Industries and environmental impact assessment: Analysis of the screening process in Argentina
The approach of “pollute first, then clean up”, has been understood to be hard both technologically and economically. Therefore, the necessity of adopting another strategy, which is anticipate-and-prevent, has risen and consequently the environmental impact assessment (EIA) has emerged as a tool. Sc...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Institución: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repositorio: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/169513 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/169513 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | COMPARATIVE METHODOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| Sumario: | The approach of “pollute first, then clean up”, has been understood to be hard both technologically and economically. Therefore, the necessity of adopting another strategy, which is anticipate-and-prevent, has risen and consequently the environmental impact assessment (EIA) has emerged as a tool. Screening is one of the earliest steps of every EIA process and it is characterized as the determination of whether or not an environmental assessment must be prepared for a particular project. The aim of this paper is to identify, analyse and compare the methodological models regulating the screening process of industrial activity in Argentina, a federal country without a national directive concerning this particular matter and where each of the 24 districts are autonomous in this matter. This research was followed through employing a comparative method, which was implemented based on secondary data analysis. Three guiding questions and three criteria were used to compare the 24 districts. Six different screening process models were described (both qualitative and quantitative). The six chosen models were integrated into three great groups. The group of districts that present “Preliminary study” + “Case by case” approaches prevail, while in second place comes the “Threshold” + “Case by case” approaches. Finally, the more complete screening model, with specific legislation for EIA in industries and a quantitative environmental complexity index, turned out to be the least applied in Argentina. |
|---|