TY - JOUR
T1 - Manufacturing pre-decisions
T2 - A comparative analysis of environmental impact statement (EIS) reviews in Brazil and Portugal
AU - Rocha, Caroline Fan
AU - Ramos, Tomás B.
AU - Fonseca, Alberto
N1 - Part of this research was conducted during an international scholarship (PDSE) supported by CAPES Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education within the Ministry of Education of Brazil. The study was also partly funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), grant number 311201/2018-0.
CENSE is financed by Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, I.P., Portugal (UID/AMB/04085/2019).
PY - 2019/6/12
Y1 - 2019/6/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Brazil
KW - EIS review
KW - Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
KW - Environmental impact statement (EIS)
KW - Portugal
KW - Public administration
KW - Review stage
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069857504&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/SU11123235
DO - 10.3390/SU11123235
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85069857504
SN - 2071-1050
VL - 11
JO - Sustainability
JF - Sustainability
IS - 12
M1 - 3235
ER -