Structure of Environmental Impact Assessment Report

[RAGHAVA]

What's the Prime Objective of an EIA report

1. Is it to make public aware of the impacts of the project

2. To satisfy the local leaders & enhance business 

3. to obtain Environmental Clearance.

Almost all the three are interlinked in one way or the other.

The main issue is do we need to exactly address the project details, its impacts on environment and proposed management plan to mitigate or minimize if not manage the problem.

If its the above para then the report can be brief, present the salient features of projects and proposed mitigation measures. if Expert Committee members feel that is inadequate then they can suggest or impose necessary measures. so that many number of pages can be saved. 

Putting in simple way do we need to provide a crisp report addressing relevant issues or prepare a huge report beating round the bush without addressing the relevant issue. 

Unfortunately, the above line highlighted in red is been followed and accepted both by project proponent, public..........

 

why not this attitude change and Ministry give a directive that make a crisp report not wasting pages giving un-necessary things.

[RAGHAVA]

Dear Pandey Jee and Mssi Poonam Jee, 

With a little experience i have i always felt that the project proponent intends to highlight his company's achievements, accolades he has achieved in the past and his endeavours achieved in another project at some place rather than straight away going to pinpoint about the present project and its issues. .

Committee many times suggests that don't make too voluminous reports untill and unless it is necessary.

coming to next point made by Shri RakeshShah jje

Reply by Rakesh Shah 21 hours ago

Can a project be evaluated/studied during the general meeting period of 30-45 minutes? It is this component of the Clearance that should be really looked into. A project comes up forever-it has to be given due evaluation.

The committee members are highely intellectual as far as my experience is concerned while presenting before them. After making through effect in making report, after making ground truthing and compiling from various sources, still the committee is so intelligent that they can visualise the entire project and surrounding areas even physically visiting it and it they intent i am sure they can take a decision within 5 - 10 minutes even before we present the case. But they try to check our knowledge and facts from the ground. To my personal opinion 15 - 20 minutes is more than sufficient to our Honourable MoEF committee members to understand the project and take a decision on the project. 

coming to the part of reducing the wastage of paper still i feel that Ministry has to give a guideline that make report as precisely as possible and address specific issues rather than defining terms.

Raghava

 

[hamida surani]

I agree to your point of being precise and short-is-sweet, however in this case care should be taken by the ministry that not only the report should be precise and to the point, but it should also contain the important aspects as the exact detailed process, study of environment, evaluation and impacts on environment and mathematical prediction of all parameters through modelling and not only of just air. When we do have the availablity of sophisticated instruments to predict the nature of pollution, why not use them and be prepared for the adversities.

However, for similar projects ministry can themselves sketch out basic necessary mitigations in the TOR which will remain same for all projects in that sector, so that waste of resources and repetation can be avoided. 

[Ratnakar Pandey]

Not agree with your point specially on TOR, reason being TOR is always prescribed on the basis of project location & their impact on environment..... have a question that how TOR could be same for same indutry if a project located in Vapi (gujarat) & other one at a place where pollution is least in pollution index.

hamida surani said:

I agree to your point of being precise and short-is-sweet, however in this case care should be taken by the ministry that not only the report should be precise and to the point, but it should also contain the important aspects as the exact detailed process, study of environment, evaluation and impacts on environment and mathematical prediction of all parameters through modelling and not only of just air. When we do have the availablity of sophisticated instruments to predict the nature of pollution, why not use them and be prepared for the adversities.

However, for similar projects ministry can themselves sketch out basic necessary mitigations in the TOR which will remain same for all projects in that sector, so that waste of resources and repetation can be avoided. 

[Ratnakar Pandey]

RAGHAVA said:

Not necessary that what you have achieved in past will achieve in present & future also!!!!!!! it the duty of engazed consultant & environmental expert/EIA expert to convince the project proponent....

 

 

Dear Pandey Jee and Mssi Poonam Jee, 

With a little experience i have i always felt that the project proponent intends to highlight his company's achievements, accolades he has achieved in the past and his endeavours achieved in another project at some place rather than straight away going to pinpoint about the present project and its issues. .

Committee many times suggests that don't make too voluminous reports untill and unless it is necessary.

coming to next point made by Shri RakeshShah jje

Reply by Rakesh Shah 21 hours ago

Can a project be evaluated/studied during the general meeting period of 30-45 minutes? It is this component of the Clearance that should be really looked into. A project comes up forever-it has to be given due evaluation.

The committee members are highely intellectual as far as my experience is concerned while presenting before them. After making through effect in making report, after making ground truthing and compiling from various sources, still the committee is so intelligent that they can visualise the entire project and surrounding areas even physically visiting it and it they intent i am sure they can take a decision within 5 - 10 minutes even before we present the case. But they try to check our knowledge and facts from the ground. To my personal opinion 15 - 20 minutes is more than sufficient to our Honourable MoEF committee members to understand the project and take a decision on the project. 

coming to the part of reducing the wastage of paper still i feel that Ministry has to give a guideline that make report as precisely as possible and address specific issues rather than defining terms.

Raghava

 

[Prof Dr V N Sivasankara Pillai]

The objective of the EIA report is simple.

1. To measure the site specific environmental baseline relevant to the project

2. State the features of the project that may be of environmental concern

3. To identify possible impacts impacts (screening)

4. To plan mitigation measures (EMP) to minimize negative impacts

5. To have a commitment to review impacts and modify EMP, if needed.

6. To publicize the activities, impacts and mitigation measures to stakeholders

Hence it is mandatory.

As with any money making business, some may be manipulating the process as mentioned by you.

What is needed is integrity of stakeholders (including proponents and officials) and commitment.