The Environmental Impact Assessment in Aquaculture Projects in Chile: A Retrospective and Prospective Review Considering Cultural Aspects

Abstract

In recent years, social and environmental conflicts concerning the aquaculture sector have increased. These conflicts arise from the different perception that individuals, collectives, private companies and the State have about the potential impacts of aquaculture on the environment and quality of life. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of aquaculture projects in Chile is the main administrative tool for decision-making, allowing identify, predict, and propose preventive measures to mitigate negative consequences of this growing sector. This article analyzes the performance of the EIA in Chile concerning aquaculture projects between 1994 and 2019. Of the 5323 projects entering the Chilean EIA during this period, the EIA system-performance analysis selected the 71 most representative. For a reliable comparative analysis, the selected projects were first classified in accordance with the active regulation within the period. Subsequently, 14 performance indicators were selected and similarities—by means of a principal coordinate analysis—were explored. Significant differences between the third (SD40) and the first two (SD30 and SD95) regulations were observed. Based on these results and considering demands of local communities and social leaders (who request continuous articulations among technical areas, administrative tools, and policies to increase the sustainability standards of aquaculture), four opportunities for improving the EIA in aquaculture projects are proposed: incorporation of synergistic and cumulative effects, adaptation to climate change, development of a general methodology, and incorporation of early citizen participation (in projects having environmental charge) increasing the performance and confidence of the EIA. The introduced methodology enables comparisons of the EIA process in different regulatory periods using indicators, serving as guidance to evaluate the performance of the EIA in aquaculture. This methodology can also be used by other aquaculture producing countries around the world.

The Environmental Impact Assessment of Sanitation Projects in Chile: Overview and Improvement Opportunities Focused on Follow-Ups

“…Regarding the status of the projects, 62% were approved, 4.2% rejected, 0.1% in evaluation, 15.7% unadmitted, 1.3% not rated, 0.4% abandoned, 15.4% desisted, 0.1% expired, and less than 0.1% revoked to the environmental license. This status variability is similar to that formerly studied aquaculture projects submitted to the Chilean EIA System [ 36 ], with approved (68.9%), rejected (9.4%), and desisted (8.8%) projects. As expected, the Chilean EIA System does not discriminate among activities but among checkable qualities of the projects under the same evaluation criteria.…”

“…Concerning to unadmitted projects, the high percentage relative to no rated projects in Coquimbo (36.4%) region stands out together with the score obtained in Arica and Parinacota (25.0%) and Tarapacá (25.0%) regions. Previous research pointed out different criteria for the declaration of inadmissibility of projects among regions [ 36 ]. Interregional and the O’Higgins region show the highest percentages (66.7%) of desisted projects.…”

“…In comparative terms, the projects entered as EIS have an average approval percentage (47.7%) lower than those entered as EID (60.5%) and a higher average rejection percentage ( Figure 4 ). The causes are the greater complexity for projects entry as EIS, including the greater required minimum content compared to the EID together with the additional difficulties related to the suitability of the proposed mitigation, compensation, and/or repair measures of significant environmental impacts [ 22 , 36 ]. In addition, the conflicts usually affect large projects, i.e., those entered as EIS.…”

“…Information concerning to all “type o” sanitation projects was compiled from the EAS official website ( ) (accessed on 12 January 2021). The compilation considered all possible status of the projects—here called project classification types—as approved, rejected, in evaluation, unadmitted, no rated, abandoned, desisted, and license expired [ 36 , 37 , 38 ].…”

“…With the aim of identifying the most suitable indicators, the evaluation criteria originally proposed by Wood [ 24 ], Annandale [ 25 ], Ahmad and Wood [ 26 ], Khosravi et al [ 27 ], and Rodríguez-Luna et al [ 28 , 36 ] were reassessed, and the main post EIA weaknesses advised by the Presidential Advisory Commission for the EIA System evaluation, i.e., public information, and supervision/sanction for non-compliance were considered. The selection of indicators was focused on the categories “EIA process” and “After EIA” defined by Rodríguez-Luna et al [ 28 , 36 ]. Table 3 summarizes the 14 selected indicators some being adapted for their correct application in a sample of projects.…”