Contention, participation, and mobilization in environmental assessment follow-up: the Itabira experience

References

• Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. 2010. The promise of new modes of environmental governance. In K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, & A. Kronsell (Eds.), Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance. pp. 3–27. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, J. 2004. A practical framework for EIA follow-up. In A. Morrison-Saunders & J. Arts (Eds.), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. pp. 42–62. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, R. 2005. Ecological reason in administration: environmental impact assessment and green politics. In R. Paehlke & D. Torgerson (Eds.), Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State, 2nd ed. pp. 47–58. Pe-terborough, ON: Broadview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, R. 1995. Everything you already know about EIA (but don’t often admit). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15(2):109–114.
   Google Scholar
• Boudet, H. & Ortolano, L. 2010. A tale of two sitings: contentious politics in liquefied natural gas facility siting in California. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30(1):5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell, L. 1998. Implementing policy through procedure: impact assessment and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In A. Porter & J. Fittipaldi (Eds.), Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century. pp. 8–14. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, S. & Richardson, T. 2004. Exclusion: the necessary difference between ideal and practical consensus. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(1):3–17.
   Google Scholar
• Conselho Estadual de Política Ambiental (COPAM). 1996a. Refer-ente à Licença de Operação Corretiva da Empresa Companhia Vale do Rio Doce Processo. [Reference to the Corrective Operating License Process for the Company Vale of Rio Doce ]. COPAM/N° 119/86/03/1996. FEAM. LO-Licenca de Operacao. DNPM: 820.326/1971. DIMIM Pasta: 1–3;5. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: State Environmental Foundation (in Portuguese).
   Google Scholar
• Conselho Estadual de Política Ambiental (COPAM). 1996b. Ref-erente à Licença de Operação Corretiva da Empresa Companhia Vale do Rio Doce Processo. [Reference to the Corrective Operating License Process for the Company Vale of Rio Doce ]. COPAM/N° 119/86/03/1996. Serviço Publico do Estado de Minas Gerais. CVRD/Mina Cauê-Cia Vale do Rio Doce. Itabira, MG. Minerio de Ferro/Extração e Beneficia-mento (00.11.00) Pasta velha: 3. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: State Environmental Foundation (in Portuguese).
   Google Scholar
• Devlin, J. & Yap, N. 2008. Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26(1):17–27.
   Google Scholar
• Dietz, T. 1987. Theory and method in social impact analysis. Sociological Inquiry 57(12):54–69.
   Google Scholar
• Dietz, T. & Stern, P. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diduck, A., Sinclair, J., Pratap, D., & Hostetler, G. 2007. Achieving meaningful public participation in the environmental assessment of hydro development: case studies from Chamoli District, Uttarakhand, India. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25(3):219–231.
   Google Scholar
• Doelle, M. & Sinclair, A. 2006. Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26(2):185–205.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2002. Bringing power to planning research: one researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21(4):353–366.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2004. Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice 5 (3):283–306.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, H. & Dias de Aguiar, A. 1993. Environmental impact assessment in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 13(3):169–176.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. 2006. Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8(3):259–280.
   Google Scholar
• Gismondi, M. 1997. Sociology and environmental impact assessment. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 22(4):457–479.
   Google Scholar
• Guimarães de Souza, M. 2007. Da Paciência à Resistência: Conflitos entre Atores Sociais, Espaço Urbano, e Espaço de Min-eração [Patience of the Resistance: Conflicts between Social Actors, Urban Space, and Space Mining]. São Paulo: Aderaldo & Rothschild.
   Google Scholar
• Hokkanen, P. 2001. EIA and decision making in search of each other: the final disposal of nuclear waste in Finland. In T. Hilding-Rydevik (Ed.), EIA, Large Development Projects and Decision-Making in the Nordic Countries. pp. 95–151. Stockholm: Nordregio.
   Google Scholar
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2009. Minas Gerais–Itabira. http://www.ibge.gov.br/municesportes/tabelas.php?codmun=3170&uf=31&descricao=Itabira. June 30, 2009 (in Portuguese).
   Google Scholar
• Isaksson, K., Richardson, T., & Olsson, K. 2009. From consultation to deliberation? Tracing deliberative norms in EIA frameworks in Swedish roads planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29(5):295–304.
   Google Scholar
• Littig, B. & Griessler, E. 2005. Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8(1):65–79.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, R., Arts, J., & Morrison-Saunders, A. 2005. International principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23(3):175–181.
   Google Scholar
• McAdam, D. 1996. Political opportunities: conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. pp. 23–40. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, D. 2004. Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology 30:125–145.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, D. & Minkoff, D. 2004. Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces 82(4):1457–1492.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders, A. & Arts, J. 2004. Introduction to EIA follow-up. In A. Morrison-Saunders & J. Arts (Eds.), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. pp. 1–21. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders, A. & Fischer, T. 2006. What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8(12):19–39.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem, O. & Hameed, R. 2010. Exploring the potential and constraints to implementing the international best practice principles of EIA follow-up: the case of Pakistan. Journal of American Science 6(12):108–121.
   Google Scholar
• O’Faircheallaigh, C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30(1):19–27.
   Google Scholar
• Petts, J. 1999. Public participation and environmental impact assessment. In J. Petts (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. pp. 145–77. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Piven, F. & Cloward, R. 1979. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Qadir, S. & Gorman, H. 2008. The use of ISO 14001 in India: more than a certificate on the wall? Environmental Practice 10(2):53–65.
   Google Scholar
• Rutherford, S. & Campbell, K. 2004. Time Well Spent? A Survey of Public Participation in Federal Environmental Assessment Panels. Vancouver: West Coast Environmental Law Association.
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, L. & Connelly, S. 2002. Theorising participation: pulling down the ladder. In Y. Rydin & A. Thornley (Eds.), Planning in the UK: Agenda for the New Millennium. pp. 33–63. London: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, A. & Doelle, M. 2003. Using law as a tool to ensure meaningful public participation in environmental assessment. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 12(1):27–54.
   Google Scholar
• Souza e Silva, M. 2004. A Terceira Itabir: Os Espaços Politico, Economico, Socioespacial e a Questão Ambiental [The Third Itabir: The Political Landscape, Economic, Sociospatial and Environmental Issues]. São Paulo: Editora Hucitec (in Portuguese).
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, K. 2007. Write the rules and win: understanding citizen participation game dynamics. Public Administration Review 67(6):1067–1076.
   Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S. 1994. Power in Movement: Collective Action, Social Movements and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, M. 2007. Community participation in the real world: opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Studies 44(2):297–317.
   Google Scholar
• Tilly, C. 1999. Conclusion: from interactions to outcomes in social movements. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), How Social Movements Matter. pp. 253–270. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weston, J. 2004. EIA in a risk society. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(2):313–325.
   Google Scholar
• White, S. 1996. Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice 6(1):6–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, C. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Yap, N. 1990. Round the peg and square the hole: populists, technocrats and environmental assessment in Third World countries. Impact Assessment Bulletin 8(1–2):69–83.
   Google Scholar