Sign in Subscribe
Economic development

Evolution of Environmental Impact Assessments in Amazon Countries: A Paradigm Shift

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

Environmental impact assessments for development projects in Amazon countries have undergone a significant transformation from biased, centralized procedures to more rigorous processes that aim to avoid conflicts of interest. The focus has shifted from solely environmental impacts to social impacts as well, with a growing emphasis on mitigating or compensating affected communities. Large-scale development projects are typically reviewed by national-level entities, while less contentious initiatives are attributed to regional governments. This change was largely driven by decades of resistance from civil society, which ultimately altered the mentality of executives and managers in both the public and private sectors.

Key Takeaways:

  • The requirement for environmental impact assessments (EIAs) in Amazon countries changed in the 1980s and 1990s, as environmental reforms gained traction.
  • Early EIA methodologies were biased due to conflicts of interest, with specialists being paid by project developers and regulatory agencies promoting the project.
  • Environmental ministries and science practitioners have improved EIA criteria and toolkits, alleviating conflicts of interest.
  • Politicians, businessmen, and bankers believe the safeguards have led to a qualitative improvement in project design and execution.
  • Environmental critics argue that reviews focus on protecting investors' interests rather than assessing projects' sustainability.
  • A typical EIA includes an inventory of natural resources, a description of communities near the project, and recommendations on how to avoid, mitigate, or remediate impacts.
  • In Brazil, the federal government has sought to limit agricultural expansion by creating protected areas and sustainable-use reserves.
  • EIAs have become more focused on social impacts, examining how projects affect communities, including demographics, access to resources, and quality of life.
  • Enlightened executives now understand that EIAs are a wise expenditure on risk management, rather than a regulatory box to tick.
  • The EIA system in Peru was revamped in 2000, with new projects assigned to three levels of scrutiny.
  • Throughout the region, regulatory agencies have developed a taxonomy of rigor, with smaller projects reviewed by regional or municipal entities.
  • In Colombia, environmental review is the responsibility of ANLA and CAR, while in Peru, it falls under SENACE.
  • In Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela, environmental reviews are managed by functionaries within environment ministries.
  • Guyana and Suriname have separated their environmental issues into natural resources ministries and environmental protection agencies.

Statistics:

  • Approximately fifteen to twenty percent of hydroelectric project budgets in Brazil are accounted for by environmental licensing costs, according to a World Bank study.
  • Brazil's IBAMA oversees environmental review for interstate highways, railroads, and large-scale projects.
  • In Brazil, state agencies delegate operational oversight for individual EIAs to sectoral entities, particularly for transportation.
  • Brazil's state agencies conducted only two Class A/EIA reviews for state highways within their jurisdiction.
  • Peru's SENACE develops national standards for environmental review and assumes operational control over large-scale projects.
  • In Peru, sectoral ministries handle class B- and C-level reviews, rather than regional entities.

Sources:

  • Killeen, T. (2021). A Perfect Storm in the Amazon. White Horse.
  • RAISG (Data source)
  • SENACE (2024)
  • SENACE 2024 (Data source)
  • Mongabay Latam. (Banner image)
  • CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons license)

Read more