Search

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]

We examine how access regimes, defined by a set of interrelated institutions and organizations, facilitated the flow of production resources and benefits that resulted in patterns of land change in the Brazilian Cerrado. We analyzed remotely sensed data (Landsat MSS, TM, +ETM) for three time periods (1972/1973-1986, 1986-1992, 1992-2002) with qualitative and archival data for eastern Mato Grosso state. Overall we found that land privately colonized was cleared more rapidly and extensively than lands under no colonization scheme. We also identified significant spatial variability in Cerrado conversion within and outside colonization areas and variability of annual rates of Cerrado conversion during each period. We explain that farmers in the Cerrado engaged in land-leasing and production contracts and worked through cooperatives and firms to marshal resources, including credit, technology, and inputs, which, in turn, influenced land-use decisions and regional patterns of land-cover change. We conclude that a mesoscale analytical framework that examines how land managers access natural and productive resources provides useful insights to explain the processes that cause patterns of high-input agricultural expansion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]