Forum

Cost Benefit Analysis Calculation under FCA 1980

Posted by Ratnakar Pandey on September 30, 2011 at 12:30am in Ideas for Innovation

Dear Members,

Seeking your valuable suggestion in calculation of cost benefit analysis for the Forest land diversion case in hilly terrian which is mandatory for above 5 MW hydro projects under FCA 1980.

See the FCA req. on CBA from given link.

http://www.envlaws.org/FCA/spgc.html

 

Regards
Ratnakar

You need to be a member of Paryavaran.com- Indian Environment Network to add comments!

Join Paryavaran.com- Indian Environment Network

Email me when people reply –
Follow

Replies

  • Ratnakar Pandey October 2, 2011 at 11:37pm

    Dear Sir,

     

    Thanks for your precious suggestion.

     

    Ratnakar

    Dr. Ashok Kundapur said:

    Dear Ratnakar,

    Ecoservice value of Forest has been estimairted at Rs5 lakhs/hector/year by Costanza et al especially for Western Ghat forests.(Nature/vol 387/1997 - copy easily available on net, I have shared the same with the readers)

    In a recent such estimate Dr T V Ramachandra and his group from IISC, Bangalore has  forests in Gundia (South East of Western Ghats where a 700 MW Hydro Electric Project was proposed) pegged the Ecoservice value as Rs 195 Billion/year with food and water security. (http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/TR122/evaluation_...).

     

    I wish this info is brought to t he notice of MoEF as well as Planning commission.

     

    Ashok

     

    http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/TR122/evaluation_of_forests.pdf
  • Dr. Ashok Kundapur September 30, 2011 at 2:32pm

    Dear Ratnakar,

    Ecoservice value of Forest has been estimated at Rs5 lakhs/hector/year by Costanza et al especially for Western Ghat forests.(Nature/vol 387/1997 - copy easily available on net, I have shared the same with the readers)

    In a recent such estimate Dr T V Ramachandra and his group from IISC, Bangalore has  forests in Gundia (South East of Western Ghats where a 700 MW Hydro Electric Project was proposed) pegged the Ecoservice value as Rs 195 Billion/year with food and water security. (http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/TR122/evaluation_...).

     

    I wish this info is brought to t he notice of MoEF as well as Planning commission.

     

    Ashok

     

    Nature_Paper.pdf

    evaluation_of_forests.pdf

    http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/TR122/evaluation_of_forests.pdf
  • Ratnakar Pandey September 30, 2011 at 4:49am

    Primarily i thanks for valuable suggestion but would like to correct you on the ratio, this CBA ratio shall be more than 1 if you calculate this less than 1, Forest land diversion would be question mark & not justifiable.In your answer you have quoted parameters for evaluation of loss of forest ie. Annexure -VI (b) only,What about evaluation of benefit not withstanding loss of forest as per Annexure -VI (c) under  FCA 1980 & FCR 2003.

    Secondly what are thumb rules or standard practices to calculate these benefits.

     

    Regards

    Ratnakar

     

  • GOPI KANTA GHOSH September 30, 2011 at 2:53am
    All points covered by Rahulji...actual cost may vary...
  • Rahul Singh September 30, 2011 at 2:26am

    Dear Ratnakar Ji,

    Cost Benefit Analysis for Forest Land Diversion is Ratio of Environment & Social Cost/Project Cost, this shall be less than One.

    The project cost is calculated by the Project Proponent which is the financial cost.

    The parameters for Environment cost are as follows

    (A)   ITEM-1: Evaluations of loss Timber Fuel Minor Forests Produce Mandays Expectation or Potential Value of Soil for Forest in Revenue Land

    (B) ITEM-2 Loss Value of Fodder (Grass)

    (C) ITEM-3 Cost of Human Re-Settlement

    (D) ITEM-4 Loss of Public Facilities and Administrative Infrastructure

    (E) ITEM-5 Valuation of Environmental Losses

    (F) ITEM-6 Suffering to Oustees

    These Losses when summed up form The Environment and Social Cost

     

    Rahul Singh

    Advocate

     

     

     

This reply was deleted.