Ci. e Nat.,
Santa Maria v.42, e22, 2020
DOI:10.5902/2179460X40368
ISSN
2179-460X
Received
10/04/19 Accepted: 15/01/20 Published:24/06/20
Environment
Attributes and Magnitude of the Socio-Environmental
Impacts in Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
of two small Hydroelectric Power Plants
Atributos e magnitude dos impactos socioambientais em
EIA/RIMA de duas pequenas centrais hidrelétricas
Carolina
Faccio DemarcoI
Thays
França AfonsoII
Patricia
Damasceno RibeiroIII
Cassia
Brocca CaballeroIV
Robson
AndreazzaV
Tirzah
Moreira SiqueiraVI
I Doutoranda no Programa de Pós-Graduação em
Ciências e Engenharia de Materiais do Centro de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico
(CDTec) da Universidade Federal de Pelotas. carol_demarco@hotmail.com
II
Bolsista CAPES na modalidade doutorado no Programa
de Pós-Graduação em Ciências e Engenharia de Materiais (UFPel) thaysafonso@hotmail.com
III
aluna de Pós-Graduação
em Ciências Ambientais pela Universidade Federal de Pelotas. patiidamasceno@gmail.com
IV
Doutoranda no Programa
de Pós-Graduação em Recursos Hídricos e Saneamento Ambiental do Instituto de
Pesquisas Hidráulicas da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
cassiabrocca@gmail.com
V
Professor Adjunto IV da
Universidade Federal de Pelotas - Professor Permanente do PPG em Ciências
Ambientais, do PPG em Desenvolvimento Territorial e Sistemas Agroindustriais e
do PPG em Ciências e Engenharia de Materiais (UFPel). robsonandreazza@yahoo.com.br
VI
Professora na Universidade Federal de Pelotas
(UFPel) desde 2014, membro permanente do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências
Ambientais (PPGCAmb-UFPel) tirzahmelo@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the approach used to describe the
socio-environmental impacts - through the analysis of attributes and magnitude
of impacts - of these two projects and for this, consultations were carried out
on the Environmental Impact Studies presented by the consultants of the activity,
as well as the technical opinions available on the website of the Federal
Authority responsible for environmental licensing. Both Small Hydroelectric
Power Plants selected for this study, the Cabuí
(southeast of Minas Gerais State) and Caiçara
(northern Minas Gerais state) are located in low-income regions. It was verified that the socio-environmental
approaches of the SHPs differed in some aspects. The Cabuí, whose
previous license was deferred, used more attributes to describe the
socioeconomic impacts and the explanation of the impact assessment was more
detailed and easy to understand, while the EIS of the Caiçara
SHP (previous license rejected) was more succinct in its attributes for the
description of the socioeconomic impacts, not adequately presenting the
valuation and meaning of its impacts. There is also evidence of the need to
improve public participation in both projects.
Keywords: Small Hydroelectric Power Plants (SHPs); Environmental Impact Assessment; Environmental
Licensing
RESUMO
Este
estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a abordagem utilizada para descrever os
impactos socioambientais - por meio da análise de atributos e magnitude dos
impactos - desses dois projetos e, para isso, foram realizadas consultas sobre
os Estudos de Impacto Ambiental apresentados pelos consultores da atividade,
bem como as opiniões técnicas disponíveis no site da Autoridade Federal
responsável pelo licenciamento ambiental. As Pequenas Centrais Hidrelétricas selecionadas
para este estudo, a Cabuí (sudeste de Minas Gerais) e Caiçara (norte de Minas
Gerais) estão localizadas em regiões de baixa renda. Verificou-se que as
abordagens socioambientais das PCHs diferiram em alguns aspectos. O Cabuí, cuja
licença anterior foi deferida, usou mais atributos para descrever os impactos
socioeconômicos e a explicação da avaliação de impacto foi mais detalhada e fácil
de entender, enquanto o EIA da PCH Caiçara (licença anterior rejeitada) foi
mais sucinto em seus atributos pela descrição dos impactos socioeconômicos, não
apresentando adequadamente a valoração e o significado de seus impactos. Também
há evidências da necessidade de melhorar a participação pública em ambos os
projetos.
Palavras-chave: Pequenas
Centrais Hidrelétricas; Avaliação de Impactos Ambientais; Licenciamento
Ambiental
1 INTRODUCTION
Brazilian National Environmental Policy (Law 6938/81) lists
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as one of its instruments and establishes
the competence of the National Environmental Council (CONAMA) to create norms
and criteria for the licensing of effective and/or potentially polluting activities.
Through the Resolution No. 237/1997 of CONAMA provides guidelines for the
environmental licensing of activities with potential to pollute and degrade the
environment. The EIA is recognized as the most widely used environmental
planning and management tool in the world, as almost all United Nations member
countries use it for project-level decision-making (MORGAN, 2012). Due to the
increasing demand for the use of natural resources, EIA has been required by
environmental agencies to assist in decision making and to protect the
environment.
In this context, the Environmental Licensing (through Law 6938/81) was
instituted in Brazilian legislation, which is an instrument granted by the
State, under the terms of the regulation, authorizing the location, implementation
and operation of potentially polluting enterprises and activities, through the
licenses. The refereed licenses are the PL (Preliminary License), IL
(Installation License), OL (Operation License), as described in Conama Resolution 237/1997. This law establishes the relationship
between environmental licensing and the Environmental Impact Study (EIS), so
that these instruments allow the protection of the environment, as well as
favouring sustainable development.
Thus, the CONAMA Resolution 001/86 provides in its Article 2 an illustrative
list of activities that requires the elaboration of the EIS and respective
environmental impact report (EIR), highlighting that the need for EIA will depend on
the requirements of the Environmental Authority responsible for the environmental
licensing. In such illustrative list there is an item VII that hydraulic plants
which exploit water resources, such as dams for hydroelectric purposes (with
power generation above 10 MW) are activities that degrade the environment
causing environmental impact and, therefore require the preparation of the EIS
in the environmental licensing process. Through this resolution, the
implementation of Small Hydroelectric Power Plants (SHPs) in Brazil should
regularly undergo this type of study in order to support the decision on its
authorization.
According to the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL, 2015), a SHP is
any enterprise that produces electricity whose power is greater than 3
Megawatts (MW) and equal to or less than 30 MW and has an accumulation
reservoir area of up to 13 km². Although SHPs are a source of clean energy and
are linked to the conception of economic growth, their construction faces major
obstacles due to their social and environmental impacts, generating conflicts
between society and the proponents of these projects (GOMES; SILVA, 2017a). According
to Zhouri (2011), these conflicts are highly
criticized among the parties that are in favour of SHPs insertion projects, as
well as those who defend and support society and the environment due to the
impacts caused by SHPs.
The study by Gomes and Silva (2017a) showed that conflicts between SHP
project proponents and society are not commonly related to the instrument's
disability (EIS), but rather to poor management of environmental impact
assessment for these projects, mainly related to the establishment of the
involved scenario. The scenarios involving the Cabuí
and Caiçara SHPs (both located in Minas Gerais) are
regions of extreme environmental relevance because they are inserted in
bi-regional watersheds and located in low-income regions.
According with Silva et al. (2016), the environmental licensing is one
of the factors to be prioritized in the decision-making process, aiming to
guide the policies formalization. Zarfl et al. (2015)
highlighted that one of the major impacts of these activities are the social
impacts, such as the replacement of local population.
Gomes and Silva (2017b) studying environmental Licensing Conflicts of
SHPs in Brazil pointed out some issues as the lack of documents in the
licensing process; poor divulgation of public hearings; contradiction
considering the population opinion; and negligence about the negative impact in
the tourism sector in the area affected.
The planned site for the installation of the Cabuí
SHP is on the Paraibuna River, located in the border
of Minas Gerais State with Rio de Janeiro State, consisting of an 18 MW plant
with a reservoir of approximately 1.09 km². The Caiçara
SHP has a predicted location on the Carinhanha River
on the border of the states of Minas Gerais and Bahia with an installed
capacity of 19.50 MW and has no accumulation reservoir, as it is of the “run of
the river” type. CONAMA’s Resolution No. 237/97 provides in its article 4, item
II, that IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural
Resources) is the responsible authority for licensing activities that are
located or developed in two or more states, as the cases of the SHPs in this
study.
SHP Cabuí had its preliminary license (PL No.
467/2013) granted by IBAMA and SHP Caiçara had its
license denied according to technical opinion No. 000036/2014 (Analysis of the
Concession of PL-SPH Caiçara) also from IBAMA. Considering
that the EIS should include discussions about impacts on the physical, biotic
and social environment, we opted for the analysis of social and environmental
impacts, because these are widely discussed and extremely relevant in this type
of project (SHP). Thus, the present study is based on the evaluation of the EIS
of two SHPs, SHP Cabuí and SHP Caiçara,
which were submitted to the IBAMA for analysis of environmental viability and
obtaining the necessary environmental licenses for its operation.
Thus, the objective of this work was to compare the characterization of
the EIS of these two enterprises regarding the attributes of the adopted social
and environmental impacts, as well as the magnitude of the impacts and the
general approach used to justify the classification of these impacts. To this
end, we compared the environmental impact interaction matrices presented, as
well as the magnitude of the impacts of both projects.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1
Methodological Strategies
Firstly, guiding questions were formulated aiming at orienting the
research: “How are social and environmental impacts being addressed in
Environmental Impact Studies of Small Hydroelectric Projects? What were the
attributes and magnitude of the social and environmental impacts pointed out by
both projects?”
There were some criteria for the choice of the case studies, being
delimited first: a) the selection of a unique typology of enterprise; b) prioritization
of projects located in a nearby region, being located at least in the same
state; c) be available for consultation at a federal agency (IBAMA); d) present
opinion of the licensing authority (IBAMA) about the elaboration of the EIS.
Considering the described criteria, there were selected as case studies two
projects of implementation of Small Hydroelectric Plants (SHP) located in the
State of Minas Gerais, SHP Cabuí and SHP Caiçara.
The documents consulted for the preparation of this research are
described in Table 1. The Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) of the two SHPs were analysed. Both EIS/EIR were submitted
to the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources
(IBAMA) by the company responsible for the preparation and are available for
public consultation through the website http://licenciamento.ibama.gov.br/. The
EIS/EIR were prepared in accordance with the Terms of Reference (TR), called
“Terms of Reference for the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Study and
the respective Environmental Impact Report - EIA / RIMA”, and only the TR from SHP
Caiçara was currently available on the website.
The SHP Cabuí EIS consulted had a division
with 13 sections and aimed to diagnose the physical, biotic, social and
cultural environment, as well as to present the environmental prognosis of the
area to be affected by the enterprise. The SHP Caiçara
EIS has six volumes, and only the volume I was used for this study, which is
composed of 5 chapters, organized in order to present the studies and other analyses
in an orderly manner, aiming at a better understanding of the main
socio-environmental aspects of the study area. In addition to these analysed
documents, technical advice from the IBAMA licensing authority was also
consulted, as can be seen in Table 1. Other case studies were also used for
comparison.
Table 1 – Documentation consulted for research
|
Documentation |
IBAMA Case
Number |
|
Cabuí SHP Environmental Impact Study (EIS) |
02001.008406/2009-01 |
|
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY - EIS. Caiçara Small Hydroelectric Power Station. Volume I. |
02001.011484/2009-84 |
|
Term of Reference for the Preparation of the
Environmental Impact Study and the respective Environmental Impact Report -
EIS / EIR - of the Gavião, Catumbi
and Caiçara SHPs |
02001.011484/2009-84 |
|
Technical Opinion: Analysis of the EIS/EIR and
related documents of the SHP Cabuí project, aiming
at positioning regarding the environmental viability. |
000179/2013 |
|
Technical Opinion: Verification of the compliance of
the EIS/EIR of SHP Gavião and SHP Caiçara to the Term of Reference for the elaboration of
the Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report - SHP of Gavião, Catumbi and Caiçara |
25/2012 |
|
Technical Opinion: Verification of compliance with
the TR and Acceptance of Environmental Impact Studies and Environmental
Impact Reports of SHP Gavião (02001.011481 /
2009-41) and SHP Caiçara (02001.011484 / 2009-84) |
000028/2013 |
|
Technical Opinion: Preliminary License analysis.
Process 02001.011484 / 2009-84 - SHP Caiçara |
000036/2014 |
The information search strategy was based on the difference detected
between the attributes of the environmental impacts used in SHP Cabuí and SHP Caiçara EIS. The
SHP Cabuí EIS used the attributes “phase of
occurrence, scope, nature, form of incidence, possibility of occurrence, time
of occurrence, duration, importance, reversibility, possibility of mitigation,
possibility of potentiation, magnitude, synergy and cumulativeness”. On the
other hand, the Caiçara SHP EIS presented the
attributes “phase of occurrence, scope, nature, form of incidence, duration,
reversibility, magnitude and final value of the impact”.
The consulted processes were confronted with the analytical criteria
proposed for their elaboration, in order to verify if there was the expected
adherence. The appraisal process was made by the researchers, and at the end of
the process, the analysis of each one was discussed by the team aiming at
standardizing the appraisal.
2.2
Study Area
The Cabuí SHP, with an output of 18 MW, will
be installed in the Paraibuna River at the confluence
with the Preto River, in the Paraíba do Sul River sub-basin (Figure 1) (BRASIL,
2014; EDUARDO; SILVA, 2010). It is located in the southeastern
region of Minas Gerais state with border with the state of Rio de Janeiro, at
coordinates 22°00'71 south latitude and 43°32'67 west longitude. All the
structures of the project are located on the border between the municipalities
of Simão Pereira and Belmiro
Braga, both located in the state of Minas Gerais, near the municipality of
Comendador Levy Gasparian, in the state of Rio de
Janeiro (AMBIOTECH, 2012). According to the EIS, the project will have a drainage
area of 3,734 km², a flooded area at the normal maximum water level equivalent
to 1.09 km² and a reservoir with an area of 109 ha with 40 years of useful
life.
Figure 1 – Location of Cabuí SHP (Site 1) and Caiçara
SHP (Site 2), Minas Gerais, Brazil
Adapted from:
Governo do Estado de Minas Gerais (https://www.mg.gov.br/)
The area of indirect
influence for the socioeconomic environment was defined considering the
municipalities along the Paraibuna River, six in Minas Gerais (Simão Pereira,
Belmiro Braga, Matias Barbosa, Santana do Deserto, Chiador and Juiz de Fora)
and two in Rio de Janeiro (Comendador Levy Gasparian and Três Rios). For the area of direct influence of the socioeconomic
environment were considered the municipalities affected by the reservoir,
powerhouse and the dam, being the municipalities of Simão
Pereira and Belmiro Braga in Minas Gerais and
Comendador Levy Gasparian in Rio de Janeiro (BASTOS,
2013; AMBIOTECH, 2012).
The Caiçara SHP is located in the Carinhanha River basin on the border between the states of
Bahia and Minas Gerais. The Carinhanha River is a
tributary of the São Francisco River, which is one of the most relevant
watercourses for the country as well as its economic and historical
contribution to the region (Figure 1) (BORGES, 2009). The Caiçara
SHP is located in the municipality of Bonito de Minas, in the state of Minas
Gerais, and Cocos, in the state of Bahia. The venture has a drainage area of
4,224 km² and a reservoir area at the maximum water level equivalent to 10.1
km² with a useful life of 200 years (ANA, 2014; LIMIAR, 2013a).
The area of indirect influence for the socioeconomic environment was
defined according to the municipalities near the Carinhanha
River, with four municipalities in Minas Gerais (Montalvânia,
Cônego Marinho, Januária and
Bonito de Minas) and three municipalities in Bahia (Coribe,
Feira da Mata and Cocos). For the area of direct influence of the socioeconomic
environment, the urban headquarters of the municipalities of Bonito de Minas
and Montalvânia, both in the state of Minas Gerais,
and in the municipality of Cocos, in the state of Bahia, were considered. There
was also considered as an area of direct influence are the rural riverside
villages near the venture, such as Novo Horizonte, Sumidouro
and Cachoeira do Gibão (located
in the state of Minas Gerais), Lodo and Lages
(located in the state of Bahia), and Porto Cajueiro
(located in the state of Bahia and Minas Gerais) (LIMIAR, 2013b).
3 RESULTS
3.1
Social-environmental impacts raised in the EIS
The consultations to the previously described documentation allowed to
list the social and environmental impacts addressed by each of the studied
enterprises (Table 2). It is noticed that the amount of impacts listed by each
EIS was quite similar, but differing in content. The SHP Cabuí
EIS had a wide range of negative impacts on the population (around 10 impacts),
such as relocating residents, expropriating land, backwater areas hit, job
losses, overburdening public and private services, increased traffic, among
others. In the SHP Caiçara EIS, only 7 negative
impacts were presented, some of them: pressure on public services, introduction
of endemics, increased traffic, loss of wildlife.
Table 2 – Lists of socioenvironmental impacts addressed in the EIS of the
Cabuí and Caiçara SHPs
|
SHP’s EIS |
Socioenvironmental
Impacts |
|
Cabuí |
Resettlement of residents and compulsory disposal of
all or part of the areas. |
|
Expropriation of lands located on the Islands used
for leisure. |
|
|
Backwater areas affected by the safety strip and the
formation of APP. |
|
|
Expectation of the population regarding the
enterprise and its effects on the environment. |
|
|
Political mobilization of the local population. |
|
|
Loss of formal or informal jobs. |
|
|
Generation of direct and indirect jobs in the
various stages of the venture. |
|
|
Overload of public and private services. |
|
|
Increased traffic and deterioration of surrounding
roads. |
|
|
Degradation of the natural landscape. |
|
|
Impacts on fishing |
|
|
Risk of uncontrolled use and occupation of reservoir
margins. |
|
|
Impacts on archaeological heritage. |
|
|
Caiçara |
Generation of expectations at the local level. |
|
Expansion of the job offer. |
|
|
Allochthonous population influx - Pressure on public
services in areas of direct and indirect influence |
|
|
Allochthonous population influx- Tertiary sector
increment. |
|
|
Introduction of endemics. |
|
|
Increased vehicle traffic on the access roads to the
works. |
|
|
Run over and loss of wildlife. |
|
|
Improvements and extensions to the local road network. |
|
|
Interferences in the daily life of the local rural
population. |
|
|
Dispersion of Traditional Communities and Loss of
Raw Materials - Loss of Cultural References. |
|
|
Employment contraction- Efflux of people from the
region. |
|
|
Increased municipal revenue. |
|
|
Accident risks for the user population |
|
|
Change of local landscape |
3.2 Social-environmental
impacts raised attributes
The SHP Cabuí EIS described its social and
environmental impacts and analyzed the meaning of
each impact by judging its attributes. The SHP Caiçara
EIS determined and attributed values to the effects of social and environmental
impacts caused during all stages of the project. Table 3 presents the
characteristics considered for each attribute, as described in the EISs.
Table 3 – Characteristics of the attributes described in the SHP Cabuí and SHP Caiçara EIs
|
Attributes |
Characteristics |
Venture |
|
Phase |
Planning (P) / Implementation (I) / Operation (O) |
SHP Cabuí; SHP Caiçara. |
|
Coverage |
Local (L) / Regional (R) / Undetermined (U) |
SHP Cabuí; SHP Caiçara. |
|
Nature |
Positive (P) / Negative (N) |
SHP Cabuí; SHP Caiçara. |
|
Form of incidence |
Direct (D) / Indirect (I) |
SHP Cabuí |
|
Possibility of occurrence |
Right (R) / Uncertain (U) |
SHP Cabuí |
|
Time of occurrence |
Immediate Start (IS) / Short Term (ST) / Medium Term
(MT) / Long Term (LT) |
SHP Cabuí; SHP Caiçara. |
|
Duration |
Temporary (T) /
Permanent (P) / Cyclic (C) / Recurrent
(R) |
SHP Cabuí |
|
Importance |
Big (B) / Medium (M) / Small (S) |
SHP Cabuí |
|
Reversibility |
Reversible (R) / Irreversible (I) |
SHP Cabuí; SHP Caiçara. |
|
Possibility of mitigation |
Mitigable (M) / Not Mitigable (NM) |
SHP Cabuí |
|
Potentialization Possibility |
Potential (P) / Not Potential (NP) |
SHP Cabuí; |
|
Magnitude |
Low (L) / Medium (M) / High (H) |
SHP Cabuí; SHP Caiçara. |
|
Synergy |
Synergistic (S) / Non-synergistic (NS) |
SHP Cabuí; |
|
Cummulativity |
Cumulative (C) / Non-cumulative (NC) |
SHP Cabuí; |
|
Final Value |
Significant (S) / Moderate (M) / Not significant
(NS) |
SHP Caiçara. |
Source: Adapted from AMBIOTECH (2012); LIMIAR (2013a).
The assessment of impacts magnitude in SHP Cabuí
EIS was a combination of attributes such as scope, incidence, duration,
reversibility, potentiality and importance. Therefore, the authors of the SHP Cabuí EIS assigned numerical values for these attributes,
enabling a quantitative assessment of an impact in relation to the others, as
shown in Table 4. It is noteworthy that the possibility of reversal only
applies to negative impacts and the possibility of potentiation only applies to
positive impacts.
Table 4 – Attribute value scale adopted in SHP Cabuí
EIS
|
Regardless |
Atributes |
Value |
|
|
Scope |
Local |
1 |
|
|
Regional |
3 |
||
|
Undetermined |
2 |
||
|
Incidence |
Direct |
3 |
|
|
Indirect |
1 |
||
|
Duration |
Temporary |
1 |
|
|
Cyclic or Recurrent |
2 |
||
|
Permanent |
3 |
||
|
Importance |
Small |
2 |
|
|
Medium |
3 |
||
|
Big |
4 |
||
|
Reversibility |
Reversible |
1 |
|
|
Irreversible |
3 |
||
|
Potentiation Possibility |
Potential |
3 |
|
|
Not Potential |
1 |
||
Source: Adapted from AMBIOTECH (2012).
SHP Cabuí EIS, after presenting the value
scale, describes the equation used to calculate the magnitude of each impact
for the project: Magnitude = 2 x (Scope + Form of Incidence + Duration +
Reversibility or Possibility of Potentiation) x Importance.
The result found in this calculation was classified into the following
classes: a) Low magnitude: results below 40; b) Average magnitude: results
between 40 and 63; c) High magnitude: results between 64 and 88. Table 5
illustrates the characterization made for all socio-environmental impacts in
the SHP Cabuí EIS. The calculated magnitude values
presented in the EIA SHP Cabuí are illustrated in
Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 - Graphical representation of the
magnitude of the impacts of the socioeconomic environment. Impacts: (1)
Relocation of residents; (2) Land expropriation; (3) Backwater areas affected;
(4) Invasion of properties during drought; (5) population expectation; (6)
Political mobilization of the population; (7) Loss of jobs; (8) Generation of
direct and indirect jobs; (9) Overload of public and private services; (10)
Increased traffic and abrasion of surrounding roads; (11) Degradation of the
natural landscape; (12) impacts on fishing; (13) Risk of uncontrolled use and
occupation of reservoir margins; (14) Impacts on archaeological heritage.
It can be seen that the impacts with higher magnitude in the SHP Cabuí EIS (magnitude value = 72) were the relocation of
residents and compulsory total or partial alienation of the areas;
expropriation of land located on the islands used for leisure; generation of
direct and indirect jobs in the various phases of the enterprise and
degradation of the natural landscape. On the other hand, regarding the
calculation of the magnitude of impacts on the SHP Caiçara
EIS, it was found that there was no description of the methodology used for the
consideration of the magnitude. The valuations of the social and environmental
impacts of SHP Caiçara are presented in Table 6.
As stated by Sanchez (2013), an impact can generate several other
impacts, which are called secondary and tertiary impacts. Impacts “Expansion of
job vacancies” and “Contraction of job vacancies” as provided by the SHP Caiçara EIS are described as main impacts that lead to
several other impacts. Some examples of impacts generated by the “Job Supply
Expansion” are: the influx of the allochthonous population (generating pressure
on public services and introduction of endemics), increase of the tertiary
sector (generating increase of municipal collection), increase of vehicle
traffic (generating loss of fauna elements and interference in the daily life
of the rural local population).
The impact “Dispersal of traditional communities and loss of raw
materials and cultural references” was considered direct and indirect regarding
its form. The impact is indirect when it is related to population resettlement
and direct when considering the reservoir filling. The execution of SHP Caiçara installation works will require the removal of
residents from the project's direct influence area and the filling of the
reservoir will hinder access to raw material sources, such as clay, used in the
local manufacture of ceramics and there will also be a loss of copies of the
“architecture of the earth” in the area.
The impacts considered positive in the SHP Caiçara
EIS were: “Influx of allochthonous population, generating increase in the
tertiary sector”; “Increased vehicle traffic, responsible for improvements and
extensions in the local road network”; “Increased municipal collection” and
“Alteration of the local landscape”.
3.3
Environmental feasibility of the projects based on the EISs
IBAMA Report No. 000036/2014 states that SHP Cabuí
EIS met the minimum requirements requested in the TR and that some dubious
information could still be clarified and corrected later without interfering
with the final analysis of the project's environmental viability. IBAMA's
technical team stated that the project is environmentally viable and granted
the preliminary license (PL) to proceed with the environmental licensing
process.
IBAMA Report No. 000179/2013 assessed that SHP Caiçara
EIS met the minimum requirements requested in the TR, but it was not clear
enough about the methodology used to weight and integrate the indicators and also
assessed that data were omitted to generate some indicators (no explanation for
magnitude calculation, for instance). These factors compromised the fidelity of
the scenario built to represent the socio-environmental weaknesses of the
region where the future venture will be inserted. The IBAMA technical team
realized that the delimitation of the project's direct area of influence was
wrong, as populations that felt affected were not mentioned in the EIS; there
was mixed information about the number of jobs that would be created; gaps in
communication were found regarding those affected; no bibliography was
presented in relation to the socioeconomic environment, besides other problems
related to the physical and biotic impacts. Therefore, the environmental
viability of the SHP Caiçara project could not be
attested.
Table 5 - Characterization of the social and environmental impacts
described in the SHP Cabuí EIS
|
Impacts |
Phase |
Scope |
Nature |
Form |
Possibility of occurrence |
Time of occurrence |
Duration |
Importance |
Reversibility |
Possibility of mitigation |
Possibility of Potentiation |
Magnitude |
Synergy |
Commutativity |
|
|
Relocation of residents and compulsory disposal of all or part of the
areas. |
I |
L |
N |
D |
R |
IS |
P |
B |
I |
M |
- |
H |
S |
NC |
|
|
Expropriation of lands located on the Islands used for leisure. |
I |
L |
N |
D |
R |
IS |
P |
B |
I |
M |
- |
H |
S |
NC |
|
|
Backwater areas affected by the safety strip and the formation of permanent preservation area
(PPA) |
I |
L |
N |
D |
R |
IS |
P |
M |
I |
M |
- |
M |
S |
NC |
|
|
Expectation of the population regarding the enterprise and its effects
on the environment. |
P/I |
R |
N/P |
D |
R |
IS |
T |
M |
R |
M |
P |
M |
S |
NC |
|
|
Political mobilization of the local population. |
P/I |
R |
P |
I |
R |
IS |
T |
B |
- |
- |
P |
H |
S |
C |
|
|
Loss of formal or informal jobs. |
P/I |
L |
N |
D |
R |
ST |
T |
B |
R |
M |
- |
M |
S |
NC |
|
|
Generation of direct and indirect jobs in the various stages of the
venture. |
P/I/O |
R |
P |
D |
R |
MT |
T |
B |
- |
- |
P |
H |
S |
NC |
|
|
Overload of public and private services. |
I |
L |
N |
I |
R |
MT |
T |
M |
R |
M |
- |
L |
S |
NC |
|
|
Increased traffic and abrasion of surrounding roads. |
I/O |
L/R |
N |
D |
R |
IS |
P |
M |
R |
M |
- |
M |
S |
NC |
|
|
Degradation of the natural landscape. |
I/O |
L |
N |
I |
R |
ST |
P |
B |
I |
M |
- |
H |
S |
C |
|
|
Impacts on fishing. |
I/O |
L |
N |
I |
R |
MT |
P |
M |
R |
M |
- |
L |
S |
C |
|
|
Risk of uncontrolled use and occupation of reservoir margins. |
I/O |
L |
N |
I |
U |
MT |
P |
S |
R |
M |
- |
L |
S |
NC |
|
|
Impacts on archaeological heritage. |
I |
L |
N |
D |
R |
IS |
P |
B |
I |
M |
- |
H |
S |
NC |
Legend: refer to Table 3.
Source: Adapted from AMBIOTECH
(2012)
Table 6 - Characterization of the social and
environmental impacts described in the SHP Caiçara
EIS
|
Impacts |
Phase |
Nature |
Form |
Coverage |
Duration |
Reversibility |
Magnitude |
Final Value |
|
Local Expectation Generation |
||||||||
|
|
P |
N |
D |
L |
C |
R |
H |
S |
|
Expansion of job offer |
||||||||
|
Allochthonous population influx- Pressures
on public services |
I |
N |
I |
R |
C |
R |
M |
M |
|
Allochthonous population
influx- Tertiary sector increment |
I |
P |
I |
R |
C |
R |
M |
M |
|
Introduction of endemics |
I |
N |
I |
R |
C |
R |
M |
M |
|
Increase in vehicle
traffic - trampling and loss of wildlife |
I |
N |
D |
L |
C |
R |
M |
S |
|
Increased vehicle
traffic-Improvements and expansions in local road network |
I/O |
P |
D |
R |
L |
I |
H |
S |
|
Interference in the daily
life of the local rural population |
I |
N |
D |
L |
C |
R |
M |
M |
|
Dispersion of Traditional
Communities and Loss of Raw Materials - Loss of Cultural References. |
I/O |
N |
D/I |
L |
L |
I |
M |
M |
|
Job offers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flow of people from the
region |
O |
N |
D |
R |
L |
R |
M |
M |
|
Increased municipal
revenue |
O |
P |
D |
L |
L |
R |
H |
S |
|
Accident risks for the user
population |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
N |
D |
L |
L |
R |
L |
NS |
|
Local landscape change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
P |
D |
L |
L |
I |
L |
NS |
Legend: refer to Table 3.
Source: LIMIAR (2013a)
4 DISCUSSION
Candiani et al. (2013), describing the socioenvironmental
aspects of the Small Hydroelectric Power Station (SHP) Queluz - SP(São Paulo
state), in the Paraíba do Sul River basin, detected the list of the following
impacts: interference in reservoir authorization and mineral concession areas;
initiation or acceleration of erosive processes; changes in aquatic fauna
upstream of the dam; compromise of migratory routes; creating expectations;
changes on municipal collections; changes in the labor market; traffic
intensification; increased supply of electricity to the region; interference
with leisure and road infrastructure. It can be seen that the common impacts
presented in the SHP Cabuí and Caiçara
EIS with the SHP Queluz-SP EIS were the generation of expectations by the
population, changes in municipal revenues, changes in job supply, traffic
intensification and improvement in road infrastructure. Candiani
et al. (2013) emphasized that the environmental programs suggested by the entrepreneur
are technical, which is positive, but do not include social and cultural
actions, such as environmental education programs and specific projects to
reduce secondary or tertiary impacts on the population. The authors also
pointed out secondary impacts such as increased violence due to population
increase, impact that had not been evaluated in the EIS and could be included.
Cardoso et al. (2014), analyzing the environmental fragility of the
Pardo river basin, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), in relation to the
installation of SHPs in the water stream, also listed some impacts related to
this type of project, and these are similar to the provisions of both SHP Cabuí and Caiçara EIS, for
instance: increased demand for local goods, services and products and
saturation of sectors such as housing, health, transportation, food, leisure
and public safety.
Regarding the attributes of impacts, CONAMA’s Resolution No. 001/86
describes in its article 6, item II, that the assessment of environmental impacts
should consider the following attributes: beneficial or adverse impacts; direct
or indirect impacts; immediate, medium or long term impacts; temporary or
permanent impacts; reversible or irreversible impacts; cumulative or
synergistic properties of the impacts and distribution of burdens and social
benefits arising from the enterprise. As
Sánchez (2013) describes, there is no universal formula for assessing the
significance of the impacts of a project and it is therefore important that the
EIS clearly presents the significant impacts of the project and justifies this
decision.
The valuation of the “scope” attribute in the attribute value scale
adopted by the SHP Cabuí EIS is in accordance with
the project typology, since a local scope should have a lower value (lower
impact, value = 1) and a regional scope should have a higher value (higher
impact, value = 3). The undetermined range value was stipulated between the two
previous values (Value = 2), since the SHP do not generate impacts in larger
ranges than the regional ones.
Regarding the valuation of the “Form of incidence” adopted in the SHP Cabuí EIS, it is clear that it was the same as the one
adopted for the incidence of the impacts of the Itaocara
Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), as provided by the proponents of the EIS (Ecology
and Environment do Brasil, 2011). Both projects presented value equal to 3 for
direct incidence and value equal to 1 for indirect incidence.
The “importance” attribute adopted by the SHP Cabuí
EIS was also the same as that used by the Itaocara
Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), with a small value of 2, a medium value of 3,
and a large value of 4. However, it was also used by the EIS of Itaocara Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), the “very small
importance” with a value of 1, and the “very large importance” with a value of
5. The values of the “reversibility”
attribute were slightly different from Itaocara
Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) EIS, which presented values of 1 for reversible
characteristic and 2 for irreversible characteristic, while the SHP Cabuí EIS adopted values of 1 and 3, respectively.
It is believed that the lack of values for the table of characterization
of social and environmental impacts described in the SHP Cabuí
EIS (Table 5) is justified by the presence of graphs indicating the magnitude
of the impact of the project, as it indicates a broader result, considering
other variables (scope, incidence, duration, reversibility or possibility of
potentiation and importance), according to the calculation of the reported
magnitude.
Regarding Table 5 (Characterization of the social and environmental
impacts described in the SHP Cabuí EIS), the impact
“Expectation of the population regarding the enterprise and its effects on the
environment” was considered negative and positive as to its nature. It is
positive when considering the improvement in the economy and the way of life of
the population and negative regarding the injustices in the process of
expropriation or in situations of environmental degradation. The
“Impacts on fishing” was
considered to be of low magnitude and IBAMA questioned this classification in
its Report No. 000179/2013, as this impact alters the living conditions of the
population that has their dietary supplement with fishing. Many people were
interviewed and reported declining fish population in the region due to three
other dams that were recently built, considering that building another
reservoir will aggravate the already existing bad situation. IBAMA also
disagreed as to the importance and magnitude given to the impact of “risk of
runaway use and occupation at the reservoir margins” which was small and low,
respectively. This impact is very important as it demands constant soil control
at the margins and can generate other severe negative impacts. Of the 13
socioenvironmental impacts listed, only 3 were considered positive and with
potential for potentiation: “Expectation of the population regarding the
enterprise and its effects on the environment”; “Generation of direct and
indirect jobs in the various phases of the enterprise” and “Political
mobilization of the local population”. Regarding the cumulative impact of other
buses in the region, three cumulative impacts were considered: “Political
mobilization of the local population”; “Natural landscape degradation” and
“Impacts on fishing”.
The high magnitude impacts on the SHP Cabuí
EIS were: “relocation of residents and compulsory full or partial alienation of
areas”; “Expropriation of land located on the islands used for leisure”;
“Generation of direct and indirect jobs in the various stages of the
enterprise” and “degradation of the natural landscape”. In the EIS of the Simplício Hydroelectric Development (AHE) project (MG/RJ
states) the impacts of high magnitude were: improvements in living conditions;
changes in population migratory flows; compulsory transfer of the affected
population (ENGEVIX, 2004). In the Foz de Chapecó HPP project (SC/RS states) the high magnitude
impacts listed in the EIS were: change in the real estate market and compulsory
population displacement (DESENVIX, 2000). In SHP Santa Rosa I (MG/RJ) the
impacts of high magnitude were: land appropriation; pressure on the housing
market; influx of people by the possibility of jobs (LIMIAR, 2001). And in the Itaocara HPP project (MG/RJ) the impacts of high magnitude
were: alteration of the quality of life; compulsory displacement of families (Ecology
and Environment do Brasil, 2011). Thus, it is clear that the compulsory
displacement of the affected population is the most present high impact among
the analysed enterprises.
IBAMA 's technical team disagreed in the Report No. 000036/2014 on the
valuation of two impacts described in SHP Caiçara EIS.
The impact “Accident risks for the user population” was considered reversible
and insignificant by the EIS team, while IBAMA understands that the impact is
irreversible and significant, as the formation of the lake increases the
flooded margins available for use and recreation, increasing the risk of
accidents. The impact of “Local landscape change” was considered to be minor in
the EIS, but IBAMA considered that this impact is significant due to the
modification of environments considered natural tourist attractions, which are
preserved and can be destroyed, in addition to the visual impact that a 33
meter high dam causes in the landscape.
Regarding the impacts considered positive in the SHP Caiçara
EIS, it is not appropriate to consider the impact “Change of local landscape”
as positive. However, the EIS argued that the change in the market value of the
properties around the lake that would be formed may enhance new opportunities
for the development of economic activities, especially those related to recreation and leisure.
The analysed EIS showed slightly different approaches to each other.
While the SHP Cabuí EIS took a more elaborate
approach giving more attributes to impacts, the SHP Caiçara
EIS was more succinct in its attributes, not presenting the valuation and
significance of its impacts as well. According to Sanchez (2013), statements
describing environmental impacts should always be synthetic, self-explanatory
and describe the meaning of the changes.
From the analysis of the two EIS, it is observed that the nomenclatures
of SHP Caiçara's social and environmental impacts are
more synthetic, making communication more effective with the EIS readers. On
the other hand, SHP Cabuí EIS socio-environmental
impact nomenclatures are vaguer as “fishing impact” and “impact on
archaeological heritage”, not having a logical meaning and, consequently, requiring
a reading in the text that clarifies this denomination. Although the SHP Caiçara EIS nomenclature is clearer and more concise than
the SHP Cabuí EIS, the way in which the valuation of
SHP Cabuí impacts have been explained is more
detailed and easier to understand, while in the SHP Caiçara
EIS the arguments are vaguer and a little inductive. The EIS of both SHP show
little participation by the population in building and designing their
approaches throughout the environmental licensing process, as much information
is not truly exposed. One of the biggest challenges for the environmental
agency is to expand society's
participation in the environmental management process, seeking to replace the
public hearing pattern with another model that is closer to society, because
audiences tend to favor confrontation rather than negotiation (ASSUNÇÃO et al.,
2010). According to MPF (2004) another
major deficiency Brazil EIS is the unsatisfactory knowledge in the ways of life
of singular sociocultural collectives and their intercommunity networks and
this is mainly due to the lack of popular participation.
The SHP Caiçara EIS showed many divergences in
relation to the socioeconomic environment with the results obtained in the
field by the IBAMA technical team, which exposed this information in its Report
No. 000036/2014. IBAMA through technical opinions No. 000179/2013 and No
000036/2014 argued the need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for
both projects, as they are inserted in river basins where there are already
other projects of this type. The installation of another SHP in these
watersheds brings more physical, biotic and social impacts to the regions where
they will be deployed, requiring a global assessment of these impacts rather
than just punctual ones. According to Costa et al. (2009) SEA proposes a more
systemic view of impacts, while EIA focuses on specific project outcomes.
Regarding the main observations made by the licensing body (IBAMA) in
relation to SHP Cabuí, the low magnitude indicated in
“Impacts on fishing” was highlighted, as this impact considerably alters the
living conditions of the population complements their alimentation with
fishing. It was also questioned the “Risk of uncontrolled use and occupation on
the reservoir margins” which was indicated as small and low, respectively. According
to the agency, this impact is very important, as it demands constant soil
control at the margins and can generate other severe negative impacts. Already
in the opinions about SHP Caiçara the “Risks of
accidents for the user population” were highlighted as incorrect description,
since for the agency, the impact is irreversible and significant. “Local
landscape alteration” is also cited as a significant impact due to the
modification of environments considered natural tourist attractions, which are preserved
and can be destroyed, in addition to the visual impact that a 33-meter-high dam
has on the landscape.
5 CONCLUSION
From the analyses performed, it can be concluded that the social and
environmental approaches of the SHP´s were quite different. It was noticed that
SHP Cabuí used more attributes to describe
socioeconomic impacts and the explanation of impact valuation was more detailed
and easy to understand, while SHP Caiçara EIS was
more succinct in its attributes for describing socio-economic impacts, neither
well presenting the valuation and significance of its impacts, nor the
methodology used for the consideration of magnitude. It was concluded that in the analyzed EISs,
both SHP Cabuí and SHP Caiçara,
some impacts were described with smaller magnitude than they actually represent
for the affected community. Regarding public participation, both EIS of the two
SHPs showed little participation of the population in building and elaborating
their approaches throughout the environmental licensing process. There was also
a need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for both projects, as
they are inserted in watersheds where other works of this type already exist,
bringing greater physical, biotic and social impacts to the regions.
REFERENCES
ASSUNÇÃO,
F. N. A. BURSZTYN, M. A. A.; DE ABREU, T. L. M. Participação social na
avaliação de impacto ambiental: lições da experiência da Bahia. Revista Franco
Brasileira de Geografia, v. 10, 2010. DOI: 10.4000/confins.6750
AMBIOTECH
S. L. EIA- Estudo de Impacto Ambiental da Pequena Central Hidrelétrica Cabuí.
Curitiba: Ambiotech Serviços Ltda., 2012. 878 p.
AMBIOTECH
S. L. RIMA- Relatório de Impacto do Meio Ambiente da Pequena Central
Hidrelétrica Cabuí. Curitiba: Ambiotech Serviços Ltda., 2012.
BASTOS,
M. J. S. Pequenas Centrais Hidroelétricas: Impacto ambiental. 93 f. Trabalho de
Pós-Graduação Lato Sensu (AVM Faculdade Integrada). Universidade Candido
Mendes. Rio de Janeiro-RJ. 2013.
BRASIL.
ANA- Agência Nacional de Águas. Nota técnica nº: 96/2014/GEREG/SER. Documento
nº: 00000.024582/2014-23, de 25 de julho de 2014. Declaração de Reserva de
Disponibilidade Hídrica – SHP Caiçara.
BRASIL.
ANEEL- Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica. Resolução normativa nº 673, de 4
de agosto de 2015. Estabelece os requisitos e procedimentos para a obtenção de
outorga de autorização para exploração de aproveitamento de potencial
hidráulico com características de Pequena Central Hidrelétrica – SHP.
BRASIL.
Lei n. 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981. Dispõe sobre a Política Nacional de Meio
Ambiente, seus fins e mecanismos de formulação e aplicação, e dá outras
providências. Publicada no Diário Oficial da União - 02/09/1981.
BRASIL.
CONAMA - Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Resolução CONAMA 01, de 23 de
janeiro de 1986. Dispõe sobre procedimentos relativos a Estudo de Impacto
Ambiental. Publicada no Diário Oficial da União - 17/02/1986, p. 2548-2549.
BRASIL.
CONAMA - Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Resolução Nº 237, de 19 de
dezembro de 1997. Regulamenta os aspectos de licenciamento ambiental
estabelecidos na Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Publicada no Diário
Oficial da União - 22/12/1997.
BORGES,
Kelly Maria Resende. Avaliação da susceptibilidade erosiva da Bacia do Rio
Carinhanha (MG/BA) por meio da EUPS-Equação Universal de Perda de Solos. 2009.
CANDIANI,
G.; PENTEADO, C. L. C., CENDRETTI, E. C.; SANTOS, E. M; BIONDI, A. E. C. Estudo
de caso: aspectos socioambientais da pequena central hidrelétrica
(SHP)-Queluz-SP, na bacia do rio Paraiba do Sul. Revista do Departamento de
Geografia – USP, v. 25, p. 98-119, 2013. DOI: 10.7154/RDG.2013.0025.0006
CARDOSO,
O. R.; ROCHA, N. S.; XAVIER, R. A.; VALDUGA, E. T.; DISCONZI, G. S.; RADTKE,
L.; CRUZ, R. C. C. Análise de fragilidade ambiental na bacia do rio Pardo - RS,
frente à instalação de pequenas centrais hidrelétricas (SHPs). Revista
Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos, v. 20, n. 2, p. 507 – 522, 2015.
DESENVIX.
UHE Foz do Chapecó: Estudo de Impacto Ambiental - EIA. São Paulo: DESENVIX,
2000. 341 p.
ENGEVIX
(Brasília). Furnas Centrais Elétricas. Estudo de Impacto Ambiental (EIA): AHE
Simplício. Brasília: ENGEVIX, 2004. 5 v.
ECOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT DO BRASIL (Rio de Janeiro). Itaocara Energia. EIA - Estudo de
Impacto Ambiental: UHE Itaocara. Rio de Janeiro: Ecology And Environment do
Brasil, 2011
EDUARDO,
C.; SILVA, F. Prognóstico geográfico da parte fluminense da bacia hidrográfica
do rio Paraibuna. Anais XVI Encontro nacional dos geógrafos-crise, práxis e
autonomia: espaços de residência e de esperança, espaços de diálogos e
práricas. Org. por Alexandrina Luz Conceição; Cristiano Silva da Rocha
Diógenes; Evelin Cunha Biondo. São Paulo, SP: AGB, p. 1–10, 2010.
GOMES,
F. F.; SILVA, C. L. O conflito resultante do licenciamento ambiental: o cenário
das pequenas centrais hidrelétricas no Paraná. Interações, Campo Grande, MS, v.
18, n. 4, p. 155-168, 2017a. DOI:10.20435/inter.v18i4.1598
GOMES,
F.F.; SILVA, C.L. Conflitos no licenciamento ambiental de PCHs: os casos de
Dois Saltos e Água Limpa. Desenvolv. Meio Ambiente, Edição Especial: Avaliação
de Impacto Ambiental, v. 43, p. 48-72, dezembro 2017b.
LIMIAR
C. P. LTDA. Estudo de Impacto Ambiental (EIA): SHP Santa Rosa I. Belo
Horizonte: Limiar Consultoria e Projetos Ltda, 2001. 562 p.
LIMIAR
C. P. LTDA. EIA - Estudo de Impacto Ambiental da Pequena Central Hidrelétrica
Caiçara. Belo Horizonte: Limiar Consultoria e Projetos Ltda, 2013a. 6 volumes.
LIMIAR
C. P. LTDA. RIMA - Relatório de Impacto Ambiental da Pequena Central
Hidrelétrica Caiçara. Belo Horizonte: Limiar Consultoria e Projetos Ltda, 2013b.
MORGAN, R. K. Environmental Impact Assessment: the
state of the art. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, Abingdon, v. 30, n. 1, p. 5-14, 2012.
MG.
Governo do Estado de Minas Gerais. Bacias Hidrográficas. Available at https://www.mg.gov.br/. Acessed 9 nov 2019.
MPF,
Ministério Público Federal. Deficiências em estudos de impacto ambiental:
síntese de uma experiência. Brasília: Escola Superior do Ministério Público,
2004.
SÁNCHEZ,
L E Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental: Conceitos e Métodos. São Paulo: Oficina de
Textos, 2ª edição; 2013.
SILVA,
C. L. da; NOWAKOWSKI, G. A. A.; SANTOYO, A. H.; LEON, V. E. P.; VILARDELL, M.
C. Análise de possibilidade de expansão das Pequenas Centrais Hidroelétricas no
Brasil: um estudo dos limitantes e potencialidades da cadeia produtiva à luz da
sustentabilidade. Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento. Edição Especial Nexo Água e
Energia, 37, 47-72, maio 2016.
ZARFL, C.; LUMSDON, A. E.; BERLEKAMP, J.; TYDECKS, L.;
TOCKNER, K. A global boom in hydropower dam construction Aquatic Sciences,
v.77, n.1, p.161-170, 2015.
ZHOURI,
A. (org.). As tensões do lugar – hidrelétricas, sujeitos e licenciamento
ambiental. 1 ed. Belo Horizonte: Editora da UFMG, 2011.