On the underestimation of the significance of environmental impacts in Peru: an approach using homogeneous units

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study examines the reliability of the Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) in Peru, focusing on projects predicted to have high negative impacts. It highlights the discrepancy between the expected and the estimated impacts in EISs, revealing a general trend of underestimating the environmental significance of projects, particularly in areas free from industrial activities. The study critiques the application of the Gomez Orea Method, originally successful under Spanish regulations but problematic in its Peruvian applications, as evidenced by inconsistencies in the methodologies and a lack of bibliographic and regulatory support for the indicators used. The analysis covers seven EISs involving hydroelectric and mineral exploitation projects. It identifies a recurrent pattern where despite the significant potential impacts of these projects on water quality, ecosystems, and biodiversity, the impacts are predominantly classified as ‘Compatible’ or low. This underestimation results in 97.37% of impacts being categorized as low, contradicting the projects’ initial high-risk classification. Moreover, the study compares the Gomez Orea Method with the Conesa Method, a more conservative approach, finding significant methodological differences affecting impact significance estimations. The study advocates for enhanced Environmental Impact Assessment practices in Peru, suggesting the adoption of more conservative assessment methods to accurately gauge and mitigate environmental impacts.