what would be an ideal cost to carry out an EIA study without any priliferage.
The ministry now-a-days is looking at pre-feasibility report along with application to provide TOR in order to ensure that the project is viable in terms of profit after incurring all other expenses like Environmental protection, Social & Economic Development etc.
So there should also be a procedure to evaluate the economic feasibility of preparing an EIA report to ensure a reliable study.
Raghava
Replies
Dear Mr Raghava,
Yes, there is nothing personal; it was a healthy discussion indeed. I like following your blogs/discussions and try to particulate where I could.
In fact, as usual I was going through the discussions today and found my comments was out of context and - I thought it would not be good for a new member because it was at the beginning of the discussion.
Hope you understand and will excuse me – my intention was not to make you feel bad.
Thanks Mr. Chandra!
Regards,
Sudhanshu
M V RAGHAVACHARYULU said:
MV, No need to take things personal on a discussion. Everyone here is mature enough to provide only professional inputs and debate. Dr. Sudhanshu, just wanted to maintain the flow of this discussion.
We enjoy your questions that stimulate discussion. So, do keep on posting questions relevant to our professionals..
Dear Dr. Sudhanshu,
I started feeling guilty from your statement that your comment was irrelevant so you would like to withdraw from the discussion. If i have hurted you in any way kindly forgive me.
Firstly i couldn't get you for what clarification given by me has hurted you so much. Is it because of the comment made by me on your discussion or anything else. whatever it may be please continue the discussion. if noble & knowledgeable people like you stop sharing knowledge by way of discussion it will be a disastor. rather i stop posting my stupid discussions.....................Raghava
Dr. Sudhanshu Kumar said:
Following to Mr Raghava clarification, my comment was irrelevant – therefore, I have withdrawn my comment to maintain the flow of the discussion.
Regards, Sudhanshu
There is an impression in minds of people that the cost of EIA charged by the consultant are charges that he either earns straightway and the PP is paying the sum to one person and not the organization and a set of scientifically engineered multi-disciplinary effort and days of input and the thought process the consultant goes through during the preparation. He has to keep his mind and hands free for the job his PP has entrusted to him for the project. It is mostly thought as a cost to darken the blank papers and the other "management" the consultant has to carry out for foiling the future misdeeds which go uproposed with the project proposal that is read by others.
On the other hand authorities have got different view about the consultant's proficieny and more often or not they are also seen enquiring about the fees paid to the consulting organization.
As far as to cost of a job is concerned, this may differ from organization to organization widely and without any proportion to sense any arithmatic.
WHAT RAGHAVA HAS INITIATED TO DISCUSS IS MORE PERTAINING TO THE GOVT MACHINERY THAN THE CONSULTANTS.
While considering the project cost and its analysis, Cost to Banefit analysis on short term and long term basis have to be evaluated. The cost of environmental impacts identified need to be warrantied by the people responsible for approving the project. After all when the project can be rejected in name of the adverse impact that can be caused by a group of burocrats in a room, the same people should be ready and be responsible for the extent of damage identified by them. If required there has to be an insurance to cover the damage and acturials have to be involved in the team to calculate the probable environmental damage to arrive at the cost.
By simple prescriptions of 27 or 47 or any number of TORs damage cannot be assessed or quantified. As I have mentioned and all would agree that TORs are more or less the same for all projects. Why the prescribers of the TORs are not put to task for having done the cut and paste jobs?
It is simply surprising statement by Prashath V that cost of EIA depends on the consultant and the organization. For a given set of exercise calories consumed by two individuals are expected to be the same but the physical distress they undergo may differ.
I am sorry but I do not agree with Dr Pillai over the issue of Social Studies, the Government has already got a Department / Ministry working for this, to support the matter they have Census Dept also through which the Government has to have the facility for analyzing the matter for testing or counterchecking the reliability of data submitted through the EIA or they have to consider the matter for the purpose and not the PP / consultant.
Moreover, the Pre-Feasibility is not supported by the Notification. If MoEF needs the same they have to Notify the matter. Or more easily these days their notion keep on coming through OMs without any hindrance.
If you stick purely to the EIA's cost charged by the consultant, consider that MoEF has prescribed more or less same TORsas mentioned earlier, irrespective of the cost and number of industries in the area. The SW monsoon predictions published by met office, is also a type of environmental impact where the impact is predicted for a large area like Indian sub-continent. Consider two EIAs carried out in an area of 25 - 50 KM apart, how can you expect that the conditions will change, cost of the data will start reducing second project onwards. How many of our experienced consultants have discounted this cost and passed on the same physically to their customers?
Writing an EIA report and prediction of impacts with slightest of authenticity is scientific art. Cost of EIA is easily forgotten by any industry but the cost of impact can never be forgotten by the society. Underline is that:
COST OF EIA IS NO CONSIDERATION.
NO EIA CAN BE RELIABLE UNTILL THE ANSEWRABILITY IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE AUTHORITIES APPROVING THEM.
Dear Mr. Raghavacharyulu,
I think i understood the matter in sense of project economic viability and impacts of environmental cost on project economics. And So i replied with some highlights of my experience. I hope those information i shared is helpfull to you for getting basic idea. For more details you can also refer books/references of financial evaluation/calculations as well as Environmental economics. Lot of references are available on these topic.
M V RAGHAVACHARYULU said:
Dear Mr Raghava,
The cost of an EIA depends on the nature of the project, magnitude, location, resource use and abuse etc. Baseline data acquisition (both primary and secondary) become expensive if no background literature is available. Quality assured analytical data on baseline quality of air, water, noise, soil etc also prove to be very expensive. Planning by environmental experts is needed for all assessments. The time and wastage of resources can be saved, if an EIA Design Charette is conducted with participation of ecologists, project experts, EIA experts and MoEF functionaries.
The prefeasiblity study should not be limited to cash flow, it should also address environmental and social feasibility.
It was great to learn such beautiful things but i think my language is somewhere wrong and that's the reason some discussion went out of topic. whatever it may be it has given good ideas regarding various aspects.
actually my idea is Ministry is trying to understand the viability of a project in various aspects like the proponent should get profit after meeting all statuory requirements like environmental protection, CSR activities and other overheads etc
In the same way if QCI can evalute the Cost of EIA so that a proper report comes out after meeting atleast 10-20% profit with all the conditions laid by QCI & MoEF for any consultancy firm whether big or small. However, the choise of selection of environmental consultant remains with the Project proponent himself
Raghava
Dear Raghava,
To best of my understanding this can never be a fixed figure. TOR can be used as the guideline for arriving the cost. If we go through the TORs it is always found that they are cut & paste business only. The fact is that the MoEF itself has stipulated the process where there is nothing that can be called "pre-feasibility". On what ground the pre-feasibility is demanded is not understandable. This is used only to complicate the matters in stead of keeping the matters strictly through F-1. F-1 is a broadspectrum identification of aspects required to be investigated in EIA. MoEF adds or authenticates the PP's TORs and then the cost factor enters. With MoEF's lithargecy in name of being overburdened with work is deplorable for the aim of EIA. The "consultants" in turn give a full package of "treatment".
To exemplify the matter consider a small resin manufacturer in a notified industrial area and the same process carried out on a may be smaller case out side. The disparity in classification takes the same type of activity from A1 to B2.
Another factor of QCI accreditation has now entered and the economic issue attached with the matter is not yet fully complicated. QCI is openly allowed to aid the monopolization of business.
Socio-economic aspect has to be analyzed once with the census data superimposed by any Government agency once for all and avoid the aimless repitition forced. Actually, this should be included in Jan Lokpal perview and SEAC / EAC / SEIAA etc should be made accountable for the socio-economic loss.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next