|
|
Criterium |
Assessment scale |
Analized document |
| Scoping |
1. ToR prepared for the project |
M: The Term of Reference (ToR) was prepared for the project. NM: The used ToR was pre-elaborated and generalized. |
ToR |
| 2. Detailed ToR |
M: the ToR described how each topic should be elaborated. NM: The ToR only presented topics, there was no development guidelines. |
| 3. Participatory scoping: There was public participation or public hearing in the scoping stage |
M: There was some type of public participation (written referrals or population manifestation and/or involvement of the Environment Council) and/or public hearing. NM: There was no public participation in the scoping stage. |
Hearing minute and documents bringing contributions to the scoping stage |
| 4. Participatory scoping: The public participation resulted in contributions to the scoping |
M: The public participation brought contributions to the stage in the form of topics that should be addressed by the EIS. NM: The public participation did not occur or, when it occurred, it did not contribute to the stage. |
| Study elaboration |
5. Considering alternatives: Alternatives were taken into consideration |
M: The EIS discussed technological and/or locational alternatives. NM: The EIS did not take any alternative into consideration. |
EIS and Complementary Information (CI) |
| 6. Considering alternatives: The presented alternatives were plausible |
M: The discussion about the alternatives allowed selecting more environmentally feasible options for the project. NM: The EIS did not take any alternative into consideration or the discussion about the alternatives led to the choice of the rejected option. |
| 7. Delimiting the Influence Area |
M: The EIS delimited the influence areas (IA) of the project. NM: The EIS did not delimit any IA. |
| 8. Analysis of main impacts |
M: The EIS presented the main impacts commonly associated with the type of project. NM: The EIS did not present the main impacts. |
| 9. Mechanisms to assess cumulative impacts |
M: The EIS presented some discussion on cumulative impacts. NM: The EIS did not present any information about cumulative impacts. |
| 10. Proposition of environmental measures applied to the main impacts |
M: At least one environmental measure was presented to avoid, mitigate and/or compensate each of the main impacts to be generated by the project. NM: At least one of the main environmental impacts did not present an environmental measure associated with it. |
EIS (and ECP in the case of MG) and CI |
| 11. Monitoring programs for the main impacts |
M: One monitoring program was presented to monitor the implementation and/or operation stage of each of the main monitorable impacts. NM: At least one of the main monitorable environmental impacts did not present a monitoring program associated with it. |
| 12. EIS written in accessible language |
M: The EIS was written in non-technical language accessible to the population. NM: This document is a copy/summary of the EIS or was written in strictly technical language. |
EIR |
| Technical Analysis |
13. Conduction of inspection |
M: At least one technical inspection was carried out to base the technical opinion on the environmental feasibility of the project. NM: No inspection was carried out. |
Inspection report |
| 14. The environmental studies meet the scoping (ToR) |
M: All ToR topics were presented in the EIS or in the CI or, if not, their non-approach was justified. NM: Some ToR topic was not presented in the EIS or in the CI, and there was no justification for it. |
Comparing the ToR to the EIS and to the CI |
| Participation |
15. Publicity |
M: There were publications notifying the existence of the process, the opening of the period to request for the hearing, the conduction of the hearing (when it happened) and the license issuance. NM: Some of the publications described above have not been released. |
Publication of newspapers |
| 16. Public Hearing: Conducting a hearing |
M: The public hearing was held during the technical analysis of the study. NM: The public hearing was not held during this stage. |
Hearing minute |
| 17. Public Hearing: hearing contribution to the process |
M: The issues addressed at the public hearing brought some contribution to the process, such as the CI application or the positioning of the population for or against the project. NM: The hearing was not held or, when it was held, it was nothing more than the fulfillment of a legal requirement and the addressed subjects did not contribute to the process. |
| Decision |
18. Influence of the technical analysis |
M: The decision of the Environmental Council complied with what was established by the technical opinion. NM: The decision of the Environmental Council did not comply with what was established by the technical opinion. |
Council meeting minute and Technical Opinion |
| 19. Influence of the participation |
M: The questioning and positioning of the population, when there was public participation, were taken into account in the decision-making process. NM: There was no public participation or questioning and positioning of the population. When there was public participation, it was not taken into account in the decision-making process. |
CRITERIA: Scoping: 1: ToR prepared for the project; 2: Detailed ToR; 3 - Participatory scoping - The public hearing or public inquiry took place in the scoping stage; 4: Participatory scoping - The public participation resulted in contributions to the scoping. Environmental study elaboration: 5: Alternatives - Alternatives were taken into consideration; 6: Technological or locational alternatives - The presented alternatives were plausible; 7: IA delimitation; 8: Analysis of the main impacts; 9: Mechanisms to assess cumulative impacts; 10: Proposing environmental measures to the main impacts; 11: Monitoring programs for the main impacts; 12: EIS written in accessible language. Technical analysis: 13: Holding inspections; 14: The environmental studies meet the scoping (ToR). Participation: 15: Publicity; 16: Public hearing - Holding public hearing; 17: Public hearing - hearing contribution to the process. Decision: 18: Influence of the technical analysis; 19: Influence of the public participation.
