GEO Brasil - UNEP

introduction
The Environment Impact Study is known as a forecasting
process of the possible effects/ impacts that a development
action can cause on the natural or human-modified
environment.
However, this simple definition is not enough to describe
how this process is implemented. The purpose of EIS is
different, depending on when and by whom it is defined.
Nevertheless, there are three purposes that are widely
acknowledged as EIS characteristics. The first is that it works
as an information instrument for the decision-making
process. For the decision-makers – for example, a local
government – the EIS process can provide a systematic
assessment of the environmental implications of a
development action. On some occasions, it can assess
possible alternatives to this action before a decision is made.
The EIS and the Environmental Impact Report – EIR, are
not the only document to be considered in a decisionmaking
process. Nonetheless, unlike the other analyses
used to make a decision such as a cost/ benefit study, the
EIS is usually more comprehensive and less quantitative.
The second purpose attributed to the EIS is that it works as
a negotiation and mediation instrument. When putting
together representatives of businesses, the government
(acting as a planner) and groups of organised civil society,
the EIS can work as an instrument to provide balance in
reaching agreements among the different interests involved
in a negotiation.
Finally, the EIS represents a support instrument for the
formulation of development projects and actions. The EIS
indicates areas/ aspects where projects can be modified in
a way to minimise or eliminate adverse effects on the
environment (forecasting action). Thus, when used by
businesses in the initial planning stage of a development
action, the EIS can lead to a better consideration of the
social and physical environments and, consequently, to a
financial return of the costs incurred in the study itself.
According to assessments developed by the Ministry of
the Environment, three issues have been considered crucial
to the EIS practice being effectively developed in Brazil.
These issues/ problems must be discussed, aiming to
identify possible solutions that can make the EIS viable as
a helping instrument to the decision-making process.
4.2. The Public’s Participation
The public’s participation is a stage of EIA process that
has been considered as essential, but also problematic.
Perhaps, one of EIA’s strengths has been openness for
public involvement in the decision-making process
traditionally carried out in the governmental sphere. This
event was true both for the United States in 1970, with the
approval of the American Environmental Policy, and for
Brazil, in August 1981, with the approval of the National
Environmental Policy (Law 6938).
As for this stage in EIA’s process, the discussion on
possible improvements focuses on two aspects. The first
concerns when the public should take part. The second
refers to how to transform the public’s participation into
effective participation in the decision-making process on
development actions.
Usually, the public’s participation takes place during the
Environmental Impact Study review, and this is how it is
carried out in almost every EIA system adopted globally.
However, this has been gradually changed so as to comply
with different assessments showing the importance of
the public’s participation from the outset of an EIA process.
There is a proposal to introduce public participation from
EIA’s outset with the objective of promoting the
development of a study with a higher quality and
legitimacy. The main argument supporting this proposal
is the fact that the population which will be affected
(directly or indirectly) by a development action and is in a
better position to know how this action will impact on
and/ or change their lives. The issue here refers to the
improvement of the quantity and quality of information to
be made available for an EIA. This is essential to avoid
future reactions to the projects being implemented from a
population which was neglected and/ or left out of the
decision-making process.
16