Image by Hans Luiggi from Unsplash.
Introduction
The Ministry of the Environment (MINAM) has proposed the creation of the Public Environmental Baseline, a platform that would compile environmental information to support the development of environmental permits (EIA). The document proposing this initiative highlights three main problems with the current environmental baselines in project permits: quality of information, potential socio-environmental conflicts, and transaction costs.
However, will this initiative actually solve the existing problems, or will it just add more bureaucracy to the process? In this post, I analyze the key aspects of the proposal and its implications from the perspective of someone who works with environmental permits in Peru.
What Problem Does This Regulation Aim to Solve?
The main argument behind this proposal is that many environmental baselines in environmental studies have lost their original purpose. Instead of providing relevant information for impact analysis, they have become complex, costly, and sometimes unnecessarily extensive documents.
The proposed solution is a public and standardized database where project developers can obtain information without having to conduct studies from scratch. But is this really the best strategy?
The Real Problem: The Terms of Reference (TdR)
While MINAM’s proposal focuses on improving the availability of information, the real issue might lie in the requirements established in the Terms of Reference (TdR).
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) must comply with the TdR, which define what information must be included in the environmental baseline. If these requirements are too strict or inflexible, then the existence of a public database will not significantly change the situation.
In other words, if the TdR continue to require excessive, complex, and costly studies, as well as information that can only be obtained through fieldwork, the new platform will not improve the content of these studies—although it may improve access to information.
Impact on Environmental Certification Processes
The time required to approve an EIA does not only depend on data collection but also on the evaluation process and observations made by SENACE.
Based on my experience, the main delays in environmental certifications are due to:
a. Field data collection and processing (preliminary work before submitting the EIA).
b. Observations and responses to observations within an EIA file, particularly when they require additional field data collection.
Even with a Public Environmental Baseline, the evaluation process could still face delays due to the nature of the review process.
How Would the Public Environmental Baseline Work?
MINAM’s proposal suggests creating an Interoperable Platform, where different public entities will provide data on water, soils, climate, biodiversity, and other environmental factors. The initiative outlines the following expected benefits:
- Cost reduction: Less fieldwork and lower expenses for environmental studies.
- Greater transparency: Public access to information to avoid bias.
- More predictability for investors: Facilitates early project planning.
While the platform may reduce the need for field data collection, it will not always eliminate this requirement if the necessary information is unavailable on the platform.
One unclear aspect of the proposal is how the information will be managed.
Each public entity (ANA, SENAMHI, SERFOR, SERNANP, SENACE, OEFA) will be responsible for managing its own data. However, this raises efficiency concerns:
- Inefficient decentralization: Managing this platform will require additional personnel, infrastructure, and processes in each institution. This represents an unaccounted opportunity cost. Summing up the costs for each institution would give a better estimate of the total budget required for this platform.
- Data inconsistencies: If each institution manages its own information, lack of coordination could lead to inconsistencies in the data.
A more efficient alternative would be to centralize data collection and management within a single entity. This would avoid duplication and ensure consistent data quality standards.
Is This the Best Solution?
The creation of a Public Environmental Baseline is an interesting proposal with good intentions, but the issues highlighted in the project point more towards a need to revise the Terms of Reference (TdR), particularly making them more flexible to fit the specific context of each project.
Additionally, current Terms of Reference take a component-based environmental approach, whereas in recent years, ecosystem services have gained prominence. While this shift towards ecosystem services has major implications for EIA, it is not yet fully reflected in environmental regulations.
To explore more about the role of ecosystem services in environmental impact assessments, (see:
https://naturaecova.com/ecosystem-services-in-economic-valuation-environmental-impacts/)
Final Thoughts
- The Public Environmental Baseline could be a useful tool, but only if it effectively reduces transaction costs and enhances data accessibility.
- However, without revising the Terms of Reference, its impact will be limited.
- A centralized data management approach would likely be more efficient than a decentralized one.
If these issues are not addressed, this initiative could end up becoming an additional bureaucratic layer rather than a solution to the inefficiencies in environmental permitting processes.
