Engineers Australia.
Vanclay F. 2017. Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment risks
to an opportunity for development? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35:1, 3-21,
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1278671
______. 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess. 22:183–211.
Wanderley LJ. 2016. Invisibility and limitations in Environmental Impact Studies: technical
and political elements of the Mariana-MG disaster. (Invisibilização e limitações nos
Estudos de Impacto Ambiental: elementos técnicos e políticos do desastre em Mariana-
MG). Poemas Group Presentation: Politics, Economy, Mining, Environment and
Society.. UFJF: Juiz de Fora. Available from: <http://www.
cetem.gov.br/images/palestras/2015/mariana/14-luiz-jardim-wanderley.pdf >
Author names and affiliations:

Sousa, Lucas G. University of Canberra. arqlucasgomes@gmail.com (Corresponding author)

Lemckert, Charles: University of Canberra. Charles.Lemckert@canberra.edu.au

Zuquim, Maria de Lourdes. University of São Paulo. mlzuquim@gmail.com

Biography

Lucas Gomes de Sousa is an architect and urbanist, master’s in planning and management of the
Territory from the Federal University of ABC, PhD student in architecture and urbanism from the
University of São Paulo with research at the University of Canberra.

Charles Lemckert is a Professor of Engineering and Head of School - School of Engineering,

Mathematics and Statistics at University of Canberra. He is PhD, University of Western Australia and
he has over 25 years of experience in teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students. He has
developed a number of innovative teaching strategies.

Maria de Lourdes Zuquim is a Professor at School of architecture and Urbanism at University of São
Paulo. She is PhD in architecture and urbanism from University of São Paulo. She is a doctoral advisor
in the areas of concentration urban and Regional planning and Habitat. It is the scientific vice of
NAPPLAC Support Center for the research and language of the built environment.
Author photo

Lucas Gomes de Sousa

Charles Lemckert

Maria de Lourdes Zuquim