International principles of good practices | Evaluation of the good practices in the context of CGMAC | Justification and comments |
P1 EIA follow-up is important to determine the results of the process |
| Seismic projects are submitted for follow-up, but do not necessarily fulfill their real potential to determine the results |
P2 Transparency and openness in the EIA follow-up process |
| Although the information is available, it is still difficult to access, especially for the communities involved in the process |
P3 Commitment is part of EIA’s follow-up |
| Commitment among stakeholders has been demonstrated |
P4 The proponent is responsible for implementing the follow-up |
| The proponent hardly ever strictly performs the terms and conditions as stipulated in the commitment |
P5 Regulator is responsible for ensuring follow-up |
| Although the regulator guarantees the follow-up, however, it is a critical step, the final verification is hardly performed |
P6 The community must involved in EIA follow-up |
| Communities Participation is weak, but fishing communities in the decision making process needs to be improved |
P7 Stakeholders involved in process should establish cooperation |
| There is cooperation between regulator and proponent, they discuss all environmental programs to find consensus on the approach; methodology, techniques, and technology |
P8 Follow-up must align with the social and cultural context |
| EIA follow-up programs are aligned within the social, economic, and cultural context |
P9 Follow-up should make reference to cumulative effects and sustainability |
| The regional approach considers cumulative and synergistic impacts in the programs, although there is no data available yet on the results |
P10 Follow-up must be flexible, adaptable, action-oriented and focused |
| Efforts to adapt follow-up programs are identified, but execution is not always on schedule |
P11 Follow-up should promote learning from the result of accumulated experience |
| Although, several instruments were identified that demonstrate the feedback, however, the lack of verification and use of the information to direct the next projects somehow compromises the process |
P12 Follow-up should clearly define the roles, goals, the tasks and responsibilities |
| Roles, tasks and responsibilities are well defined in the pre-decision phase and have their scope outlined in the programs |
P13 Follow-up should be guided with clearly defined objectives and goals |
| The programs are presented with their goals and objectives in the guidelines requested by CGMAC, for example; in the PEAT, PCP, PMBM, PCS, PEAT, etc. |
P14 Follow-up should be case-specific |
| The programs are adapted according to their particularities, and supported by environmental studies, through issues identified in the early stage of the process |
P15 Follow-up should establish well-defined performance criteria |
| We verified guidelines that help in the elaboration of the programs and with criteria to evaluate their performance |
P16 Follow-up must occur during the life cycle of the project |
| The approved programs are targeted for the duration of the project’s data acquisition activity |
P17 Follow-up must have compatible resources for its execution |
| Financial resources in the pre-decision stage are evident in the proponent for payment the fees collected for the regulator, and lack of information from the proponent about financial expenses for the execution of the programs approved in the follow-up, and the regulator, has budget restrictions and lack of hiring people that make the follow-up difficult |