Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Elvira Gabriela Ciacco da Silva Dias
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Escola Politécnica (EP/BC) |
| Defense date: | 2001-03-16 |
| Examining board members: |
Luis Enrique Sanchez;
Sergio Medici de Eston;
Hildebrando Herrmann;
Emilio Lébre La Rovere;
Rozely Ferreira dos Santos
|
| Advisor: | Luis Enrique Sanchez |
| Abstract | |
Since procedures of environmental impact assessment (EIA) were regulated in Brazil, in the mid eighties, numerous mining projects have been assessed, approved and granted environmental permits in the State of São Paulo, draining a great part of the scarce human and material resources available for reviewing environmental studies. Notwithstanding, there are few data concerning the actual results achieved by this new environmental management tool. This research aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the EIA procedures applied to mining projects in the State of São Paulo. The analysis focused mainly on the follow-up phase, or more precisely, on the government branches performance in enforcing the proper implementation of terms and conditions of project approval. The study examined in full detail six cases selected among the environmental impact studies approved in the State of São Paulo between 1987 and 1997. In each case studied, all the documents and administrative records of relevant government organisms that take part in the EIA process have been reviewed. This task aimed mainly at (1) obtaining data on each project, (2) surveying all mitigation and other management measures proposed and incorporated into the terms and conditions of project approval and (3) checking the control actions performed after project approval. Additionally, site visits were carried out in order to check the implementation of the project and the environmental management measures. The study widely confirmed its initial hypothesis that the implementation of mining projects is actually faulty, severely harming the whole process. The research also showed that this situation is not uniquely due to the weak performance of the surveillance agency, which is not able to enforce the terms and conditions of project approval, but also because of several imperfections that pervade most of the EIA process activities. To overcome the deficiencies in the follow-up phase, changes are proposed in several steps of the process, which should be improved and strengthened. If not, a powerful management tool as the environmental impact assessment is endangered to be transformed in just one more obstacle among the already enormous bureaucratic hindrances imposed to mining projects regularization. (AU) | |