Article citationsMore>>

Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene, C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H. and Nachtigall, P.E. (2007) Marine Mammal Noise-Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Bioacoustics, 17, 273-275.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2008.9753846

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Environmental Impact Assessment Follow-Up of Seismic Survey Offshore Activities in Brazil

  AUTHORS: Fontes Nuno Eduardo Paulo, Marcelo Montaño

  KEYWORDS: Environmental Impact Assessment Follow-Up, Follow-Up Effectiveness, Oil and Gas Offshore, Seismic Survey

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol.15 No.2, February 28, 2024

  ABSTRACT: Follow-up of environmental impacts is an integral part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, closely related to the effectiveness of the instrument. EIA follow-up has been receiving a lot of interest from scientists and practitioners, though it is recognized as one of the weakest points of EIA systems globally. Also, EIA follow-up is influenced by the context, mainly in terms of the types of projects or activities and their related impacts on the environment. Therefore, the present paper is focused on the investigation of the follow-up stage applied to the activity of seismic survey coupled with offshore oil & gas exploitation in Brazil. Research was based on a qualitative approach that included document analysis and semi-structured interviews with analysts involved in EIA processes, and sought to generate evidence of effectiveness of the EIA follow-up as conducted by the Federal Environment Agency (Ibama) in order to situate the practice of follow-up in the broader context of international best practice principles. Based on the findings, it was concluded that, due to the peculiarities of offshore seismic survey, it is necessary to promote adaptations in the procedures for monitoring impacts in order to ensure proper alignment with the principles and conceptual foundations that guide EIA practice. Specifically, the timing of the execution of the activity imposes challenges for its integration into the “conventional” cycle that has guided the monitoring of the impacts in the EIA of projects.