GEO Brasil - UNEP

What has been proposed as a mechanism to allow the
public’s involvement from the environmental assessment’s
inception is for the environmental agency in charge of
reviewing the environmental impact study to carry out a
consultation both in person and by mail. As previously
observed, participation at this stage of the process allows
the public to indicate aspects to be included in the
assessment. The public then has the opportunity to use as
a reference the knowledge that the communities have of
the characteristics, dynamics and specificities of the areas
they inhabit.
The second instance has that already been anticipated in
the legislation on EIA in Brazil, at the conclusion of the
assessment study, during its final review by the government’s
environmental agency. However, the analysis already carried
out on this participation process has indicated that
improvements are necessary. The main question to be
solved in this context is how to promote effective and
specially informed participation by the public in reviewing
an EIA. The problem here is the existing imbalance between
financial and technical resources made available to the
entrepreneur, the governmental agency in charge of reviewing
EIA and the public’s participation. It is clear that the most
fragile party here is the public which, in most cases, do not
have the necessary expertise to effectively take part in the
discussions on the possible benefits or consequences –
social, economic and environmental – of the project to be
implemented.
A solution for this matter, which has been considered by
the Ministry of the Environment, is to enable a financial
mechanism aimed at facilitating the public’s participation
in EIAs. This would be done by financing advising services,
consultancies and studies, among others. The National
Environment Fund (FNMA – Fundo Nacional do Meio
Ambiente) has been financing this type of demand already,
but the objective is to encourage more frequent use of it.
4.3. The Need for Geo-referenced Information
Systems
The second issue in need of corrective measures within EIA
refers to the necessity for setting up information systems
which allow the organisation and availability of fundamental
data for the development of assessment studies. Actually,
this is an issue whose scope transcends EIA’s realm, also
being relevant to SEA.
In Brazil, the need to develop a system aimed at systemising,
treating, storing and making environmental data and
information available dates back to the beginning of the
1980s, when the National Environmental programme
established the Environmental Information System
(SINIMA – Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre o Meio
Ambiente) as one of its implementation mechanisms.
However, it never became feasible, mainly due to institutional
reasons. The prime reason is that the different agencies
sectorially responsible for the collection and storage of
environmental information and data (soil, vegetation,
mineral resources, among others) did not want to make
them available for fear, on the one hand, of losing control
over the information and, on the other, of the responsibility
for its management.
At the beginning of the 1990s, the establishment of the
Ecological and Economic Zoning (ZEE – Zoneamento
Ecológico Econômico) brought back this issue of
structuring an information system, though with a larger
scope, including social and economic components too.
Although ZEE has advanced significantly in terms of
structuring databases with fundamental information for
environmental management, this initiative was only possible
in some states, basically those included in the Brazilian
Legal Amazon. Except for these initiatives, whose scope
and dimension were limited to the state level, zoning has
not been systematically implemented in the other states of
the Brazilian Federation, being mostly restricted to small
fragmented areas in the country.
Following its purpose to establish a more effective
environmental licensing system in the country, the National
Environment system (SISNAMA – Sistema Nacional de
Meio Ambiente) included the information issue as a priority
in actions aimed at strengthening the EIAs. Assuming that
one of the main demands in carrying out an environmental
impact study is the availability of geo-referenced data, the
proposal under implementation is to strengthen the
environmental information systems at the state level.
The third and last issue which has been faced by SISNAMA
in the realm of the EIAs refers to the sustainability of the
process. This issue includes both the establishment of a
reparation system for expenses with study reviews carried
out by environmental agencies (federal, state and
municipal) and actions aimed at promoting the institutional
strengthening of these environmental agencies. These
introduction
17