This is the final delivery aimed at analyzing conceptual errors in the area of Authorizations in Matters of Environmental Impact, in order to give rise to other topics, of equal practical implication, and in which reality demonstrates various areas of opportunity.
Next, the correct differentiation between the concepts of:
- Authorization in Matters of Environmental Impact (hereinafter “Authorization”)
- Statement in Matters of Environmental Impact (hereinafter “MIA”)
- Preventive Report in Matters of Environmental Impact (hereinafter “IP”)
Although the nature of each one of them is completely different, many times on a daily level they are handled as synonyms, which leads to major problems of regulatory compliance, as can be seen in the following lines.
With all due respect to the repetition of previous columns, it should be noted that Authorizations are a primary requirement that every establishment must obtain prior to any of its vital phases (site preparation, construction, operation and abandonment).
This Authorization must be obtained as the final point of a procedure before the Competent Authority (Federal, State and even Municipal environmental agencies).
The aforementioned procedure basically consists of a Request, in order for it to proceed, an account must be rendered of what impacts the establishment will generate, and what prevention and mitigation measures are foreseen, in order for said impacts to be controlled, and therefore, as little harmful as possible to the ecological balance.
Said accountability will be carried out by means of an MIA, or by means of an IP.
So far, then, we have a first assertion to make: while the Environmental Impact Authorization is the primary legal requirement – of an environmental nature – that establishments must comply with in order to develop their activities, the MIA and the IP are means used to reach said Authorization, in which the Environmental Assessment carried out on the establishment to be developed is evidenced.
A logical consequence of the assertion made is that an establishment will not be complying with the primary requirement for having developed an MIA, if it has not been evaluated by the Competent Authority, to finally reach the issuance of the Authorization itself.
On the other hand, the differentiation between the MlA and the IP lies in the fact that there will be different scenarios, which will make it necessary to pursue the referenced authorization by means of the preparation of one or the other.
As a general principle, all Authorization will be pursued by means of the presentation, before the Competent Authority, of an MIA.
This principle has an exception, which is that if one of the conditions established in article 31 of the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection is met, the Authorization referred to may be requested by means of the Submission of IP, and not by means of an MIA. The first has the advantage of being reduced in content, and of faster processing with respect to the second.
Thus seen, the following conclusions can be reached
- (1) The Authorization may be obtained by means of either the submission to the Authority of an MIA, or the submission to the same of an IP;
- (2) The primary requirement that must be met by every establishment in environmental matters, is the obtaining of its Authorization, prior to the realization of any of its activities.
- (3) Said requirement is not achieved by the mere Preparation of an MIA or IP.
- (4) To process the aforementioned Authorization through the preparation of an IP, the project must include one of the conditions expressly established in article 31 of the LGEEPA.
I remain at your service for any clarification or extension that may be required. I cordially greet you
Leandro M. Lamas Stalla
Deputy Project Director
CIS Consultants
