Evaluación del uso de indicadores de biodiversidad en los estudios de evaluación de impacto ambiental (EEIAs) de los sectores más importantes de Bolivia
Date
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
RevActaNova.
Abstract
Bolivia es un país con muchas ecorregiones y por ende mucha biodiversidad, que por los bienes y servicios que nos brinda, requiere especial atención al estar amenazada por el cambio climático. La Ley No. 1333 de Medio Ambiente, incluye a los Estudios de Evaluación de Impactos Ambientales (EEIAs), como un mecanismo regulador para las Actividades, Obras o Proyectos (AOPs), Categorías I y II, con el fin de identificar, evaluar y minimizar los impactos negativos en las diferentes etapas del proyecto, para la obtención de su Licencia Ambiental. El presente trabajo pretende evaluar el uso de indicadores de biodiversidad en los EEIAs en los 4 departamentos y 4 sectores más importantes de Bolivia; para lo cual se identificó los métodos de EEIAs que más se utilizan y si consideran o no a la biodiversidad dentro de dichos estudios, a través de talleres con expertos y la revisión de todas las AOPs Categorías I y II de 10 años (2005-2015) del Sistema Nacional de Información Ambiental, verificándose en campo las más representativas. Los resultados muestran que existe incongruencia en las metodologías de EEIA utilizadas, 36% de ellos no mencionan a la biodiversidad, aquellos que lo hacen se reduce a un listado de especies, que no permite medir el impacto real que la AOP puede producir sobre la biodiversidad, haciendo de este instrumento no útil, que acompañado de las falencias de los técnicos que escriben y revisan este instrumento, puede convertirse en desastre. Los EEIAs necesitan una normativa clara acompañante, así como desarrollar indicadores, especialmente indicadores de biodiversidad.
Bolivia is a country with many ecoregions and therefore much biodiversity, which for the goods and services that it provides, requires special attention when threatened by climate change. Law No. 1333 of the Environment, includes the Environmental Impact Assessment Studies (EEIAs), as a regulatory mechanism for Activities, Works or Projects (AOPs), Categories I and II, in order to identify, evaluate and minimize the negative impacts in the different stages of the project, in order to obtain an Environmental License. The present work intends to evaluate the use of biodiversity indicators in the EEIAs in the 4 departments and 4 most important sectors of Bolivia; for which the most widely used EEIAs methods were identified and whether or not they considered biodiversity within those studies, through workshops with experts and the review of all AOPs from 10 years (2015-2015) Categories I and II of the National Environmental Information System, verifying in the field the most representative. The results show that there is incongruence in the EEIA methodologies used, 36% of them do not mention biodiversity, those that do it are reduced to a list of species, which does not allow to measure the real impact that the AOP can produce on biodiversity , making this instrument not useful, that accompanied by the shortcomings of the technicians who write and review this instrument, can become a disaster. The EEIAs need a clear accompanying regulation, as well as developing indicators, especially indicators of biodiversity.
Bolivia is a country with many ecoregions and therefore much biodiversity, which for the goods and services that it provides, requires special attention when threatened by climate change. Law No. 1333 of the Environment, includes the Environmental Impact Assessment Studies (EEIAs), as a regulatory mechanism for Activities, Works or Projects (AOPs), Categories I and II, in order to identify, evaluate and minimize the negative impacts in the different stages of the project, in order to obtain an Environmental License. The present work intends to evaluate the use of biodiversity indicators in the EEIAs in the 4 departments and 4 most important sectors of Bolivia; for which the most widely used EEIAs methods were identified and whether or not they considered biodiversity within those studies, through workshops with experts and the review of all AOPs from 10 years (2015-2015) Categories I and II of the National Environmental Information System, verifying in the field the most representative. The results show that there is incongruence in the EEIA methodologies used, 36% of them do not mention biodiversity, those that do it are reduced to a list of species, which does not allow to measure the real impact that the AOP can produce on biodiversity , making this instrument not useful, that accompanied by the shortcomings of the technicians who write and review this instrument, can become a disaster. The EEIAs need a clear accompanying regulation, as well as developing indicators, especially indicators of biodiversity.
Description
Vol. 9, No. 2