Why we cannot start Baseline data collection for EIA study as per model TOR by simply informing to MoEF about project & giving them undertaking that whatever decided by EAC/SEAC will be incorporated and addressed into EIA/EMP Report - This will shorten the EIA study time & ultimately project development time – Express your views
You need to be a member of Paryavaran.com- Indian Environment Network to add comments!
Replies
Dear All,
Since model EIA format is given, it is not necessary to approve a separate ToR. Looking at the time line, how is it possible to get round the year data within a short time span, unless the people involved assume godly powers as in the past? weather data and hydrology data related to major projects cannot be acquired in limited time. Instead, the initially reported EIA may be called draft and the approved one with amendments as final EIA.
Proponent /Applicant can start baseline data, But after getting ToR from SEAC/MoEF, We get direction to conduct baseline & other related study. Hence baseline data can not be collected for EIA studies before TOR approval from MoEF
DEAR JOMCY,
The biggest laugh is that there is no fundamental difference in the TOR issued to any industry. If industries feel this as a stepping stone to malpractice introduction there is no exaggeration. If we consider the delay caused it is something between 2-3 months.
In this era of information explosion why at all some one is expected to present the matters physically. This entire process can be made to work online. See many States PCBs are having this process online. Step by step questions can be asked and information can be submitted online.
If State PCBs can manage this thing with their limited resources, why MoEF cannot? This is nothing but increasing the complexity of the problem when simpler solution is at doorstep.
Baseline data set is collected to define the pre-project status. Based on the nature of the project, its magnitude and site conditions, impacts vary. Impact will depend on the coordinates of wind direction, water migration, human settlements and ecology of impacted space. It is often necessary to model migration of chemical species and fauna, which depends on the topography as well. Hence it is wiser to collect detailed baseline data only after approving ToR.
Regarding accreditation: It is more important to impart education in ethics. It may be based on a syllabus staring from school to doctoral to professional.
It is also desirable to conduct certification program for consultants for their knowledge and skills in different sectors. Of course, basic education requirements cannot be diluted, since it contributed to holistic knowledge.
Sir,
Very good comment !!!
Ajay B Dwivedi said:
Here, every consultant is literally made to dance to two different tunes one from authority and the other from the PP.
PP is in a hurry to 'get rid' of the 'pollution board' issue.
(PP seldom distinguishes CPCB/MoEF/SPCB/DoEF/EAC/EIAA - so for him it is Pollution Board)
Authority thinks consultants are their toy and are always dance to tune of their commandments.
PP does not recognize what the baseline survey is.
Consultant is a tailor who is paid to stitch a half pant that reaches his foot.
PP has got the consultant at the bottom of the priorities.
With so little to be listed the Consultant is a creature who has to bear all responsibility with no honor / dignity.
Look at the QCI / NABET they want consultant to be responsible for every data but do not want to protect the consultant in any corner by any mistake.
This may seem vague but it has got connection with the practice of not allowing monitoring before TOR issuance.
In reality even if some one collects the data before the TOR's are issued, what difference is it going to make. The data is not going to vary within one year, except there is massive change in the land use pattern, which is not going to be the case like those projects located in a notified Industrial Estate. (projects located in notified industrial estate are not going to go to Delhi for EC clearance as they will be cleared by SEIA).
I agree with Mr. Dwivedi and would like to add one point is that the committee should become practical and infact they should order the PP to collect the data from the PP whose project has already been collected, analyzed and cleared by the committee (not more than a year depending on the change in the landuse pattern) or MOEF themselves can part with the data for a nominal charge.
In reality MOEF based on the projects cleared or not cleared can update the environmental atlas of an area after each month as per the decisions made during the meetings.
Imagine the situation, if such a condition becomes a reality,. The project will or will not be cleared in a jiffy and Mr. Montek Singh Alhuwalia can sleep peacefully since the industrial growth will inch forward rapidly toward his target.
If you go through the Notification, you realize that PP has to propose TORs. EAC/SEAC is empowered to approve them. This can be done at the end of the meeting. The beurocracy of these EACs and the inherent habit of Govt official of slipping away from bearing responsibility but they always want to enjoy powers vested through the system. Otherwise, PPs can get confirmation in written at the end of the meeting itself. Let the things be minuted at their ease.
When you have 10 projects within 10 km radius why data cannot be used interchangably. Noo need to waste resources, this ultimately leads to malpractice. When there is no difference in TORs how the reports will be different? If after a number of repitition there is no reliability in data found it reflects that data expected are not in fitness of matters. Every EIA consultant's data cannot be unreliable. Similarly, every data produced by Govt machinery cannot be reliable either. Rationality lies midway.
TOR proposed by PP has to be authorized at the end of the meeting in written. If the authorities are not in a position to do so, the PP should take it for granted.
There is no hard and fast rule that the EAC questions are restricted to ToR issued. It is often seen that EAC members talk other than their discipline. In reality the baseline studies will not be changed in many cases except in few.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next