Developing indicators for environmental licensing the case of the Brazilian offshore oil and gas sector

References

• Andrade BG, Andrade VT, Costa BRS, Campos JC, Dezotti M. 2011. Distillation of oil field produced water for reuse on irrigation water: evaluation of pollutants removal and ecotoxicity. J Water Reuse Desal. 1(4):224–236. doi:10.2166/wrd.2011.044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANP, 2016. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. Dados Estatísticos 2016. Enchova. [accessed 2018 Aug 20]. www.anp.gov.br/wwwanp/?dw=81114
   Google Scholar
• ANP, 2018a. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. Banco de Dados de Exploração e Produção (BDEP). [accessed 2018 Apr 8]. http://webmaps.anp.gov.br/mapas/Lists/DSPAppPages/MapasBrasil.aspx
   Google Scholar
• ANP, 2018b. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. Dados Estatísticos 2018. [accessed 2018 Aug 20]. http://www.anp.gov.br/exploracao-e-producao-de-oleo-e-gas/gestao-de-contratos-de-e-p/dados-de-e-p
   Google Scholar
• ANP, 2019. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. V Workshop de Segurança Operacional e Meio Ambiente (SOMA). [accessed 2020 Feb 17]. http://www.anp.gov.br/arquivos/palestras/vii-soma/desempenho-seguranca.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ANP, 2020. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. Dados Estatísticos 2019. [accessed 2020 Feb 17]. http://www.anp.gov.br/wwwanp/dados-estatisticos
   Google Scholar
• Ashworth PD. 1995. The meaning of “participation” in participant observation. Qual Health Res. 5(3):366–387. doi:10.1177/104973239500500307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borioni R, Gallardo ALCF, Sánchez LE. 2017. Advancing scoping practice in environmental impact assessment: an examination of the Brazilian federal system. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 1–14. doi:10.1080/14615517.2016.1271535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazil. 2007. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Resolução CONAMA N°393, de 8 de agosto de 2007. [accessed 2018 Apr 8]. http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=541
   Google Scholar
• Brazil. 2011. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Resolução CONAMA 430 de 13 de maio de 2011. [accessed 2018 Apr 16]. http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=646.
   Google Scholar
• Brazil. 2012. Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Ministério de Minas e Energia. Portaria Interministerial N° 198, de 5 de abril de 2012. [accessed 2020 May 3]. http://www.anp.gov.br/arquivos/exploracao-producao/sgom/meio/portaria-198-2012-aaas.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bredariol TO, d’Avignon AL. 2018. Institutions and environmental governance: the case of environmental permitting for offshore oil and gas projects. Ambiente E Sociedade. 21. doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc0090r1vu18l1ao.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Bond A, Sadler B. 2009. Introduction: the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 27(2):91–93. doi:10.3152/146155109X454285.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Gwilliam R, Morgan R, Cobb D, Bond A. 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 22(4):295–310. doi:10.3152/147154604781765860.
   Google Scholar
• Cilliers DP, Van Staden I, Roos C, Alberts RC, Retief FP. 2020. The perceived benefits of EIA for government: a regulator perspective. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 1–10. doi:10.1080/14615517.2020.1734403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordes EE, Jones DO, Schlacher TA, Amon DJ, Bernardino AF, Brooke S, Carney R, DeLeo DM, Dunlop KM, Escobar-Briones EG, et al. 2016. Environmental impacts of the deep-water oil and gas industry: a review to guide management strategies. Front Environ Sci. 4. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2016.00058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz FB, Veronez FA, Montaño M. 2018. Evidence of learning processes in EIA systems. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 36(3):242–252. doi:10.1080/14615517.2018.1445177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Da Silva AWL, Selig PM, Van Bellen HM. 2014. Use of sustainability indicators in strategic environmental assessment processes conducted in Brazil. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 16(2):1450008. doi:10.1142/S1464333214500082.
   Google Scholar
• Dong Y, Hauschild MZ. 2017. Indicators for environmental sustainability. Procedia CIRP. 61:697–702. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.173
   Google Scholar
• Duarte, C. G., Dibo, Ana Paula Alves.., Siqueira-Gay, J., & Sánchez, L. E. 2017. Practitioners’ perceptions of the Brazilian environmental impact assessment system: results from a survey. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. doi:10.1080/14615517.2017.1322813 4 35 48-309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fakhru’l-Razi A, Pendashteh A, Abdullah LC, Biak DR, Madaeni ZZ, Abidin SS. 2009. Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment. J Hazard Mater. 170(2–3):530–551. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.05.044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine GA. 2015. Participant observation. In: International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. 530-534. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.44041-9
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca A, Rivera Fernández GM. 2020. Reviewers’ perceptions of the volume of information provided in environmental impact statements: the case for refocusing attention on what is relevant. J Clean Prod. 251:119757. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco MA, Viñas L, Soriano JA, de Armas D, González JJ, Beiras R, Salas N, Bayona JM, Albaigés J. 2006. Spatial distribution and ecotoxicity of petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments from the Galicia continental shelf (NW Spain) after the Prestige oil spill. Mar Pollut Bull. 53(5–7):260–271. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao J, Kørnøv L, Christensen P. 2013. The politics of strategic environmental assessment indicators: weak recognition found in Chinese guidelines. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 31(3):232–237. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.786925.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes AC. 2017. What is impact assessment? Some personal reflections C. P. Wolf (1933–2015). Imp Assess Proj Appr. 35(3):186–199. edited posthumously by Adrian C. Hayes. doi:10.1080/14615517.2017.1322812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBAMA – Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis. 2012. Nota Técnica Cgpeg/Dilic/Ibama Nº 08/12. Brasília:Manual de Procedimentos para Vistorias de Embarcações de Emergência e de Pesquisa Sísmica e de Plataformas de Produção e de Perfuração.
   Google Scholar
• IBAMA – Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis. 2013. Nota Técnica Cgpeg/Dilic/Ibama Nº 03/13. Rio de Janeiro: Diretrizes para aprovação dos Planos de Emergência Individual – PEI, nos processos de licenciamento ambiental dos empreendimentos marítimos de exploração e produção de petróleo e gás natural. 20 de setembro de 2013. http://www.consultaesic.cgu.gov.br/busca/dados/Lists/Pedido/Attachments/436934/RESPOSTA_PEDIDO_nt.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Joseph C, Gunton T, Rutherford M. 2015. Good practices for environmental assessment. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 33(4):238–254. doi:10.1080/14615517.2015.1063811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawulich BB 2005. Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466
   Google Scholar
• Kazak J, Świąder M, Szewrański S, Żmuda R. 2017. Geo-environmental indicators in strategic environmental assessment. Acta Sci Pol Formatio Circumiectus. 16(2):123–135. doi:10.15576/ASP.FC/2017.16.2.123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemerich PDDC, Ritter LG, Borba WF 2014 Indicators of environmental sustainability: methods and applications Revista do Centro de Ciências Naturais E Exatas. 13 (5):3723–3736. UFSM, Santa Maria Revista Monografias Ambientais - REMOA e- 2236 1308. Edição Especial LPMA/UFSM. doi:10.5902/2236130814411
   Google Scholar
• Laedre O, Haavaldsen T, Bohne RA, Kallaos J, Lohne J. 2015. Determining sustainability impact assessment indicators. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 33(2):98–107. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.981037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuleman L. 2015. Owl meets beehive: how impact assessment and governance relate. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 33(1):4–15. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.956436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 30(1):5–14. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naime A. 2017. An evaluation of a risk-based environmental regulation in Brazil: limitations to risk management of hazardous installations. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 63:35–43. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neri, A. C., Dupin, P., & Sánchez, L. E. 2016. A pressure-state-response approach to cumulative impact assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.134 126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neri AC, Dupin P, Sánchez LE. 2016. A pressure-state-response approach to cumulative impact assessment. J Clean Prod. 126:288–298. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemeijer D, de Groot RS. 2008. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic. 8(1):14–25. January. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ou, C-H.., & Liu, W-H.. 2010. Developing a sustainable indicator system based on the pressure–state–response framework for local fisheries: A case study of Gungliau, Taiwan. Ocean & Coastal Management. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.03.001 5–6 53 289-300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos TB, Caeiro S, de Melo JJ. 2004. Environmental indicator frameworks to design and assess environmental monitoring programs. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 22(1):47–62. doi:10.3152/147154604781766111.
   Google Scholar
• SIMBA – Sistema de Informação de Monitoramento da Biota Aquática. 2020. Sistema de Informação de Monitoramento da Biota Aquática. [accessed 2020 May 10]. https://segurogis.petrobras.com.br/simba/web/
   Google Scholar
• Stoeglehner G. 2020. Strategicness – the core issue of environmental planning and assessment of the 21 st century. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 38(2):141–145. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1678969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tshibangu GM, Montaño M. 2019. Outcomes and contextual aspects of strategic environmental assessment in a non-mandatory context: the case of Brazil. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 37(3–4):334–343. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1603715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2017. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, 71/313. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. [accessed 2018 Mar 14]. https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313
   Google Scholar
• Vilardo C, Barbosa AF. 2018. Can you hear the noise? Environmental licensing of seismic surveys in Brazil faces uncertain future after 18 years protecting biodiversity. Perspect Ecol Conserv. 16(1):54–59. doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2017.11.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilardo C, La Rovere EL. 2018. Multi-project environmental impact assessment: insights from offshore oil and gas development in Brazil. Imp Assess Proj Appr. 36(4):358–370. doi:10.1080/14615517.2018.1475615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar