Licenciamento e avaliação de impacto ambiental : percepção, ciência e desafios

Abstract

Within 53 years of history and used by more than 180 countries, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the most successful sustainable decision support process today. Its multidisciplinary dynamics covers the biotic, physical and socioeconomic components. Despite its history and scope, the EIA is still in the process of adaptation, especially in developing countries, such as Brazil. At the national level, the EIA supports the environmental licensing process (EL), providing information for sustainable decisions. In this sense, at national and international level, EIA is a common subject in scientific production, with research related to biodiversity conservation, methods and inclusion of the public in the process, for example. Furthermore, the literature on this topic is focused on “quality” to the detriment of effectiveness and theory. In this context, I explore over three articles the relationships between environmental licensing processes, environmental impact assessment and information, in the public (perception and opinion) and academic (peer-reviewed) spheres. In the first article I present a structural equation model that highlights the relationships between different types of media, public opinion on bill 3729/2004 and the socioeconomic profile of Brazilians. In the second, I explore the connections between the scientific production on the methods of the biotic component of EIA, the frameworks (quality, theory and effectiveness) and the other disciplines. In the last chapter I analyze the environmental and economic constraints of the scientific literature explored in the second chapter. In a general summary, the results indicate that environmental licensing is not a topic of interest to most Brazilians. In parallel, at an international level, the focuses of the literature are quality, biodiversity and environmental impacts. Furthermore, most of this research, including the most relevant ones, is carried out in developed countries to the detriment of countries with greater biodiversity. In this sense, I discuss the importance of science communicators as information mediators; the importance of including management and policies in the literature discussion; and the need for greater collaboration between the scientific community and research in developing countries.