ANALYSIS LAND PLANNING EIA

INTRODUCTION

In the north of Chile, in March of 2015 from 24th to 27th, it occurred a hydrometeorological event of unusually high rainfall, which caused flash floods and debris flows in the Atacama Region -the driest in the world - causing damage to the population and infrastructure of several localities, including those located in the basin of the Salado River, Chañaral, Diego de Almagro and the town of El Salado. From the above, this paper analyzes the environmental assessment (EA) processes of land planning instruments (LPI) linked to the municipality of Chañaral and Diego de Almagro, in order to learn lessons that will enable in future orient to urban and territorial planning work, from the perspective of environmental management tools, taking advantage of reconstruction processes.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) OF LAND PLANNING INSTRUMENTS IN CHILE (LPI)

According to Chilean law, since 1997 LPI are compulsorily required to go through an EA process. Note that the LPI subject to EA correspond to:

-  Regional Land Use Plans

-  Coastal Border Zoning

-  Regional Urban Development Plan

-  Inter-communal Regulatory Plan

-  Communal Regulatory Plan

-  Sectional Plan

Specifically process characteristics can be described in two historical periods that take place, the first between 1997-2010 where conducting an EA based on environmental impact assessment (EIA) process or you could say “traditional”, and a second period between 2010 and the present in which legal changes forced the realization of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes.

Regarding the first period it is possible indicate that the promoter of the LPI, either the regional or communal authority, generated a zoning proposal and a memory of the planning process, and then enter to the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA) for a review of technical committee, formed by sectorial state agencies, that emit sound judgment regarding compliance with current environmental legislation, as well as potential impacts or significant adverse effects that could be generated from the implementation of such planning. Once the promoter was responding to possible issues that could be found, LPI's proposal could be approved or rejected by a political local commission to continue its path of implementation. In the above context, it is interesting to note regarding about risk assessment, there were no guidelines and specific indications and instead was based on environmental legislation or technical committee members’ opinions based on their experience, but always with an approach to environmental impacts.

In the second period, the EA process, based on an SEA approach is carried out by the promoter, but the LPI in permanent form during the process of developing only being supervised by the ministry of environment. Among the characteristics of this period are that due to the strategic assessment approach, the focus is given by the analysis of planning scenarios based on the idea of sustainable development and the fact that consultation with sectorial state agencies is not mandatory nor binding and public participation processes is incorporated. In the above context, a risk assessment, is given more than anything with linking potential scenarios and situations that can be given to the identification of threats and vulnerabilities that are made in the construction of the LPI. Is worth mentioning that the SEA process ends in conjunction with LPI planning process, being all conditional upon same promoter of the initiative, which would clearly represent a conflict of interest, where the political decision is above technicians criteria regarding zoning of risk areas.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Earthquakes and Catastrophes Act allows updating the Communal Regulatory Plan LPI in two years in a "fast track" mechanism. This implies that the urban planning process takes place outside of an EA, so it does not incorporate citizen participation or other improvements that may result from the process, being quite questionable that situation.

ANALYSIS OF THE SALADO RIVER FLOOD RISK ASSESMENT IN EA PROCESS OF THE LPI IN THE PROVINCE OF CHAÑARAL

From 1997 to date there are 8 EA processes for LPI in the territory under study, these 5 were in the first period of EIA traditional assessment, and the remaining 3 in the SEA period currently in force. Of the total cases of study, only three processes have LPI that were in force at the time of the flood event under study (see Table 1).

Revised first the three LPI in force actually, which were assessed in the traditional EIA way (see Table 2) it is possible verify that at least one of the communes (Chañaral) the issue of floods and debris flow linked to flooding of the Salado River, there was not been assessed adequately. The foregoing, because first by the case of the LPI Coastal Huasco-Caldera-Chañaral EA, where although referred to specific risk that is for other Rivers (Copiapó and Huasco) as well as coastal streams, not existing reference about the Salado River, and where despite the technical committee at different stages asked dor funded risk studies, the developer does not give adequate information arguing the need of future specific studies. Later LPI Chañaral had a EA process where potential risks of Salado River is not analyzed, and further technical committee does not challenge the absence of these.

Contrary to the previous case is that which occurs in the commune of Diego de Almagro, where the initial presentation to assessment does address specifically the flood and debris flow risk of the Salado River, EA process that is enriched by inquiries technical comittee respect of founded risk studies and whose analysis allows the inclusion of mitigation measures. In this last case it is important to emphasize that the technical committee ask for those buildings located within the flood risk area and would find affected by a potential event of flooding or debris flow, to which the promoter indicates that remain subject to "freeze" this it means that they cannot do new buildings, but not in charge of generating resettlements or adaptation measures for those areas.

Subsequently revised SEA processes of LPI for Coastal Huasco-Caldera-Chañaral Inter-communal Regulatory Plan and Atacama Region Coastal Border Zoning, it is important to recognize that change from a traditional EIA towards a strategic nature, it caused differences, so in that a risk assessment context and way of addressing this is different. About it, is important to indicate that reviewed the environmental reports, for both cases there is no definition of sustainability criteria linked to the definition of new risk area, neither of indicators or other information identifying the EA has served to consideration of these issues, and therefore it is not possible to refer in detail to the case of floods or debris flow by the Salado River.

Table 1. Environmental Assessment Process Analysis for the Territory.

LPI / Territorial Unity / EA Process State / Type of EA Process / LPI State / Force start day
Regional Land Use Plans / Atacama Region / Currently in
assessment / SEA / Not in
force / -
Regional Urban Development Plan / Atacama Region / Approved / EIA / Not in
force / -
Coastal Border Zoning / Atacama Region / Currently in
assessment / SEA / Not in
force
Inter-communal Regulatory Plan / Coastal Huasco-Caldera-Chañaral / Approved / EIA / In force / 21-08-01
Coastal Huasco-Caldera-Chañaral / Assessment
finished / SEA / Not in
force / -
Communal Regulatory Plan / Diego de Almagro / Approved / EIA / In force / 27-10-11
Chañaral / Approved / EIA / In force / 13-04-05
Chañaral / Desisted / EIA / Not in
force / -
Sectional Plan / - / - / - / - / -

Source: Compilation based on information available SEA (2016) and MMA (2016).

Table 2: Analysis of EIA process of LPI in relation to flood risk and debris flow the Salado River.

Aspect / LPI
Coastal Huasco-Caldera-Chañaral / Chañaral / Diego de Almagro
Environmental Assessment Year / 1998 - 2000 / 2002 - 2003 / 2004 - 2007
Initial document considers flood and debris flow Risk Analysis? / +/- / +/- / ++
Technical Committee raised questions of threats of flooding or debris flow? / ++ / - / ++
The answers given by the promoter improve the proposal LPI? / - / N/A / ++
environmental license refers to risk of flooding or debris flow? / +/- / +/- / ++

++: Addresses the issue specifically

+/- : Addresses the issue, but on other aspects.

- : Does not address the issue

N/A: Not Apply

Source: Prepared by the authors on the basis of SEA (2016)

LEARNINGS FOR THE FUTURE SEA PROCESS IN CHILE

In relation to the findings, after reviewing the EA processes in different cases, we should make a distinction between the first period (1997-2010) based on traditional EIA process and the second (2010 to present) based on SEA methodology. Concerning to the first period, it was possible to detect that there is no uniformity by LPI promoters respect to risk analysis - in this specific case associated with Salado River flooding and debris flow area- where the technical committee in at least two cases they required more information and improvements on the issue, ending in environmental licenses who partially considered. As for the second period, it was possible to detect a decrease in relevance to the natural hazards issues, where in no case was carried out specific analysis about the subject, nor had requirements by the reviewing agency that the promoter delve into the topic.

With respect to the flooding and debris flow event, LPI in force in the case of Chañaral, the damage may be evident, since this risk at no time was considered both in the process of formulating the LPI itself, but also by the EA process. In relation to Diego de Almagro, where the threat itself was incorporated and mitigation measures were considered, the fact that the legislation would allow the "freeze" over the realization of measures such as resettlement, caused this population itself was affected by the event. Additionally it should be noted that environmental licenses in Chile are mandatory, not knowing itself the state of implementation of mitigation measures established by the EA process, therefore it must be asked if there exists negligence by the authority to implement such measures, in which case it should be a serious responsibility.

Finally, it is important to note that:

A)  Ahead, EA processes in Chile in particular through the SEA must consider natural hazards, within the minimum criteria to assess sustainability, given the magnitude of the human and material damage generated in the country year to year.

B)  In the above context, the environmental report should consider a specific section where analysis of all potential environmental and natural hazards be made, as well as a hierarchy of these in terms of vulnerability.

C)  If is detected potentially affected population, the SEA must establish measures to mitigate or adapt the risk on inhabited sectors, so that the LPI serve for an improvement in quality of life conditions of the population.

D)  It is necessary to include specific monitoring indicators that are linked to environmental or natural hazards subjects and restricted areas established in the LPI.

E)  In an updating scenario of Communal Regulatory LPI Plan from the Earthquakes and Catastrophes Act, which involves a process "fast track" must necessarily be linked and involving with the SEA normal process, because this allows improvement in quality of LPI.

F)  Finally, the approval mechanism of risk areas by the promoter in the same act with planning regulations and the ends of the SEA process, which mixes everything and ends up influencing politically zoning, beyond technical considerations that may exist.

REFERENCES

Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental (SEA 2016). Environmental Impact Assessment Process Files. http://seia.sea.gob.cl/busqueda/buscarProyecto.php

Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (MMA 2016). Strategical Impact Assessment Cadaster. http://eae.mma.gob.cl/index.php/ficha