Challenges and Prospects for Integrating the Assessment of Health Impacts in the Licensing Process of Large Capital Project in Brazil

Brazil was one of the first countries in Latin America to institutionalize a National Environmental Policy in 1981, including the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process of economic activities with anticipated impacts on the environment. Today, EIA practice in Brazil comes with a number of limitations: it is constrained by its environmental advocacy role; application is strongly oriented towards large capital projects; and social responsibility considerations are only partially included. Consequently, EIA studies mainly address issues connected to localised and direct environmental impacts, largely ignoring any socio-economic and health impacts. This perspective paper highlights limitations of current EIA practice in Brazil with a focus on health considerations in impact assessment. While recognizing the positive impact to municipalities where large capital projects are being developed and operated, adverse impacts on health are a reality with measurable evidence in Brazil. Therefore, we argue that specificities on how to systematically assess and monitor potential health impacts cannot remain invisible in the Brazilian legislation, as currently seen in the reformulation of the licensing process in the country. The process of better integrating the assessment of health impacts in the licensing process of large capital project in Brazil must, however, not be based on the imposition of an external model but should be promoted by internal stakeholders from the environmental and health sector, incorporating the experiences gained in various case studies from all over the countr

Challenges and Prospects for Integrating the Assessment of Health Impacts in the Licensing Process of Large Capital Project in Brazil

Abstract Brazil was one of the first countries in Latin America to institutionalize a National Environmental Policy in 1981, including the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process of economic activities with anticipated impacts on the environment. Today, EIA practice in Brazil comes with a number of limitations: it is constrained by its environmental advocacy role; application is strongly oriented towards large capital projects; and social responsibility considerations are only partially included. Consequently, EIA studies mainly address issues connected to localised and direct environmental impacts, largely ignoring any socio-economic and health impacts. This perspective paper highlights limitations of current EIA practice in Brazil with a focus on health considerations in impact assessment. While recognizing the positive impact to municipalities where large capital projects are being developed and operated, adverse impacts on health are a reality with measurable evidence in Brazil. Therefore, we argue that specificities on how to systematically assess and monitor potential health impacts cannot remain invisible in the Brazilian legislation, as currently seen in the reformulation of the licensing process in the country. The process of better integrating the assessment of health impacts in the licensing process of large capital project in Brazil must, however, not be based on the imposition of an external model but should be promoted by internal stakeholders from the environmental and health sector, incorporating the experiences gained in various case studies from all over the country

L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé (EIS), un outil au service de la justice environnementale

Originaire des États-Unis, le mouvement de justice environnementale s’est globalisé, en se diffusant autour du monde et en s’adaptant au contexte politique, social et culturel de chaque pays. Contrairement aux États-Unis et au Canada, où les problématiques de justice environnementale sont perçues et analysées selon des références ethniques et raciales, en Europe, celles-ci sont appréhendées en référence à des catégories sociales. Les études abordant la justice environnementale au prisme de la santé publique sont nombreuses, tout comme celles se focalisant sur les iniquités de santé. À l’inverse, rares sont celles intégrant des outils, tels que les évaluations d’impact sur la santé (EIS), à leur discussion. L’EIS est un outil d’aide à la décision, dont l’objectif est d’apprécier les impacts des politiques sur la santé de la population, avec une attention particulière portée aux questions d’inégalités de santé. Basé sur l’approche par les déterminants de la santé, il considère que les principaux facteurs qui influencent la santé ne relèvent pas de l’accès aux soins, mais concernent les conditions socio-économiques et l’exposition aux nuisances environnementales de la population. Partant, les EIS s’intéressent prioritairement aux politiques non-sanitaires (p.ex. agriculture, environnement, transports, etc.). De part ces caractéristiques, l’EIS peut faciliter la compréhension des questions de justice environnementale dans le processus de prise de décision. Même s’ils n’ont pas été conçus pour appréhender spécifiquement les problèmes de racisme environnemental, les EIS se concentrent sur les bénéfices de santé ainsi que sur la distribution des impacts de santé au sein de la population. Or, ce dernier objectif renvoie directement à l’équité, concept fondamental dans le domaine de justice environnementale, dont le mouvement du racisme environnemental appartient, créant ainsi un point de rencontre entre ces trois notions. Dans ce contexte, la distribution inégale de l’exposition aux facteurs de risque environnementaux peut être perçue comme le principal aspect de l’injustice environnementale mais également comme le point de départ pour diminuer les inégalités en matière de santé sur lesquelles les EIS sont en capacité d’agir. Cette contribution se propose d’analyser l’apport des EIS en tant qu’approche permettant de mieux protéger les groupes les plus défavorisés par une distribution plus juste et équitable des effets sur la santé, usuellement produits par les politiques publiques. En partant de l’analyse théorique des effets distributifs en matière de justice environnementale des outils d’évaluation prospective (Walker, Fay and Mitchell 2005), elle va s’intéresser à la prise en compte de ces effets potentiels lors de la mise en œuvre d’EIS. A travers une revue de la littérature scientifique et une analyse de la littérature grise relative aux rapports d’EIS, elle va proposer une analyse comparative entre la France (pratique récente des EIS, mais en forte augmentation) et le Canada (Québec, pratique ancienne des EIS, bénéficiant d’un cadre légal contraignant) avec, pour objectif, d’apprécier la pertinence et les limites des EIS en relation au triptyque racisme-environnement-santé, et ainsi promouvoir l’usage de l’EIS en tant qu’outil d’aide à la décision visant à lutter contre le renforcement d’injustices existantes en matière de santé.</p

Évaluations environnementales et évaluation d'impact sur la santé

Objectifs du chapitre Présenter quelques outils et approches d’EI dans les domaines de l’environnement et de la santé. Explorer leurs implications pratiques dans la mise en œuvre de politiques publiques favorables à la santé et à l’environnement. Étudier les possibilités d’une meilleure intégration de ces démarches afin d’en augmenter l’efficience et l’acceptabilité. Esquisser les perspectives d’évolution de ces approches dans un contexte de développement durable. </ul

Health Impact Assessment to Promote Urban Health: A Trans-Disciplinary Case Study in Strasbourg, France

Health Impact Assessment (HIA), an inherently trans-disciplinary approach, is used to help evaluate and improve projects or programmes in sectors such as transportation, where new infrastructure is likely to have effects on health. This article describes the screening, scoping, appraisal, and recommendation steps of an HIA on a new 24 km highway around the conurbation of Strasbourg, France. Methods included a literature review and quantitative estimates of the health effects of air pollution and noise. Although planned, interviews and focus groups proved impossible due to political and administrative difficulties. In replacement, answers to a related public inquiry were submitted to a secondary, thematic analysis. The new infrastructure is likely to create or help maintain some jobs in the short term and might accelerate certain journeys, but it does not seem able to improve local mobility and air quality issues. It crystallises the dissatisfaction of a part of the local population and raises the question of the transparency of the design and validation processes of major infrastructure projects. Despite an unfavourable political context, the HIA approach described in this article was able to overcome methodological difficulties and obstacles thanks to creative research methods and trans-disciplinarity to finally yield relevant information and suggestions for urban health promotion.</p

Staying active during Covid-19 crisis: why it would have been important to keep public parks opened

International audienceBackgroundIn 2020, the Covid 19 pandemic and associated restrictions, including limited access to public urban green space (UGS), have led to a decrease in the ability of city dwellers to engage in physical activity. In France, more than 52% people reported being physically active in urban parks. Based on the GREENH-City research carried out in cities of the French network of WHO healthy cities, this presentation aims to show that UGS, depending on different drivers, can support a wide variety of physical activities, but also offer multiple other functions that contribute more or less directly to the health of the population.MethodsA qualitative survey was conducted among users of 3 different parks in each of the 6 selected cities with both observations and semi-directive interviews and a thematic analyzes were performed. Observed activities were classified into 8 groups including physical activity (non-sport, sports). Interview's analysis aimed to describe the reasons for coming and the type of activity made.Results186 observations and 591 recorded and unrecorded interviews with individuals or groups were conducted in the 18 parks. 24 types of physical activity have been described as possible uses of UGS. The most important, regardless of UGS location, is children activities in playgrounds. The most common activities are walking (with a social function) and jogging (individual function). Proximity and the accessibility are two reasons for use.ConclusionsUGS are an open access amenity for physical activities. From a social justice perspective, policy makers should ensure that every neighborhood is sufficiently close to an UGS. In addition to promoting physical activity, UGS also serve an important social function and impact the collective physical and mental health of the population in many other ways (e.g., as environmental risk regulators). Their coping role during crisis for population would worth to be studied further

Health in all policies, Urban Green Spaces and Health : The GREENH-City research project with French Healthy-Cities

International audienc