Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Practitioners Perceptions of The Brazilian Environmental Impact Assessment System Results From A Survey
Practitioners Perceptions of The Brazilian Environmental Impact Assessment System Results From A Survey
Carla Grigoletto Duarte, Ana Paula Alves Dibo, Juliana Siqueira-Gay & Luis
Enrique Sánchez
To cite this article: Carla Grigoletto Duarte, Ana Paula Alves Dibo, Juliana Siqueira-Gay &
Luis Enrique Sánchez (2017) Practitioners’ perceptions of the Brazilian environmental impact
assessment system: results from a survey, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35:4,
293-309, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2017.1322813
• Environmental agencies: government departments The questionnaire featured both multiple choice and
responsible for managing the EIA process and issu- open-ended questions, wherein the respondents were
ing environmental licenses. free to add any comments at the end of each section.
• Civil Society Organizations (CSO): nonprofit, vol- The survey contained 44 questions in its three sections.
untary citizens-based groups independent of In addition, nine questions aimed at capturing the
governments. These organizations are oriented respondent’s professional involvement with EIA: the
and driven by people with common interest, to environmental agency he or she is more familiar with;
serve specific social or political purposes, as those the types of project he or she is more familiar with;
related to human rights, environment, health, and number of cases the respondent knows in detail; years
others. of experience and group (out of the above-mentioned
• Consultancy firms: responsible for preparing the six practitioner groups) the respondent currently works;
environmental studies and related documents in in which groups he or she has worked in the past and
the licensing process. what city he or she is based in. The full questionnaire is
• Proponents: project proponents responsible for all presented as an Appendix of this paper.
expenses and costs for the EIA process. An early version was tested by inviting seven profes-
• Public Ministry (Prosecutor’s Office): an autonomous sionals to fill in the questionnaire. They were asked not
public entity whose mission is to defend collec- only to provide answers to all questions, but also to com-
tive interests and rights and entitled to litigate on ment about the clarity of questions and the adequacy
behalf of public interest, both at federal and state of answers scale. The questionnaire was revised after
level. It carries on civil inquiries and files a special considering their feedback.
kind of lawsuit known as public civil action, aiming Results were analyzed by describing percentages
at defending the environment, the rights of minor- of responses to each multiple-choice question, firstly
ities such as indigenous communities and other by all respondents and then by each one of the above-
‘diffuse and collective interests’. Both civil enquir- mentioned groups, in order to explore different percep-
ies and lawsuits often result in settlements named tions according to the position of the respondents in
‘Conduct Adjustment Agreements’. the group of practitioners. Open-ended questions were
• Research institutions: Universities and research individually interpreted and excerpts were extracted to
institutes were included in this category. illustrate an argument that we judged as relevant for the
purpose of the survey.
The questionnaire features an Introduction stating its
aims and asking for collaboration and contains three
main sections (Appendix): 4. Results
• The first section enquired about respondent’s level A total of 414 respondents from 24 federative units (i.e.
of agreement (using a five level Likert scale) with states and the Federal District) and from all target groups
statements about current practice of EIS prepara- completed the survey, as shown in Figure 1. A majority of
tion. It featured 14 questions about EIS, two ques- respondents are from the three largest states (São Paulo,
tions about time typically required to develop and Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro), where most EIAs are
review an EIS and two questions about costs. conducted, and from the federal capital, Brasília. The
• The second section (with 14 questions) focused respondents’ profile is shown in Figure 2.
on the main steps of the EIA process (Box 1) asking The participants were asked to indicate which types
questions sourced in findings from audits about of projects they were familiar with, being the four most
procedural and technical aspects of EIA, mostly at popular: hydropower, mining, highway/railway and power
the federal level (MPF 2004; TCU 2009) and in aca- line. As for their current sector of professional practice, 34%
demic research (Montaño & Souza 2015; Duarte et are working for EIA agencies, 31% for consultancy firms,
al. 2017). and 23% are at research institutes or Universities. Total
• The third section (with 12 questions) addressed exceeds 100% because some respondents have double
a number of proposals to change EIA legislation, affiliation, e.g. University and consultancy. To gauge the
collected mostly from draft bills and recent public experience with EIA, it was asked for how many years the
debates. The review of three documented propos- respondents have been involved – those featuring less
als conducted by Fonseca et al. (2017), as well as than 10 years make 59% of respondents and those with
discussions held at the October 2014 Conference more than 10 years 41%. It is interesting to note, in Figure
of the Brazilian Association for Impact Assessment 2, the differences regarding respondents’ experience. While
(Ouro Preto) and meetings organized by the Public it could be expected that professionals with fewer years
Ministry (especially the Seminar Licenciamento of experience would be engaged in a smaller number of
Ambiental: Realidades e Perspectivas – Brasília, cases, the question about number of EIA cases known in
November 2015) were also sources of the ques- detail helps to identify different profiles, including experi-
tions included in this section. enced professionals with minor involvement in EIA cases.
296 C. G. DUARTE ET AL.
Total of participants
6 - 10
11 - 40
41 - 80
> 81
Figure 1. Survey respondents in each state and their distribution per professional segment.
Right at the beginning of the questionnaire, the Breaking the answers by sector of professional prac-
respondents were asked to inform which EIA agencies tice, 80% of respondents from EIA agencies think that
they know best. This is because Brazil has a federal agency, consideration of guidelines from other planning instru-
state agencies in 26 states and in the Federal District, as ments is unsatisfactory, while the best performance is
well as in some municipalities. The Federal Agency was assigned to the quality of the technical advice for EIA
cited by 74% of the participants, followed by the State EIA review, summing 68%, substantially above the overall
agencies from São Paulo (33%), Minas Gerais (25%), Rio average. It is interesting to note that the opinion about
de Janeiro (17%) and Paraná (13%), while 4% mentioned the quality of ToR is split: unsatisfactory for 50% of
having international experience. respondents and satisfactory for 46%. In the consult-
ants’ view, participation of other government agencies
(80%) and public participation during EIS development
4.1. The quality of the EIA process
(72%) are the two worst performed practices, while the
Fourteen questions addressed the steps of the EIA pro- adequacy of screening rules (62%) is the best, having no
cess (Figure 3(a)). The best performed step is screening, other practice where positive opinions surpass negative
whose rules are perceived as satisfactory or fully satisfac- opinions. Even the quality of EIS is viewed as unsatisfac-
tory by 58% of the respondents. The second-best result tory by 57% of consultants while 42% express positive
was found for the quality of review performed by the EIA opinions. For researchers, the recognition of lessons
agencies, but respondents are split, as it is considered as learned into new processes is the worst practice (87%),
satisfactory by 48% and as unsatisfactory by 48% too. and adequacy of screening rules scores the best result
There is a predominance of poor evaluation – five but with a lower percentage than the average for all
questions achieved above 70% of unsatisfactory results – respondents (57%).
for the following: effective implementation of mitigation Proponents have no case of satisfactory opinion sur-
(environmental management programs) (77%), participa- passing the number of negative ones. The three worst
tion of other government agencies (77%), public partic- practices from this group are: recognition of lessons
ipation during EIS development (76%), consideration in learned (81%), adequacy of participation of the Public
the EIS of guidelines established by other planning instru- Ministry (75%), and participation of other government
ments (74%), and recognition of lessons learned (73%). agencies (75%).
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 297
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Figure 2. Characteristics of the survey’s respondents (n = 414). (a) Types of projects, (b) Current and past experience sectors, (c)
Experience in years, (d) Experience in number of cases known in detail, and (e) Experience in years and experience in number cases
known in detail.
Even in the view of the Public Ministry’s respondents, 64% of respondents and are responsible, respectively, to
adequacy of participation of Public Ministry in the EIA prepare and to review the EIS – are presented in Figure
process is not satisfactory (50% unsatisfactory, 41% 3(b). The most significant divergence is found for opin-
satisfactory). This group reached the highest mark of ions about the overall quality of the technical advice
unsatisfactory results in two practices: 91% believe that issued by environmental agencies, which is satisfactory
public participation during EIS development and consid- for 68% of environmental agency respondents while it
eration of guidelines from other planning instruments is satisfactory for 37% of consultants. Quality of ToR and
are unsatisfactory. EIS present meaningful divergences too: while 28% of
CSO’s reached the highest levels of unsatisfactory consultants are satisfied with ToR and 42% with EISs;
opinions in two questions among all the groups of 46% of respondents working for environmental agen-
respondents: 92% for the consideration of guidelines cies are satisfied with ToR, but only 23% are satisfied
from other planning instruments and effective imple- with EISs.
mentation/operation of environmental programs. As for Apart from screening (question 1) and the EIS (ques-
the best practice, 61% agree that adequacy of participa- tion 11), all questions hit a few ‘this practice should be
tion of Public Ministry is satisfactory. suppressed’ responses. Such opinion is largely minority,
Answers of the two major groups – consultancy firms the highest rejection being related to the involvement
and environmental agencies, who together make up of the Prosecutor’s Office (5% of respondents).
298 C. G. DUARTE ET AL.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10
11
12
13
14
Two questions aimed at gauging practitioners’ per- from CSOs. Even a majority of consultants (40%) believe
ception about the adequacy of EIA time frames. Overall, that costs are usually high. The fees paid by proponents
40% believe that the time used for developing an EIS is are considered adequate for 34% of all respondents.
shorter than necessary, while 38% think it is adequate, When the answers are broken down by sector, opinions
and 13% think it is longer than necessary. When bro- are split for most groups.
ken down by category (Figure 4), the most frequent
response from respondents in consultancy firms, CSOs,
4.2. The quality of the environmental impact
Public Ministry and research institutions is that the time
study
is shorter than necessary, while most respondents work-
ing for EIA agencies and proponents think the time is Asked about how satisfactory were the contents of EIS,
adequate. 71% of respondents ranked project description as the
Time for EIS review is appreciated differently. For 41% best (Figure 6(a)). Analysis of impacts on the physical
of respondents, it is longer than necessary, while 29% environment (47%), the quality of baseline (45%), and
think it is shorter than necessary and, for 24%, it is ade- reliability of data collection and analysis (43%) also
quate. A majority of consultants (61%) and proponents appear among the best performed tasks.
(71%) answered that time is longer than necessary. In In contrast, analysis of cumulative and synergistic
the view of respondents from EIA agencies, it is either impacts is considered unsatisfactory by 34% and very
adequate (41%) or shorter (40%) than necessary, while unsatisfactory by 43%, while 4% indicated this analysis
most respondents from CSOs (54%) think it is shorter. should be ruled out of the EIS. Other poorly evaluated
As for costs (Figure 5), 44% answered that EIS devel- practices are determination of significant impacts (71%),
opment is expensive, opinion of 75% of proponents, 47% proper use of baseline for impact analysis and mitiga-
of respondents from environmental agencies, and 46% tion proposals (66%) and the adequate proposition of
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 299
12
20%
4 4.3. Proposals to change the EIA system
10%
0%
Among 12 proposals, 7 were recognized as having
potential to highly contribute to improve the EIA system
11 5 (Figure 8): adopting Strategic Environmental Assessment
(73%); developing technical guidelines/handbooks for
EIA (72%); increasing the requirements of connecting EIA
10 6
to other planning tools (70%); increasing the participa-
tion of the scientific community in cases of high com-
9 7
plexity (62%); improving the requirements for analysis of
8
location alternatives (59%); developing brief informative
Consultancy firms Environmental agencies
documents to spread concepts and methods (57%); and
Figure 3b. Opinions of practitioners from consultancy firms expanding opportunities for public participation in the
and environmental agencies about quality of the EIA process preparation of ToR (56%).
(percentage) (n = 266). Two proposals were considered as undesirable: elimi-
nating the need of public hearings in all EIA process (63%
of respondents), and decentralizing EIA and licensing,
mitigation actions and environmental management by transferring decision-making to municipalities (40%).
programs (63%).
Besides the consideration of cumulative impacts,
5. Discussion
other practices that, according to some respondents,
should be suppressed are the study of location alter- The survey included participants mostly from southeast,
natives (2.4%) and of technological alternatives (3.1%). south, northeast and central west of the country, a major-
These practices were evaluated as poorly performed by ity of them currently practicing as environmental agen-
62 and 60% of respondents, respectively. cies staff (34%), consultants (31%) and researchers (23%).
Comparing the opinion of two major groups – consul- It is noteworthy that 97 respondents identified them-
tancy firms and environmental agencies – the sharpest selves as working in research area; despite the small
divergence is found for the reliability of data collec- number of groups dedicated to the systematic research
tion and analysis, which is considered satisfactory by in Impact Assessment in Brazil identified by Montaño
only 35% of environmental agency respondents, while and Souza (2015). This result suggests a growing interest
300 C. G. DUARTE ET AL.
80%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Environmental Consultancy CSOs Proponents Public Ministry Research Others Overall Average
agencies firms institutions
Generally shorter than necessary Generally adequate Generally longer than necessary I prefer not to give my opinion
80%
70%
Percentage of participation
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Environmental Consultancy CSOs Proponents Public Ministry Research Others Overall Average
agencies firms institutions
Generally shorter than necessary Generally adequate Generally longer than necessary I prefer not to give my opinion
Figure 4. Practitioners perception about time demanded for (a) EIS development and (b) EIS review.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 5. Practitioner’s perception about the costs involved in EIA. (a) Adequacy of the total cost to develop an EIS, (b) Adequacy of
fees charged by the environmental agencies, (c) Costs for EIS development by sector, and (d) Fees charged by the environmental
agencies.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 301
in Impact Assessment as a research field, also shown by dependent on complaints … they should be frequent to
Duarte et al. (2017). enforce environmental [management] programs (R402,
Comparing the most frequently mentioned prob- currently working for a consultancy). Perception that
lems of the EIA process (>73% agreement among effective implementation of environmental programs
respondents) to the scientific literature, both align- is poor is supported by findings from do Prado Filho
ments and divergence can be identified. In relation and de Souza (2004), Fabri et al. (2008), Massoli and
to the follow-up phase, several respondents point out Borges (2014), although the literature also reports
negative opinions, such as environmental agencies are good practices (Sánchez & Gallardo 2005; Gallardo et
very distant from the projects during the implementation al. 2016).
of environmental programs (R152, from both research On the other hand, the involvement of other govern-
institution and consultancy); the quality of the pro- ment agencies and the consideration in the EIS of guide-
posals of the environmental [management] programs lines established by other planning instruments, viewed
is generally low, as well as the effectiveness of their as topics of poor practice, did not deserve much atten-
implementation (R346, currently working for a consul- tion from researchers (Vilani & Machado 2010; Fearnside
tancy); and the inspections should be random and not & Laurance 2012).
302 C. G. DUARTE ET AL.
(a)
(b)
Figure 8. Practitioners perception about proposals to change the Brazilian EIA process (n = 414).
organization, but there is scarce utilization of critical satisfactory – for comparison, the percentage of all
evaluations such as after-action reviews. respondents similarly rating the quality of such advice
Considering the answers about quality of the EIA pro- is 48%.
cess, we could expect that practitioners from different In the consultants’ view, the participation of other
sectors would associate the unsatisfactory aspects to government agencies in the process is the worst prac-
tasks which are under responsibility of others, but this tice (80%). However, consultants are critical of their own
is not a rule. Contrasting the opinions of respondents performance: 56% of respondents in this group think the
currently working for EIA agencies with those working overall quality of EIS is unsatisfactory (41% believe the
for consultancy firms, it can be noted that: (i) for 80% of quality is satisfactory), while 72% indicated public partic-
respondents from EIA agencies, consultants do not per- ipation during EIS development as unsatisfactory.
form a good job in considering the guidelines of other In terms of EIS quality, a vast majority of respondents
planning instruments; (ii) for 68% of respondents from understand that addressing cumulative and synergistic
consultancy, the quality of the technical advice issued impacts is a very poor practice (Figure 6). It is exempli-
by environmental agencies is satisfactory or completely fied by one free comment: currently, it is very difficult to
304 C. G. DUARTE ET AL.
access data and information relating to colocalized projects Results show a predominant negative perception
that influence the results of impact analysis (R152, from about the quality of both the process and the EIS.
research and consultancy), as for a proper assessment Regarding the EIA process, positive opinions were
of cumulative impacts it is necessary to consider other obtained only for screening, perceived as satisfactory
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activi- or fully satisfactory by 58% of the respondents. The
ties that affect environmental components. This state- review performed by environmental agencies reached
ment coincides with findings of Neri et al. (2016) about the second highest score, but the opinion of respondents
access to information in conducting cumulative impact is split, with 48% considering the quality of such reviews
assessment in Minas Gerais state and is related to the as satisfactory and an equal percentage as unsatisfactory.
perception of most respondents who consider that the Regarding the EIS, the poorest practices are the consider-
availability and accessibility of reports and documents ation of cumulative impacts and determination of impact
in the environmental licensing process – with data and significance.
information that could be used in other projects – are One important finding is that a vast majority of prac-
unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory (Figure 3, question titioners consider that lessons learned in professional
7). Hence, there is urgent need of revamping electronic practice are poorly fed back in future assessments, e.g.
repositories and searching mechanisms not only in order into new ToR and the preparation of other EISs. This is a
to facilitate document retrieval, but also in terms of qual- matter of concern, as improvements in practice depend
ity of information. Since information and knowledge cre- on learning by all participants (Sánchez & Mitchell 2017)
ated in the EIA process can improve its efficiency and and learning is being considered in the literature as an
effectiveness (Sánchez & André 2013), the assessment important component of an effective EIA system (Bond
of cumulative impacts would benefit from initiatives et al. 2013). If learned lessons are not used to improve
by environmental agencies and project proponents both efficiency and effectiveness by practitioners them-
of better managing data, information, and knowledge selves, then outside pressures to streamline the EIA sys-
(Sánchez 2012). tem are more likely to result in unwelcome changes.
Figure 6 show that only 1 out of 14 topics of EIS quality While there is a negative perception on several topics
reached more than 50% of satisfactory responses, ech- related to EIS quality, most respondents agree that the
oing criticism in the literature (e.g. Montaño et al. 2014) time usually available to develop an EIS is generally ade-
about the poor quality of EIA documents, despite one quate or shorter than necessary while costs are usually
research identifying improvements over time (Landim high. This perception is in contrast with arguments usu-
& Sánchez 2012). ally advanced to pressure for streamlining EIA. Among
Regarding possible changes, four proposals were respondents, it is interesting to notice that even among
rejected by more than 40% of respondents. Three of the those currently working for proponents, only 27%
four most rejected proposals are specific of the Brazilian believe that this time is generally longer than necessary.
EIA system (public hearings for all EIAs, three-phase In contrast, time needed to review an EIS is viewed as
licensing, and a centralized system). Respondents largely too long by most respondents within proponents and
agree that these characteristics should not be changed. consultants.
The fourth most rejected proposal – adopting special As for the proposals to change the system, the results
rules for infrastructure projects labelled as public util- reveal that respondents believe that many of them can
ity or social interest – was probably interpreted as fast improve EIA practice. Three reform proposals are not wel-
tracking environmental licensing, a highly controversial come by the respondents, i.e. revoking: (i) mandatory pub-
topic in the current political debate about reforming EIA. lic hearings for all EIAs; (ii) the three-phase licensing; and
Benefits would be obtained by incremental changes (iii) the centralized system in state and federal institutions.
not requiring legal reform, like the development of tech- The most accepted proposed changes include: (i) devel-
nical guides, as current guidance is focused only on the oping technical guidance; (ii) increasing requirements for
administrative steps. Fortunately, this is already part of alternatives comparison and for linking EIA with other
the plans of two institutions – IBAMA and the São Paulo planning tools; (iii) adopting Strategic Environmental
state agency (DAIA/CETESB 2015; IBAMA 2016). Assessment; and (iv) increasing public participation
during scoping, proposals supported by nearly 90% of
the respondents. However, current political pressure for
6. Conclusions
changing the Brazilian EIA system (Fonseca et al. 2017)
Through a survey, our research examined practitioners’ does not converge with the understanding of practition-
perceptions of the Brazilian EIA system. This survey helps ers, as bills under discussion in the National Congress
to understand positive and negative aspects of EIA prac- include several elements aiming to streamline the process,
tice in Brazil, as well as how a number of proposals for e.g. by skipping the need of conducting public hearings,
change are perceived. by eliminating three-phase licensing and establishing
A total of 414 respondents answered questions about tighter timelines for EIS review (Fearnside 2016; Tollefson
the EIA process, the content of EISs, and selected propos- 2016). Essentially, practitioners are calling for incremen-
als to improve or to change current practice. tal changes that do not require any modification in the
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 305
legislation. An example of efficiency-oriented incremental Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F, Gunn JAE. 2014.
improvement is setting up searchable electronic reposi- Impact assessment: eroding benefits through streamlining?
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 45:46–53.
tories of EIA information and documents.
Borioni R, Gallardo ALFG, Sánchez LE. 2017. Advancing
Each one of the 44 questions of this survey may scoping practice in environmental impact assessment: an
unfold into research to explore strengths, achievements, examination of the Brazilian federal system. Impact Assess
weaknesses, failures, opportunities, and risks for EIA in Project Apprais. 35:1–14.
Brazil. Thus, research of other nature, such as documen- Costanzo BP, Sánchez LE. 2014. Gestão do conhecimento
tal analysis and case studies detailing the issues raised em empresas de consultoria ambiental [Knowledge
management in environmental consulting firms].
are welcome to confirm or deny the perception of the
Production. 24:742–759. Portuguese.
respondents of this questionnaire. [DAIA/CETESB] Departamento de Avaliação de Impacto
EIA systems all over the world have a number of com- Ambiental/Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São
mon characteristics alongside context-specific features. Paulo. 2015. Manual para Elaboração de Estudos para
While literature and international experience are impor- o Licenciamento com Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental
[Guideline for the preparation of studies for the licensing
tant references when discussing possible ways to reform
with environmental impact assessment] [Internet]. São
EIA, the perception of practitioners is irreplaceable to Paulo: Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo; [cited
understand how a system works in practice and how 2016 Aug 18]. Available from: http://licenciamento.cetesb.
could it be affected by proposed changes. Many differ- sp.gov.br/cetesb/documentos/Manual-DD-217-14.pdf
ent proposals are under discussion by lawmakers at the Devlin J, Tubino DI. 2012. Contention, participation, and
national level, and we hope the results presented here mobilization in environmental assessment follow-up: the
Itabira experience. Sustainability Sci Pract Policy. 8:106–115.
can be used as inputs in discussions about the future of
Devlin JF, Yap NT. 2008. Contentious politics in environmental
EIA in Brazil, as well as inspire new research in this context. assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact
Assess Proj Apprais. 26:17–27.
do Prado Filho JF, de Souza MP. 2004. O licenciamento ambiental
Acknowledgments da mineração no Quadrilátero Ferrífero de Minas Gerais: uma
The first author thanks the São Paulo Research Foundation análise da implementação de medidas de controle ambiental
(FAPESP) for supporting her postdoctoral research. The formuladas em EIAs/RIMAs [Mining environmental licensing
second and third authors thanks the Coordination for the in the Quadrilátero Ferrífero of Minas Gerais state – analysis
Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for sup- of the implementation of environmental control measures
porting respectively their PhD and Master research. indicated in EIAs/RIMAs]. Eng Sanit e Ambient. 9:343–349.
Portuguese.
Duarte CG, Dibo APA, Sánchez LE. 2017. What does the academic
Disclosure statement research say about impact assessment and environmental
licensing in Brazil?. Ambient e Soc. 20:261–292.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Duarte CG, Ferreira VH, Sánchez LE. 2016. Analisando audiências
públicas no licenciamento ambiental: quem são e o que
dizem os participantes sobre projetos de usinas de cana-
Funding de-açúcar [Analyzing public hearings in environmental
This work was supported by the São Paulo Research licensing: who are and what say the participants about
Foundation (FAPESP) [grant 2013/04285-0]. sugarcane mill projects]. Saude Soc [online]. 25:1075–1094.
Portuguese.
Fabri ÉS, Carneiro MA, Leite MGP. 2008. Diagnóstico dos
ORCID processos de licenciamento e fiscalização das pedreiras
de rochas ornamentais na regiãocentro-sul de Minas
Carla Grigoletto Duarte http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2129- Gerais [Baseline of licensing and supervision processes of
7117 dimension stone quarries in the south-central region of
Ana Paula Alves Dibo http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2201-9354 Minas Gerais]. Rem Rev Esc Minas. 61:279–284. Portuguese.
Juliana Siqueira-Gay http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7930-9806 Fearnside PM. 2016. Brazilian politics threaten environmental
Luis Enrique Sánchez http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6779-8481 policies. Science. 353:746–748.
Fearnside PM, Laurance WF. 2012. Infraestrutura na Amazônia:
As lições dos planos plurianuais [Infrastructure in Amazonia:
References lessons from Brazil’s pluri-annual plans]. Cad CRH. 25:87–98.
Portuguese.
Alonso A, Costa V. 2004. The dynamics of public hearings for
Fonseca A, Sánchez LE, Ribeiro JCJ. 2017. Reforming EIA
environmental licensing: the case of the São Paulo ring road.
systems: a critical review of proposals in Brazil. Environ
IDS Bull. 35:49–57.
Impact Assess Rev. 62:90–97.
Arts J, Runhaar HAC, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, Van Laerhoven
Gallardo ALCF, Aguiar AO, Sánchez LE. 2016. Linking
F, Driessen PPJ, Onyango V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA
environmental assessment and management of highway
as an instrument for environmental governance: reflecting
construction in southeastern Brazil. J Environ Assess Policy
on 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. J
Manage. 18:1650002.
Environ Assess Policy Manage. 14:1250025.
Gibson RB. 2012. In full retreat: the Canadian government’s new
Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R. 2013. Framework
environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress.
for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment
Impact Assess Project Apprais. 30:179–188.
practices. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors.
Gumley W. 2015. Has environmental impact assessment
Sustainability assessment: pluralism, practice and progress.
(EIA) lost credibility? Recent concerns from Australia and
London: Routledge; p. 117–131.
306 C. G. DUARTE ET AL.
Canada. In: Martin P, Kennedy A, editors. Implementing Neri AC, Dupin P, Sánchez LE. 2016. A pressure–state–response
environmental law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; approach to cumulative impact assessment. J Cleaner Prod.
p. 91–117. 126:288–298.
Hayes N, Morrison-Saunders A. 2007. Effectiveness of Pereira GS, Conto SM. 2014. Public participation in
environmental offsets in environmental impact assessment: environmental impact assessment (EIA) and major sports
practitioner perspectives from Western Australia. Impact events: a comparative analysis of the London 2012 Olympic
Assess Project Apprais. 25:209–218. Games and the Rio 2007 Pan American games. Rosa dos Vent
Hochstetler K. 2011. The politics of environmental licensing: - Tur e Hosp. 6:488–507.
energy projects of the past and future in Brazil. Stud Comp Rothman FD. 2001. A comparative study of dam-resistance
Int Dev. 46:349–371. campaigns and environmental policy in Brazil. J Environ
[IBAMA] Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Dev. 10:317–344.
Naturais Renováveis. 2016. Avaliação de impacto ambiental: Runhaar H, van Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Arts J. 2013.
caminhos para o fortalecimento do Licenciamento Environmental assessment in the Netherlands: effectively
Ambiental Federal: Sumário Executivo [Environmental governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis.
impact assessment: ways to strengthen the federal Environ Impact Assess Rev. 39:13–25.
environmental licensing: executive summary] [Internet]. Sánchez LE. 2012. Information and knowledge management.
Brasília (Brazil): Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos In: Perdicoúlis A, Durning B, Palframan L, editors. Furthering
Recursos Naturais Renováveis; [cited 2016 Aug 10]. Available environmental impact assessment – towards a seamless
from: http://www.ibama.gov.br/phocadownload/noticias/ connection between EIA and EMS. Cheltenham: Edward
noticias2016/resumo_executivo.pdf Elgar Publishing; p. 19–38.
Jaichand V, Sampaio AA. 2013. Dam and be damned: the Sánchez LE. 2013. Development of environmental impact
adverse impacts of Belo Monte on indigenous peoples in assessment in Brazil. UVP Rep. 27:193–200.
Brazil. Hum Rights Q. 35:408–447. Sánchez LE. 2014. From neighbors to future generations: we are
Kågström M. 2016. Between ‘best’ and ‘good enough’: how all together! On integration in impact assessment practice.
consultants guide quality in environmental assessment. Impact Assess Project Apprais. 32:14–16.
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 60:169–175. Sánchez LE, André P. 2013. Knowledge management in
Kirchhoff D, Tsuji LJS. 2014. Reading between the lines of environmental impact assessment agencies: a study
the ‘Responsible Resource Development’ rhetoric: the use in Québec, Canada. J Environ Assess Policy Manage.
of omnibus bills to ‘streamline’ Canadian environmental 15:1350015.
legislation. Impact Assess Project Apprais. 32:108–120. Sánchez LE, Gallardo ALCF. 2005. On the successful
Landim SNT, Sánchez LE. 2012. The contents and scope of implementation of mitigation measures. Impact Assess
environmental impact statements: how do they evolve over Project Apprais. 23:192–190.
time? Impact Assess Project Apprais. 30:217–228. Sánchez LE, Mitchell R. 2017. Conceptualizing impact
Massoli EC, Borges FQ. 2014. Análise das externalidades geradas assessment as a learning process. Environ Impact Assess
pela Usina Hidrelétrica de Estreito (MA) e o processo de Rev. 62:195–204.
desenvolvimento [Analysis of the hydroeletric power plant Souza AN, Jacobi PR. 2011. Licenciamento ambiental e
externalities generated by Estreito and the development ampliação da cidadania: o caso da hidrelétrica de Tijuco
process]. Desenvolv em Questão. 12:251–278. Portuguese. Alto [Environmental licensing and citizenship increasing:
Matland R. 1995. Synthesising the implementation literature: the Tijuco Alto hydroeletric case]. Organ Soc. 18:245–263.
the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. J Portuguese.
Public Adm Res Theory. 5:145–174. [TCU] Tribunal de Contas da União. 2009. Relatório de
McCormick S. 2007. The governance of hydro-electric dams in Levantamento de Auditoria – Fiscobras 2009 Auditoria no
Brazil. J Lat Am Stud. 39:227–261. IBAMA [Report of audit survey – Fiscobras 2009. Audit at IBAMA]
Montaño M, Carvalho AF, Gomes CS, Polaz CNMP, Jordão CO, [Internet]. Brasília (Brazil): Tribunal de Contas da União; [cited
Souza MP. 2014. Revisão da qualidade de estudos de impacto 2016 Aug 8]. Available from: http://www.tcu.gov.br/Consultas/
ambiental de pequenas centrais hidrelétricas [Quality review Juris/Docs/judoc%5CAcord%5C20100521%5CAC_
of environmental impact statements applied to small 0968_14_10_P.doc
hydropower plants]. Holos Environ. 14:1–14. Portuguese. Tollefson J. 2016. Political upheaval threatens Brazil’s
Montaño M, Souza MP. 2015. Impact assessment research in environmental protections. Nature. 539:147–148.
Brazil: achievements, gaps and future directions. J Environ Toro J, Requena I, Zamorano M. 2010. Environmental impact
Assess Policy Manage. 17:1550009. assessment in Colombia: critical analysis and proposals for
Morgan RK, Hart A, Freeman C, Coutts B, Colwill D, Hughes A. improvement. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30:247–261.
2012. Practitioners, professional cultures, and perceptions Vilani RM, Machado CJS. 2010. A competência da união para a
of impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 32:11–24. elaboração de “plano nacional das atividades de exploração
Morrison-Saunders A, Annandale D, Cappelluti J. 2001. de petróleo e gás natural” no Brasil [The competence of the
Practitioner perspectives on what influences EIA quality. confederation to elaborate the ‘national plan for petroleum
Impact Assess Project Apprais. 19:321–325. and natural gas exploration activities’ in Brazil]. Ambient Soc.
Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Gunn JAE, Bond A, Retief F. 2014. 13:187–206. Portuguese.
Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and Waldeck S, Morrison-Saunders A, Annandale D. 2003.
focus. Impact Assess Project Apprais. 32:1–12. Effectiveness of non-legal EIA guidance from the perspective
[MPF] Ministério Público Federal. 2004. Deficiências em of consultants in western Australia. Impact Assess Project
Estudos de Impacto Ambiental: síntese de uma experiência Apprais. 21:251–256.
[Deficiences in environmental impact statements: synthesis Zambão B. 2014. Brazil’s launch of lender environmental liability
of an experience] [Internet]. Brasília (Brazil): Ministério as a tool to manage environmental impacts. Univ Miami Int
Público Federal/4ª Câmara de Coordenação e Revisão; Comp Law Rev. 18:48–103.
Escola Superior do Ministério Público; [cited 2016 Aug 10]. Zhouri A, Oliveira R. 2012. Development and environmental
Available from: http://www.em.ufop.br/ceamb/petamb/ conflicts in Brazil: challenges for anthropology and
cariboost_files/deficiencia_dos_eias.pdf anthropologists. Vibrant Virtual Braz Anthropol. 9:181–208.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 307
Appendix: Questionnaire
General information about the respondent
(2) To answer this questionnaire, keep in mind the environmental agency you know better. Please inform us which one (or
more, if applicable):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part I – Quality of the environmental impact study
(3) How do you consider current practice in the Brazilian EIA process for the following topics:
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Location alternatives
2 Technological alternatives
3 Clarity in the description of the project
4 Quality of baseline
5 Baseline focus (sufficient detail on significant issues)
6 Use of baseline data for impact analysis and mitigation proposals
7 Identification, assessment and mitigation of impacts on the physical environment
8 Identification, assessment and mitigation of impacts on the biotic environment
9 Identification, assessment and mitigation of impacts on the socio-economic environment
10 Identification, assessment and mitigation of cumulative and synergistic impacts
11 Clarity in determining significant impacts
12 Connection between mitigation proposals and environmental management programs
13 Reliability of data collection and analysis presented in the EIS
14 Adequacy of the Non-Technical Summary as a document for discussions with society
Key
(1) Completely satisfactory, requires no changes
(2) Satisfactory, but could be improved with incremental changes
(3) Unsatisfactory, requires major changes
(4) Very unsatisfactory, it needs to be completely changed
(5) This practice should be suppressed
(6) I prefer not to give my opinion
(6) How do you consider current practice in the Brazilian EIA process as related to the following topics:
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Sufficiency of the rules that define which projects require EIA (complete studies)
2 Effective implementation of environmental management programs
3 Adequacy of the participation of other government agencies (beyond the competent authority)
4 Adequacy of the participation of the Public Prosecutor's Office
5 Public hearing as an adequate mechanism for society's participation (is mandatory)
6 Public participation during EIS elaboration
7 Public access to reports and documents related to EIA
8 Recognition of lessons learned into new processes (ToR, EIS)
9 Consideration in the EIS of guidelines of other planning instruments, such as zoning, management plans and
river basin plans
10 Overall quality of the Terms of Reference
11 Overall quality of the EISs
12 Overall quality of the Non-Technical EIS Summary
13 Overall quality of the technical advice issued by environmental agencies
14 Overall quality of the studies and reports submitted after EIS approval (monitoring reports, compliance reports,
etc)
Key
(1) Completely satisfactory, requires no changes
(2) Satisfactory, but could be improved with incremental changes
(3) Unsatisfactory, requires major changes
(4) Very unsatisfactory, it needs to be completely changed
(5) This practice should be suppressed
(6) I prefer not give my opinion
(7) In your opinion, how the following proposals could influence the Brazilian EIA process?
1 2 3 4 5
1 Prepare technical guidance about methods and procedures for EIA, including alternatives comparison, evaluation of
significance and public participation
2 Develop brief informational materials to explore important concepts such as significance, cumulative impacts and
mitigation
3 Increase requirements for alternative development and comparison
4 Promote decentralization of environmental licensing
5 Adopt special rules for assessing the impacts of public utility and social interest infrastructure projects
6 Increase requirements for linking EIA with other planning instruments (such as zoning, watershed plans, etc)
7 Adopt Strategic Environmental Assessment for the sectors with the highest EIA demand
8 Require certification / accreditation of EIS coordinators
9 Modify the current three-phase licensing for a model with two or a single phase
10 Increase participation during scoping stage (elaboration of Terms of Reference)
11 Eliminate the requirement for public hearings in all EIA processes
12 Increase the participation of the scientific community in the preparation of technical reports in cases of high complexity
Key
(1) It would bring great benefit
(2) It would bring little benefit
(3) It would result in some prejudice
(4) It would result in great prejudice
(5) I prefer not to give my opinion
Do you have any other comments on these proposals or do you believe that any of them would prejudice the EIA process?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Profile of the respondent
(8) For how many years have you been involved with the EIA system?
[ ] Up to 5 years
[ ] 5 to 10 years
[ ] 10 to 20 years
[ ] More than 20 years
[ ] 4 to 15 cases
[ ] 16 to 30 cases
[ ] More than 30 cases
(11) Have you participated of any EIA event in the last 3 years? (seminar, congress, course?)
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
If yes, please inform at least one:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(13) In which of the following sector(s) did you work in the past?
[ ] Environmental agencies
[ ] Consultancy firms
[ ] CSOs
[ ] Proponents
[ ] Public Ministry
[ ] Research institutions
[ ] Others
Others (Specify)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________