IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i12p3235-d239046.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Manufacturing Pre-Decisions: A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Reviews in Brazil and Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Fan Rocha

    (Graduate Program in Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto 35400-000, Brazil
    CENSE—Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, 2829-516 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Tomás B. Ramos

    (CENSE—Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, 2829-516 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Alberto Fonseca

    (Graduate Program in Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto 35400-000, Brazil)

Abstract

The review of environmental impact statements (EIS), despite its relevance to impact assessment effectiveness, has received scarce scholarly attention. Few studies have gone beyond the realm of regulatory evaluations to understand the managerial meanders of the review process. This study evaluated the responsibilities, procedures, information inputs, and scope of EIS reviews within two environmental authorities: APA (Portuguese Environment Agency), in Portugal, and SEMAD (State Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development), in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais. Based on a qualitative multiple-case study methodology informed by participant observation, unstructured interviews, and content analysis of 12 EIS review reports, the study provided what is arguably one of the most detailed characterizations of EIS review to date. While following similar institutional arrangements and broad procedural steps, the EIS review has important differences in APA and SEMAD. Overall, the Portuguese agency was found to have a more structured, participative, interdisciplinary, detailed, and grounded review, thus meeting some of the good practices often cited in the literature. The EIS review reports prepared by APA reviewers were also found to provide a profoundly more complete and transparent account of the review process. The details of the review process revealed in the article can affect perceptions around the legitimacy and reliability of reviewers’ recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Fan Rocha & Tomás B. Ramos & Alberto Fonseca, 2019. "Manufacturing Pre-Decisions: A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Reviews in Brazil and Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3235-:d:239046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3235/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3235/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francois Retief, 2010. "The Evolution Of Environmental Assessment Debates: Critical Perspectives From South Africa," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(04), pages 375-397.
    2. Denis Kirchhoff, 2006. "Capacity Building For Eia In Brazil: Preliminary Considerations And Problems To Be Overcome," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 1-18.
    3. K.G. Willis, 1995. "Judging Development Control Decisions," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 32(7), pages 1065-1079, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3235-:d:239046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.