A Comparative Analysis of EIA Systems in Latin America Ernesto Sánchez Triana and Santiago Enríquez 27th Annual Conference of IAIA Seoul, Korea 3-9 June, 2007

Overview The analysis aims to compare the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Systems adopted by twenty Latin American countries, focusing both on differences among countries in the region and with the United States. –Argentina - Belize - Bolivia - Brazil - Chile - –Colombia - Costa Rica - Dominican Republic - Ecuador - –El Salvador - Guatemala - Guyana - Honduras - Mexico - –Nicaragua - Panama - Paraguay - Peru - Uruguay - Venezuela - Sources for the analysis consist mainly of federal EIA laws and regulations currently in place.

Findings EIA has a different nature in Latin America (LA) and in the US: –In the US, EIA is used open up decision-making to public scrutiny. –In Latin America, EIA is used as the main environmental management tool, in environmental management plans. Differences in the conception of EIA translate into differences in the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, as well as on the influence of EIA on the decision-making process.

Findings (2) –Selection of EIA Preparers Developers are responsible for hiring the consultant. The consultant is not hired most of the time to overcome potential objections to the project. –Screening Based on restrictive lists, positive and negative lists.

Findings (3) –Scoping Ecuador, Guyana, and Honduras have a formal open scoping process. In most countries, scope of the EIS is decided by authority or developer, based on laws or regulations. –Public Participation Consultations are mostly informative and rarely engage stakeholders in meaningful discussions.

Findings (4) –Alternatives Analysis of Alternatives is used to justify why the developer’s choice was selected over other viable alternatives. –Evaluation of EIA Developer is responsible for compliance with EIA legislation. The authority evaluates whether EIA is adequate, usually based on discretionary criteria.

Findings (5) –Monitoring and Follow-up Authorities rarely monitor the action’s impacts and compliance with operating conditions after the authorization has been issued.

Conclusions Most LA countries conceive EIA as an environmental management tool to address the environmental impacts of all types of projects and activities. The difference in the nature of EIA has implications in terms of how the different stages of the process are conceptualized, and in the roles and responsibilities of authorities, developers, communities, and other stakeholders.