Follow-up of environmental impacts is an integral part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, closely related to the effectiveness of the instrument. EIA follow-up has been receiving a lot of interest from scientists and practitioners, though it is recognized as one of the weakest points of EIA systems globally. Also, EIA follow-up is influenced by the context, mainly in terms of the types of projects or activities and their related impacts on the environment. Therefore, the present paper is focused on the investigation of the follow-up stage applied to the activity of seismic survey coupled with offshore oil & gas exploitation in Brazil. Research was based on a qualitative approach that included document analysis and semi-structured interviews with analysts involved in EIA processes, and sought to generate evidence of effectiveness of the EIA follow-up as conducted by the Federal Environment Agency (Ibama) in order to situate the practice of follow-up in the broader context of international best practice principles. Based on the findings, it was concluded that, due to the peculiarities of offshore seismic survey, it is necessary to promote adaptations in the procedures for monitoring impacts in order to ensure proper alignment with the principles and conceptual foundations that guide EIA practice. Specifically, the timing of the execution of the activity imposes challenges for its integration into the “conventional” cycle that has guided the monitoring of the impacts in the EIA of projects.
References
[1]
Morrison-Saunders, A., Baker, J. and Arts, J. (2003) Lessons Form Practice: Towards a Successful Follow-Up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21, 34-56. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766527
[2]
Marshall, R., Arts, J. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2005) International Principles for Best Practice EIA Follow-Up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23, 175-181. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765490
[3]
Arts, J., Caldwell, P. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2001) Environmental Impact Assessment Follow-Up: Good Practice and Future Directions—Findings from a Workshop at the IAIA 2000 Conference. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19, 175-185. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767014
[4]
Noble, B. and Storey, K. (2005) Towards Increasing the Utility of Follow-Up in Canadian EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 163-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.009
[5]
Ramos, T.B., Caeiro, S. and Joanaz de Melo, J. (2004) Environmental Indicator Frameworks to Design and Assess Environmental Monitoring Programs. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22, 47-62. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154604781766111
[6]
Wessels, J.A., Retief, F. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2015) Appraising the Value of Independent EIA Follow-Up Verifiers. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 178-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.10.004
[7]
Montaño, M. and Souza, M.P. (2015) Impact Assessment Research in Brazil: Achievements, Gaps and Future Directions. Journal Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 17, Article ID: 1550009. https://doi.org/10.1142/S146433321550009X
[8]
Gallardo, A.L.C.F. and Sánchez, L.E. (2004) Follow-Up of a Road Building Scheme in a Fragile Environment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00136-7
[9]
Carr, S., Chapman, D., Presley, B., Biedenbach, J.M., Robertson, L., Boothe, P., et al. (1996) Sediment Porewater Toxicity Assessment Studies in the Vicinity of Offshore Oil and Gas Production Platforms in the Gulf of Mexico: Gulf of Mexico Offshore Operations Monitoring Experiment (GOOMEX), Canadian. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 53, 2618-2628. https://doi.org/10.1139/f96-218
[10]
Ducrotoy, J.P. and Elliott, M. (2008) The Science and Management of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea: Natural History, Present Threats and Future Challenges. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 57, 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.04.030
[11]
Nowacek, D.P., Bröker, K., Donovan, G., Gailey, G., Racca, R., Reeves, R., et al. (2013) Responsible Practices for Minimizing and Monitoring Environmental Impacts of Marine Seismic Surveys with an Emphasis on Marine Mammals. Aquatic Mammals, 39, 356-377. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.39.4.2013.356
[12]
Weir, R.C. and Dolman, J.S. (2007) Comparative Review of the Regional Marine Mammal Mitigation Guidelines Implemented during Industrial Seismic Surveys, and Guidance towards a Worldwide Standard. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 10, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880290701229838
Nelms, S.E., Piniak, W.E.D., Weir, C.R. and Godley, B.J. (2016) Seismic Surveys and Marine Turtles: An Underestimated Global Threat? Biological Conservation, 193, 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.020
[15]
André, M., van der Schaar, M., Zaugg, S., Houégnigan, L., Sánchez, A.M. and Castell, J.V. (2011) Listening to the Deep: Live Monitoring of Ocean Noise and Cetacean Acoustic Signals. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 63, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.04.038
[16]
Prideaux, G. and Prideaux, M. (2016) Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Offshore Petroleum Exploration Seismic Surveys. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34, 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1096038
[17]
Pinto, E., Morrison-Saunders, A., Bond, A., Pope, J. and Retief, F. (2019) Distilling and Applying Criteria for Best Practice EIA Follow-Up. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 21, Article ID: 1950008. https://doi.org/10.1142/S146433321950008X
[18]
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks.
[19]
Baker, J. (2004) A Practical Framework for EIA Follow-Up. In: Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J., Eds., Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up, Earthscan, London, 42-60.
[20]
Arts, J. and Nooteboom, S. (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment Monitoring and Auditing. In: Petts, J., Ed., Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Vol. 1, Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Methods and Potential, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 229-251.
[21]
Arts, J. and Meijer, J. (2004) Designing for EIA Follow-Up: Experiences from the Netherlands. In: Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J., Eds., Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up, Earthscan, London, 63-96.
[22]
Austin, D.E. (2000) Community Participation in EIA Follow-Up. Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Honk Kong, 19-23 June 2000, Personal Communication.
[23]
Fitzpatrick, P. and Williams, B. (2020) Building the System: Follow-Up, Monitoring & Adaptive Management. The University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg.
[24]
Sánchez, L.E. (2013) Development of Environmental Impact Assessment in Brazil. UVP Report, 27, 193-200.
[25]
EPD Environment Protection Department (2002) The Operation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance in Hong Kong. https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/operation/index.html
Jha-Thakur, U., Fischer, T.B. and Rajvanshi, A. (2009) Reviewing Design Stage of Environmental Impact Assessment Follow-Up: Looking at the Open Cast Coal Mines in India. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X413064
