Simulations of EIA screening across jurisdictions: exposing the case for harmonic criteria?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Approaches to EIA screening. Source: Based on common categories used in the literature (e.g. Canter & Canty 1993; Morgan 1998; Glasson et al. 2005).

Figure 2. Brazilian federal-level EIA screening. Source: Designed by the authors.

Figure 3. Locations of real and fictional projects in the southeastern region. Source: The Authors.

Table 1. Profiles and codes of the interviewees who helped to determine likely screening decisions.

State	Role in the environmental agency	Environmental agency	Interviewee code
Espirito Santo	Coordinator	IEMA	EES-01
	Coordinator	IEMA	EES-02
	Coordinator	IEMA	EES-03
	Manager	IEMA	EES-04
	Policy assistant	IEMA	EES-05
Rio da Janeiro	Manager	INEA	ERJ-01
	Coordinator	INEA	ERJ-02
	Manager	INEA	ERJ-03
	Environmental analyst		ERJ-04
	Environmental analyst	INEA	ERJ-05
São Paulo	Manager	CETESB	ESP-01
	Manager	CETESB	ESP-02
	Environmental analyst	CETESB	ESP-03

Table 2. Main screening approaches, threshold criteria and project classification codes in the four Brazilian southeastern states.

State	Main screening approaches	Main significance threshold criteria	Significance classes
MG	Positive Project List in the Annex of state regulation DN COPAM 74/04. Rarely case by case approach.	Typology, Size and Biophysical Pollution Potential	Classes 1–6
ES	Positive Project List in the Annex of state regulation IN 12/08, Positive Project List in Annex II of state regulation IN 10/10 and Negative Project List in Annex IV of state regulation IN 12/08. Rarely case by case approach.	Typology, Size and Biophysical Pollution Potential.	Classes S, I–IV
RJ	Positive and Negative Project Lists in Annex 1 of state Decree 44.820/14 and Positive List of the First Article of State Law 1.356/88. Rarely case by case approach.	Typology, Size and Biophysical Pollution Potential	Classes 1–6/A–C
SP	Positive List in Article 57 and Annex 10 of State Law 997/76, Negative Project List on Annex 9 of State Law 997/76, Positive Lists from CONAMA Resolution 01/86 e and State Decree 55.149/09. Eventually, cases-by-case approach for large development projects.	Typology, Size and Biophysical Pollution Potential	Complexity factor (W) and various qualitative descriptions

Table 3. Classes of potential impact significance used in Minas Gerais’ screening.

		Biophysical pollution potential
		Small	Medium	Large
Project Size	Small	1	1	3
	Medium	2	3	5
	Large	4	5	6

Source: Adapted from COPAM (2004).

Table 4. Classes of potential impact significance used in in Rio de Janeiro’ screening.

Size	Pollution potential
	Insignificant	Low	Medium	High
Minimum	Class 1AInsignificant Impact	Class 2ALow Impact	Class 2BLow Impact	Class 3AMedium Impact
Small	Class 1BInsignificant Impact	Class 2CLow Impact	Class 3BLow Impact	Class 4AMedium Impact
Medium	Class 2DLow Impact	Class 2ELow Impact	Class 4BMedium Impact	Class 5AHigh Impact
Large	Class 2FLow Impact	Class 3CMedium Impact	Class 5BHigh Impact	Class 6AHigh Impact
Exceptional	Class 3DLow Impact	Class 4CMedium Impact	Class 6BHigh Impact	Class 6CHigh Impact

Source: Adapted from CONEMA (2012).

Table

HYDROELECTRIC POWER DAM AND PLANT
Environmental Agency	SUPRAM (Minas Gerais)	IEMA (Espirito Santo)	INEA (Rio de Janeiro)	CETESB (São Paulo)
Projects	Real Hydroelectric Project	Fictional Hydroelectric Project 1	Fictional Hydroelectric Project 2	Fictional Hydroelectric Project 3
Affected cities	Conceição do Mato Dentro, Gouveia and Santana de Pirapama	Divino de São Lourenço	Macuco	Borá
Main regulations and respective project lists used in screening	State DN COPAM 74/04	State IN 10/10	State Decree 42.159/09 and INEA Resolutions 52/12 and 53/12	Federal CONAMA Resolutions 01/86 and 237/97
Criteria used to determine likely significance of impacts	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on flooded area and electricity generation capacity in MW)	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on flooded area and length of reduced stream flow below dam)	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on flooded area and electricity generation capacity in MW)	Cases by case analysis based on preliminary environmental assessment by state agency
Significance class and project code	Class 5/Code E-02-01-1	Class IV/Code 21.14	Class 6-A/Code 35.11.02	No specific class number or code. Classified as ‘potentially or effectively capable to cause significant environmental degradation’
Required license	Previous License	Previous License	Previous License	Previous License
Type of environmental impact study	Comprehensive (EIA/RIMA^*)	Comprehensive (EIA/RIMA^*)	Comprehensive (EIA/RIMA^*)	Comprehensive (EIA/RIMA^*)
Subject to mandatory public hearing	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Developer application fee^*	US$ 19,325,90	US$ 9,313.62	US$ 45.356,37	US$ 32,929.00
Maximum period for EIA review	12 months	12 months	12 months	12 months
Enviornmental License Maximum Renewal Period	4 years	5 years	5 years	5 years
Additional Licenses Required if Granted Approval	Instalation License and Operation License	Instalation License and Operation License	Instalation License and Operation License	Instalation License and Operation License
GRANITE MINING
Environmental agency	SUPRAM (Minas Gerais)	IEMA (Espirito Santo)	INEA (Rio de Janeiro)	CETESB (São Paulo)
Projects	Real Mining Project	Fictional Mining Project 1	Fictional Mining Project 2	Fictional Mining Project 3
Affected cities	Itinga	Divino de São Lourenço	Macuco	Borá
Main regulations and respective project lists used in screening	State DN COPAM 74/04	State IN 10/10	State Decree 42.159/09 and INEA Resolutions 52/12 and 53/12	State Law 997/76, Decrees 8.468/76 and 47.397/02, and Cetesb Direction Decision 25/2014/C/I
Criteria used to determine likely significance of impacts	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on maximum gross production measured in cubic meters per year)	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on sum of proven reserves in hectares)	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on serveral factors, such as mining area in hectares, distance from hydric resource in meters, existence of nearby conservation area, need for deforestation, and production capacity, measured in cubic meters per month)	Project Location and Project Size (ased on mining area in hectares and total extraction volume in cubic meters).
Project classification Code	Class 1/Code A-02-06-2	Class II/Code 1.01	Class 3-C (medium impact)/code 00.22.21	No specific class number or code. Classified as ‘very low or non-significant environmental impact’
Required license	Self-declaratory Environmental Authorization (AAF)	Previous License	Previous License	Previous License, if granted authorization by Brazilian Mineral Exploitation Authority (DNPM)
Type of environmental impact study	None. SUPRAM required a self-declaration of conformity.	Simplified EIS (RAP)	Comprehensive EIA (EIA/RIMA)	Simplified EIS
Subject to mandatory public hearing	No	No	Yes	No
Developer application fee^*	US$ 368.11	US$ 161.98	US$ 28,841.50	US$ 3,675.97
Maximum period for EIA review	3 months (but took only 1 day)	6 months	12 months	6 months
Enviornmental license maximum renewal period	4 years	5 years	5 years	2 years
Additional licenses required if granted approval	None.	Previous License and Operation License	Previous License and Operation License	Previous License and Operation License
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Environmental agency	SUPRAM (Minas Gerais)	IEMA (Espirito Santo)	INEA (Rio de Janeiro)	CETESB (São Paulo)
Projects	Real Sewage Treatment Plant Project	Fictional Sewage Treatment Plant Project 1	Fictional Sewage Treatment Plant Project 2	Fictional Sewage Treatment Plant Project 3
Affected cities	Caratinga	Divino de São Lourenço	Macuco	Borá
Main regulations and respective project lists used in screening	State DN COPAM 74/04	State IN 10/10	State Decree 42.159/09 and INEA Resolutions 52/12 and 53/12	State Law 997/76, Decrees 8.468/76 and 47.397/02, and Cetesb Direction Decision 25/2014/C/I
Criteria used to determine likely significance of impacts	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on average flow measured in Liters per second)	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on project maxium flow measured in Liters per second)	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on extension of sewage lines in quilometers, quantity of sewage pumping stattions and treatment flow in liters per second).	Project size (based on total attended population)
Significance class and project code	Class 3/Code E-03-06-9	Class III/Code 19.02	Class 2-B (low impact)/Code 35.41.14	No specific class number or code. Classified as ‘very low or non-significant environmental impact’
Required license	Concomitant Previous License and Installation License	Previous License	Simplified Environmental License	Concomitant Previous License and Installation License
Type of environmental impact study	Simplified EIS (RCA and PCA)	No impact assessment study, but required various documents, projects and environmental baseline information)	No impact assessment study, but would be required to submit various documents and projects)	No impact assessment study, but would be required to submit various documents and projects)
Subject to mandatory public hearing	No	No	No	No
Developer application fee^*	US$ 5,339.84	US$ 512.92	US$ 863.17	US$ 27,345.61
Maximum period for EIA review	6 months (but took 80 days)	6 months	6 months	6 months
Enviornmental license maximum renewal period	6 years	5 years	10 years	3 years
Additional licenses required if granted approval	Operation License	Instalation License and Operation License	None	Operation License
GAS STATION
Environmental agency	SUPRAM (Minas Gerais)	IEMA (Espirito Santo)	INEA (Rio de Janeiro)	CETESB (São Paulo)
Projects	Real Gas Station Project	Fictional Gas Station Project	Fictional Gas Station Project	Fictional Gas Station Project
Affected cities	Ribeirão das Neves	Divino de São Lourenço	Macuco	Borá
Main regulations and respective project lists used in screening	State DN COPAM 74/04	State IN 10/10	State Decree 42.159/09 and INEA Resolutions 52/12 and 53/12	State Law 997/76, Decrees 8.468/76 and 47.397/02
Criteria used to determine likely significance of impacts	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on fuel storage capacity measured in cubic meters)	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on fuel storage capacity measured in cubic meters)	Biophysical Pollution Potential and Project Size (based on production and storage area measured in square meters, and number of employees)	Project type
Significance class and project code	Class 1/Code F-06-01-7	Class III/Code 27.01	Class 2-C (low impact)/Code 55.21.31	No specific class number or code. Classified as ‘very low or non-significant environmental impact’
Required license	Self-declaratory Environmental Authorization (AAF)	Previous License	Simplified Environmental License	Previous License
Type of environmental impact study	None. SUPRAM required a self-declaration of conformity.	Simplified Environmental Impact Study.	Simplified Environmental Impact Study.	No impact assessment study, but would be required to submit various documents and projects)
Subject to mandatory public hearing	No	No	No	No
Developer application fee^*	US$ 368.11	US$ 512.92	US$ 1,094.2	US$ 249.23
Maximum period for EIA review	3 months (but took only 1 day)	6 months	6 months	6 months
Enviornmental license maximum renewal period	4 years	5 years	10 years	2 years
Additional licenses required if granted approval	None.	Previous License and Operation License	None.	Previous License and Operation License

Canter LW, Canty GA. 1993. Impact significance determination – basic considerations and a sequenced approach. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 13:275–297.10.1016/0195-9255(93)90020-C

 Google Scholar

Morgan RK. 1998. Environmental impact assessment: a methodological approach. Norwell: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. 2005. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar