Benchmarking the effectiveness of mitigation measures to the quality of environmental impact statements: lessons and insights from mines along the Great Dyke of Zimbabwe

Abstract

The environmental impact statement (EIS) plays an important role in informing decision makers about the likely impacts of development projects on the environment and suggesting mitigation measures for addressing such impacts. Increased effort to improve the quality of EIS has been a focus on its proposed mitigation measures and their likely effectiveness. There is, however, a lack of such studies in Zimbabwe's mining industry. Following a conceptual framework of EIS quality as an indicator of mitigation effectiveness, this paper assesses the quality of EIS and its likely influence on the effectiveness of its proposed mitigation measures. Twenty-two purposively sampled EISs for mines operating along the Great Dyke of Zimbabwe were reviewed using the modified Lee and Colley (Review of the quality of environmental statements, Manchester EIA Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester 1992) quality review package and Mitchell's (EA the Magazine of IEA and EARA 28-29, 1997) mitigation hierarchy guidelines. Results show that 77 % of the EISs are of satisfactory quality, while 51 % of the proposed mitigation measures focus on adverse impact reduction. The deficiencies are traced to vagueness in the regulations regarding baseline data collection and analysis and conceptualization of mitigation. Based on the results, it is suggested that more efforts should be aimed at reviewing the EIA regulations in order to improve the quality of EISs.

Análise da qualidade dos estudos de impacto ambiental no estado do Espírito Santo (2007-2013)

“…Ainda, para minimizar desvios na análise dos últimos 15 EIAs, realizada por um único avaliador, optou-se por adotar o procedimento de reavaliação aleatória (67% dos EIAs), conforme descrito por McGrath & Bond (1997) e utilizado mais recentemente por Anifowose et al (2016), Gwimbi & Nhamo (2016) e Kamijo & Huang (2016). Desses, apenas Anifowose et al (2016) e Gwimbi & Nhamo (2016) indicaram o quantitativo reavaliado, de 32% e 14% dos EIAs, respectivamente.…”

“…Desses, apenas Anifowose et al (2016) e Gwimbi & Nhamo (2016) indicaram o quantitativo reavaliado, de 32% e 14% dos EIAs, respectivamente.…”

“…Contexto estudado Estudos satisfatórios (conceito geral A, B ou C) (Lee & Brown, 1992) Reino Unido 40% (Lee & Dancey, 1993) Irlanda 40% (McGrath & Bond, 1997) Irlanda 45% (Sandham & Pretorius, 2008) África do Sul 86% (Sandham et al, 2008b) África do Sul 100% (Sandham et al, 2008a) África do Sul 85% (Phylip-Jones & Fischer, 2013) Reino Unido e Alemanha 91% para o 1 o período e 80% para o 2 o período (Sandham et al, 2013) África do Sul 90% (Kabir & Momtaz, 2014) Bangladesh 65% (Mounir, 2015) Nigéria 60% (Kamijo & Huang, 2016) Estudos elaborados pela Agência Japonesa de Cooperação Internacional 33% (Gwimbi & Nhamo, 2016) Zimbábue 68% (Anifowose et al, 2016) Nigéria 53 % FONTE: organizado pelos autores.…”

“…(Lee & Brown, 1992;Lee & Dancey, 1993;McGrath & Bond, 1997;Sandham et al, 2008a;Sandham et al, 2008b;Sandham & Pretorius, 2008;Phylip-Jones & Fischer, 2013;Sandham et al, 2013;Kabir & Momtaz, 2014;Mounir, 2015;Anifowose et al, 2016;Gwimbi & Nhamo, 2016;Kamijo & Huang, 2016).…”

Efetividade da avaliação de impacto ambiental de projetos no Estado do Espírito Santo

“…FISCHERSANDHAM et al, 2013;MOMTAZ, 2014;MOUNIR, 2015;ANIFOWOSE et al, 2016;GWIMBI;NHAMO, 2016;KAMIJO;HUANG, 2016).A descrição geral do Lee and Colley Review Package é apresentada no Capítulo 3. A análise é realizada em formato hierárquico (ver Figura 8), iniciando no nível mais baixo, formado por subcategorias (representadas por três dígitos) que descrevem critérios específicos para análise da informação contida nos estudos.…”