Hydropower projects and environmental licensing process: how different countries manages the problem

Marco Aurélio Dos Santos,Gloria Maria Dos Santos Marins,Andre Lima Andrade,Orleno Marques Da Silva Junior,Vanessa Riccioppo De Moraes,Paulo Eduardo Aragon Marçal Ribeiro,Patricia Schumer Nunes Boité

doi:10.33448/rsd-v11i3.26408

Abstract

This research seeks to establish a comparative study among selected countries (Brazil, United States, Canada, Chile and Portugal), regarding aspects of the environmental licensing process for hydroelectric projects. The previous studies consider the Brazilian environmental licensing process to be very complex and differentiated from the other selected countries. There is also a lack of homogeneity among the countries surveyed. In general, environmental licensing is considered a "bottleneck" for the Brazilian electricity sector. With this analysis, it was intended to verify what types of procedures exist in other countries and that could be adopted by Brazil, in order to improve the environmental licensing process of hydroelectric plants. Thus, according to the experience of the countries analyzed, Brazil could improve relations with indigenous peoples and establish a maximum period for finalizing the licensing of hydroelectric plants. Comparative international experiences are important for possible adjustments in the Brazilian licensing process, however, one must not confuse the bureaucracy of the process with excessive simplification.

Highlights

Licensing Law under discussion at the federal level, with this analysis, it was intended to verify what types of procedures exist in other countries and that could be adopted by Brazil, in order to improve the environmental licensing process for hydroelectric plants
It is relevant to note that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as the institution responsible for the definition of programs, rules and procedures for the Environmental Impact Assessment – Environmental Impact Study (EIA)
This new rule including the presentation of environmental impact studies, which can be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), when found that the environmental impact is probably significant, or Environmental Assessment (EA), when the environmental impact is probably not significant (Piagentini et al, 2014)

Summary

Introduction

Significant part of the world energy matrix is still composed of non-renewable thermal sources (coal, oil and oil products and natural gas) and are responsible for about 65% of CO2 emissions in atmosphere (IPCC, 2014).These emissions significantly contribute to global warming and have been raising an alert about the need to introduce renewable energy sources in energy matrices around the world (Steeves, & Ouriques, 2016; Kumar, 2020; Mercure et al, 2021).the integration process is complex, since each source has different impacts in terms of nature, magnitude and significance.This is reflected in the generation of energy by hydroelectricity, because despite being considered renewable and generating benefits, it generates negative socio-environmental impacts, such as changes in the balance of ecosystems and in the lives of traditional populations in the area (Rosenberg et al, 2000; Santos et al, 2000; Santos et al al., 2008; IEA, 2012; Damazio et al, 2017; Silva Junior et al, 2018).With this, in view of the strategic relevance of the hydroelectric sector, and the positive and negative impacts, the importance of the environmental licensing process and its effectiveness as a planning and decision-making tool, in the control and preventive monitoring of activities, during the construction, operation and decommissioning processes. The present research performs a critical comparative analysis of the environmental licensing process in Brazil with the United States, Canada, Chile and Portugal, emphasizing, in turn, the particularities of each location and considering the phases of implementation, development, construction, operation and decommissioning of hydroelectric projects.

Results

Conclusion