Search

This work presents environmental indicators, based on the pressure-state-response (PSR) model, for the environmental licensing activity of offshore oil and gas production in Brazil. The objective is to consider the feasibility of a set of indicators, supported by existing data, as well as necessary requirements and limitations related to their use. Environmental licensing processes were researched for information from 2012 to 2019 associated with this type of indicators. Due to data limitation, a focus was established on two contiguous areas that concentrate about half of the oil platforms that operate in Brazil and three key indicators: total oil discharge on produced water (pressure); percentage of monitored platforms with significant ecotoxicity in water samples (state); and number of inspections made (response). The indicators show related trends despite some inconsistencies and the challenge of establishing clear causal nexus in this area. Overall, the outcomes show that developing indicators for this system is possible and desirable, but depends on a structured, planned and long-term effort. Moreover, it would be facilitated by robust databases and standardized reporting protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Practitioners play a key role in implementing environmental impact assessment (EIA) policies. Gauging their perception can help in designing legislation or regulation reforms and signals what needs more attention in research. The Brazilian EIA system is under review by lawmakers, but there is scant information about the views of professionals. A survey was conducted to inquiry on practitioners’ perception of the Brazilian EIA system regarding: (1) quality of the process, (2) quality of the environmental impact studies (EIS), and (3) proposals to change the system. Four hundred and fourteen professionals participated in an online survey responding to 44 questions. Results show positive perceptions about some aspects of current practice, but there is a clear predominance of negative appraisal both about the quality of the process and the quality of EIS. The poorest practices are the consideration of cumulative impacts and determination of impact significance. As for proposals to change the system, respondents defend the continuity of specific characteristics of the Brazilian system. Essentially, practitioners are calling for incremental changes that do not require any modification in the legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]