O licenciamento ambiental segue por linhas tortas? Revisão de estudos de avaliação de impacto ambiental de linhas de transmissão no Brasil

• Autor(a) principal: Papi, Bernardo Silveira
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: [e-mail]
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/20129
• topic: Fauna study; Linhas elétricas - Aspectos ambientais; Licenças ambientais - Brasil; Primatas - Brasil; Roedores - Brasil; Estudo de fauna; Primates; Rodentia; Sigmondontinae; IBAMA; CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS; OUTROS

Much has been studied on the environmental impacts of large infrastructure projects on biodiversity, such as Transmission Lines. In Brazil environmental impact assessment is mandatory to assess, mitigate and offset the impacts arising from any potentially impacting undertaking. However, it has been questioned whether the lower cost and faster business logic used in these processes would be the most suitable for this type of research. Still, in relation to the biodiversity, some authors have questioned that these studies present low quality data. The objective of this thesis was to evaluate the quality of environmental diagnoses of mammals in the impact assessment studies of Transmission Lines, available in the database of the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA). To do so, the quality of studies on primates and sigmodontine rodents was verified, evaluating the criteria (i) Identification, (ii) Threat Status and (iii) Sampling. A score was calculated for each primate and sigmodontine rodent study, and a general score for fauna, all ranging from 0 to 1. These scores were used as a reference for comparison between the years, responsible company and technical team presented by each study. Sixty studies were obtained, of which 52 could be evaluated. Of these, 90% had records of primates and/or sigmodontine rodents. Rodents had more problems in terms of Identification. Most primate studies presented problems in the Threat Status item, mainly for the presentation of CITES. Just over half of the studies reported that there had been some collection of a rodent specimen. Most of the studies presented the Sampling Method and the Registration Form correctly. However, the main error was the omission of this information in the results presentation table. Only half of the records presented the Coordinates completely, where the majority did not present the DATUM of the coordinate. The scores calculated for primate studies ranged from 0.60 to 1.00, rodents from 0.38 to 0.95, and fauna from 0.49 to 1.00. Most studies were considered good (grades ≥ 0.75), and one study was considered excellent, with no errors (grade 1.00). These results contradict the perception of low quality, since only one study was considered bad (score < 0.50). There was no difference in the quality of the studies over the years in the period evaluated (2006 to 2017). There was no difference between the companies that carried out the studies. There was also no difference between the studies that presented a complete technical team and those that did not, nor between those that presented a professional specialist in fauna, mastofauna, small mammals or medium and large mammals, and those that did not. The verification of the quality of the results carried out in the present study was a pioneer. The evaluation proposed here can help environmental agencies in verifying the studies, with the creation of a “CHECKLIST” and a grading system for accepting the reports, as well as a standardization proposal for the presentation of the results.