Why are projects rarely rejected in environmental impact assessments? Narratives of justifiability in Brazilian and Canadian review reports

References

• Aksamit, C. K., J. A. Blakley, J. A. G. Jaeger, B. F. Noble, and C. N. Westman. 2020. “Sources of Uncertainties in Environmental Assessment: Lessons about Uncertainty Disclosure and Communication from an Oil Sands Extraction Project in Northern Alberta.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 63 (2): 317–334. doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1579973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcott, B. 2005. “Jevons' Paradox.” Ecological Economics 54 (1): 9–21. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almansa, C., and J. M. Martínez-Paz. 2011. “What Weight Should Be Assigned to Future Environmental Impacts? A Probabilistic Cost Benefit Analysis Using Recent Advances on Discounting.” The Science of the Total Environment 409 (7): 1305–1314. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvaredo, F., L. Chancel, T. Piketty, E. Saez, and G. Zucman. 2018. World Inequality Report 2018: Executive Summary. Paris: World Inequality Lab.
   Google Scholar
• Andrade, A. L., and M. A. dos Santos. 2015. “Hydroelectric Plants Environmental Viability: Strategic Environmental Assessment Application in Brazil.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52: 1413–1423. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade, A. L., and M. A. dos Santos. 2018. “Razão e Critérios Para Definição da Viabilidade Ambiental de Hidrelétricas No Brasil.” Revista de Gestão e Sustentabilidade Ambiental 7: 284–299.
   Google Scholar
• Babbie, E. 2013. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, M. L., B. F. Hobbs, and H. Ellis. 2003. “The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in the Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: Implications for IA Practitioners.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 37 (4): 289–316. doi:10.1016/S0038-0121(02)00047-2.
   Google Scholar
• Blackmore, R., C. Wood, and C. E. Jones. 1997. “The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Infrastructure Project Planning Decisions.” Planning Practice & Research 12 (3): 223–238. doi:10.1080/02697459716473.
   Google Scholar
• Brasil, L. 1981. “No 6938, de 31 de agosto de 1981. Dispõe sobre a Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente.” In Presidência da República CC, Subchefia Para Assuntos Jurídicos, editor. Brasília: Brazilian Government.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, A., J. Pope, M. Fundingsland, A. Morrison-Saunders, F. Retief, and M. Hauptfleisch. 2020. “Explaining the Political Nature of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): A Neo-Gramscian Perspective.” Journal of Cleaner Production 244: 118694. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronfman, N. C., R. B. Jiménez, P. C. Arévalo, and L. A. Cifuentes. 2012. “Understanding Social Acceptance of Electricity Generation Sources.” Energy Policy 46: 246–252. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEAA. 2017. Decision Statement Issued under Section 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 to AuRico Metals Inc.
   Google Scholar
• CEAA. 2019. Review Panels. https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/010/type5index-eng.cfm
   Google Scholar
• CEAA. 2013. New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project - Taseko Mines Ltd. British Columbia. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA).
   Google Scholar
• CEQ. 2019. EIS Filings. Council of Environmental Quality. https://ceq.doe.gov/get-involved/eis_filings.html
   Google Scholar
• de Witt, M., J. Pope, F. Retief, A. Bond, A. Morrison-Saunders, and C. Steenkamp. 2019. “Biodiversity Offsets in EIA: Getting the Timing Right.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 75: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collard, R-C., J. Dempsey, and M. Holmberg. 2020. “Extirpation Despite Regulation? Environmental Assessment and Caribou.” Conservation Science and Practice 2 (4): e166. doi:10.1111/csp2.166.
   Google Scholar
• Delicaet, A. 1995. “The New Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: A Comparison with the Environmental Assessment Review Process.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15 (6): 497–505. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00064-X.
   Google Scholar
• Devlin, J. F., and N. T. Yap. 2008. “Contentious Politics in Environmental Assessment: Blocked Projects and Winning Coalitions.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26 (1): 17–27. doi:10.3152/146155108X279939.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J., and T. Garvin. 2009. “You’re in Oil Country’: Moral Tales of Citizen Action against Petroleum Development in Alberta.” Canada. Ethics, Place & Environment 12 (1): 49–68. doi:10.1080/13668790902753070.
   Google Scholar
• FRPNP. 2013. Report of the Federal Review Panel on the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project, Vancounver, BC: Taseko Mines Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca, A., L. L. A. Brito, and R. B. Gibson. 2020. “Methodological Pluralism in Environmental Impact Prediction and Significance Evaluation: A Case for Standardization?” Environmental Impact Assesment Review 80: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonseca, A., and R. B. Gibson. 2020. “Testing an Ex-Ante Framework for the Evaluation of Impact Assessment Laws: Lessons from Canada and Brazil.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 81: 106355. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonseca, A., and R. B. Gibson. 2008. “Application Denied: BC’s Kemess North and Nova Scotia’s Whites Point Projects Promised Jobs and Revenue, but the Communities Were Looking for Overall Sustainability.” Alternatives Journal 34: 10–12.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca, A., and S. E. Rodrigues. 2017. “The Attractive Concept of Simplicity in Environmental Impact Assessment: Perceptions of Outcomes in Southeastern Brazil.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 67: 101–108. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonseca, A., L. E. Sánchez, and J. C. J. Ribeiro. 2017. “Reforming EIA Systems: A Critical Review of Proposals in Brazil.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 90–97. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George, C. 1999. “Testing for Sustainable Development through Environmental Assessment.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19 (2): 175–200. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00038-9.
   Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. B., S. Hassan, S. Holtz, J. Tansey, and G. Whitelaw. 2005. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, RB. 2017. Sustainability Assessment: Applications and Opportunities. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Government of Canada. 1992. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Government of Canada. 2012. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52, Last Amended on June 22, 2017. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Government of Canada. 2019. Impact Assessment Act in Bill C-69: An Act to Enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to Amend the Navigation Protection Act and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts. Statutes of Canada, c.28.
   Google Scholar
• IAAC. 2019. Canadian Impact Assessment Registry. https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations
   Google Scholar
• IAIA. 2009. What is Impact Assessment? Fargo: International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA).
   Google Scholar
• IBAMA. 2008. Instrução normativa 184 de 17 de julho de 2008. Brasília: Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA);
   Google Scholar
• IBAMA. 2010. Instrução normativa 11 de 22 de novembro de 2010.
   Google Scholar
• IBAMA. 2019. Consulta a processos de licenciamento ambiental.
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2018. The Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for the Americas. Bonn: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2019. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Paris: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
   Google Scholar
• Jeffery, MI. 1991. “The New Canadian Environmental Assessment Act - Bill C-78: A Disappointing Response to Promised Reform.” McGill Law Journal 36: 1070–1088.
   Google Scholar
• João, E., F. Vanclay, and L. den Broeder. 2011. “Emphasising Enhancement in All Forms of Impact Assessment: Introduction to a Special Issue.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29 (3): 170–180. doi:10.3152/146155111X12959673796326.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, S., and I. Thomson. 2000. “Earning a Social License to Operate: Social Acceptability and Resource Development in Latin America.” The Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin 93: 49–53.
   Google Scholar
• Kiker, G. A., T. S. Bridges, A. Varghese, T. P. Seager, and I. Linkov. 2005. “Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Decision Making.” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1 (2): 95–108. doi:10.1897/IEAM_2004a-015.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kula, E., and D. Evans. 2011. “Dual Discounting in Cost-Benefit Analysis for Environmental Impacts.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (3): 180–186. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung, W., B. Noble, J. Gunn, and J. A. G. Jaeger. 2015. “A Review of Uncertainty Research in Impact Assessment.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50: 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, P. S., and S. Lemeshow. 1999. Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, K. F. R., and J.-H. Lai. 2009. “Decision-Support for Environmental Impact Assessment: A Hybrid Approach Using Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Analytic Network Process.” Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3): 5119–5136. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKinnon, A. J., P. N. Duinker, and T. R. Walker. 2018. The Application of Science in Environmental Impact Assessment. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Maher, R. 2019. “Pragmatic Community Resistance within New Indigenous Ruralities: Lessons from a Failed Hydropower Dam in Chile.” Journal of Rural Studies 68: 63–74. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehdic, A., T. Gunton, and M. Rutherford. 2020. “Assessing the Role of Subjective Judgment and Science in Environmental Impact Assessment: Implications and Options for Reform.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 63 (10): 1771–1790. doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1688650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milman, O., and N. Evershed. 2015. “Australia Has Denied Environmental Approval to Just 18 Projects since 2000.” The Guardian, August 12. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/australia-has-denied-environmental-approval-to-just-11-projects-since-2000
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders, A., and J. Pope. 2013. “Conceptualising and Managing Trade-Offs in Sustainability Assessment.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 54–63. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders, A., J. Pope, and A. Bond. 2015. Handbook of Sustainability Assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Nardini, A. 1997. “A Proposal for Integrating Environmental Impact Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Multicriteria Analysis in Decision-Making.” Project Appraisal 12 (3): 173–184. doi:10.1080/02688867.1997.9727056.
   Google Scholar
• Newswire. 2017. “AuRico Metals Receives Environmental Assessment Approval for Kemess Underground Project.” Accessed March 15, 2017, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aurico-metals-receives-environmental-assessment-approval-for-kemess-underground-project-616281544.html
   Google Scholar
• Pavlyuk, O., B. F. Noble, J. A. E. Blakley, and J. A. G. Jaeger. 2017. “Fragmentary Provisions for Uncertainty Disclosure and Consideration in EA Legislation, Regulations and Guidelines and the Need for Improvement.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 66: 14–23. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope, J. 2006. “Editorial: What's so Special about Sustainability Assessment?” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 08 (03): v–x. doi:10.1142/S1464333206002505.
   Google Scholar
• Prno, J., and D. S. Slocombe. 2014. “A Systems-Based Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Determinants of a Social License to Operate in the Mining Industry.” Environmental Management 53 (3): 672–689. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0221-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief, F., A. Morrison-Saunders, D. Geneletti, and J. Pope. 2013. “Exploring the Psychology of Trade-off Decision-Making in Environmental Impact Assessment.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31 (1): 13–23. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.768007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocha, C. F., T. B. Ramos, and A. Fonseca. 2019. “Manufacturing Pre-Decisions: A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Reviews in Brazil and Portugal.” Sustainability 11 (12): 3235. doi:10.3390/su11123235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez, L. E. 2013. “Development of Environmental Impact Assessment in Brazil.” UVP Report 27: 193–200.
   Google Scholar
• Stich, B., and J. H. Holland. 2011. “Using a Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Model to Streamline and Enhance NEPA and Public Participation Processes.” Public Works Management & Policy 16 (1): 59–89. doi:10.1177/1087724X10390227.
   Google Scholar
• UN. 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. New York: United Nations (UN);
   Google Scholar
• UN Environment. 2019. Global Environment Outlook (GEO) 6 Report: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Villarroya, A., AC. Barros, and J. Kiesecker. 2014. “Policy Development for Environmental Licensing and Biodiversity Offsets in Latin America.” PLoS ONE 9 (9): e107144. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, A., J. Pope, A. Morrison-Saunders, and P. Lochner. 2008. “Contributing to Sustainability as an Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioner.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26 (2): 91–98. doi:10.3152/146155108X316423.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkins, H. 2003. “The Need for Subjectivity in EIA: Discourse as a Tool for Sustainable Development.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23 (4): 401–414. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00044-1.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, K. G. 1995. “Judging Development Control Decisions.” Urban Studies 32 (7): 1065–1079. doi:10.1080/00420989550012573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolsink, M., and J. Devilee. 2009. “The Motives for Accepting or Rejecting Waste Infrastructure Facilities. Shifting the Focus from the Planners' Perspective to Fairness and Community Commitment.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52 (2): 217–236. doi:10.1080/09640560802666552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, C., and C. E. Jones. 1997. “The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions.” Urban Studies 34 (8): 1237–1257. doi:10.1080/0042098975619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wüstenhagen, R., M. Wolsink, and M. J. Bürer. 2007. “Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation: An Introduction to the Concept.” Energy Policy 35 (5): 2683–2691. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• zu Ermgassen, S., P. Utamiputri, L. Bennun, S. Edwards, and J. W. Bull. 2019. “The Role of ‘No Net Loss’ Policies in Conserving Biodiversity Threatened by the Global Infrastructure Boom.” One Earth 1 (3): 305–315. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.019.
   Google Scholar