Well friends it is official now. Shri Jairam Ramesh confirms what we ground workers knew since ages. The EIA reports are more of good pages of well bound paper than any thing else. So what do the members of IEN think about this. Let us blog out a strategy paper and take it to the MoEF! Write on your suggestions!
I do not understand the stand of MoEF on monopolizing the accreditation by QCI. If the improvement is required, it is an immediate requirement and working at the pace NABET / QCI it may require them years. When there are so many agencies of better repute are in the market, how can the business be monopolized by QCI?
I am of the understanding that no plan can be better than actions. When the processes and impacts are already known and time proven, why you need to waste time, money, energy, resources on assessment and still give one more cause for people like Anna Hazare to combat the corruption. Whatever is being done by the industries is not done for the first time in the world, we have all types of success and failures. Frame proper EMPs in stead of wasting time to find the impact. Impact is more or less known, attached to any and every industrial and infrastructural projects, wiseness is in reducing the impact and not increasing the paperwork.
I agree with most of what Mr.Murali outlines. Third party verification is a useful tool. Moreso if it includes reliable organizations. Additionally, creating [yes, even non environmental] employee groups within the corp. which are informed and responsible for reporting EIA requirements will increase accountability.
India is rich with wisdom, Knowledge and power. The need of the HOUR is consistency in any approach to use the wisdom and the knowledge avilable . Most of the report i am sure after EIA 2006 notofication is prepared based on the guidelines formulated .Since the scinece is not given its place the CAMPA has accumulated money. Given responsibility to science, identify organisation to carry out the EIA, Implemetaion of the mangment plan, and regular monitoring. Bulilt team, instead of one man to avoid monoploy and fix the reponsibility . Have a regular monitoring of all these process by strenthening EIA cell in MoEF as suggested by G UDAYABHASKAR . The project proponenet are willing allocate good amount for mitigation, they borgainin only wehn there is way for ------? . Have sound scientific approach and check for implementaion process. Fix the responsible to the implementing agency /team and see . There will not be any fragmention/loss of habitat for tiger and elephant which is running from pillar to post to hide.
Jeeva
I think Govt should stream line the EIA system some thing like this:
1> As soon as the client approaches MOEF with a new Project.
2> Initial Evaluation with basic guidelines to be done.
3> If its through advertise for the third party consultant to commencing EIA.
4> Technical and Financial Proposal evaluation of consultants to be done by MOEF.
5> Project sanction to the most eligible consultant to be decided MOEF.
6> Consultant reports directly to MOEF but not the Client.
7> Evaluation of the EIA by some random non-MOEF experts (like professors, Engineers or consultants in India or abroad). Its some thing like a PhD or publication review done by unknown expert.
8> If the procedure and report are done according to the guidelines of MOEF
9> Bills / Invoices should be issued by MOEF irrespective of the +ve or -ve outcome of the EIA report, and suggest the client for alternatives or rejection of project.
Only to show the +ve Environment Impact some consultants bias towards clients. If they dont have fear for their fee/consultation they may never try to give a manipulated EIA Report. And due to the random unknown evaluation of report will not allow the scams at higher level.
I donno whether it works or not but I felt it as a suitable option. Correct me if im wrong .
My work experience on EIA has some interesting observation.
Agency(Supplier): Most of the time the agency/company which undertakes EIA work are only profit making shops and are actually owned by chaddas chawlas marwadis baniyas sindhi and other traditionally buisnessmen proprietor. These people are backbone of our countries trade and commerce and are smart businessmen. Their only motive is to make money and maximize profit. I think they are doing fine job. In some other instances the company is owned or managed by engineering firms and consultants who have some or other remote connection with "Environment". They all strive for maximizing profits with minimum spending and lowest quality. As there is no quality determining parameter for their product (EIA report). The only customer is MoEF.
Professionals/Experts(Worker): Many of the times these people are not directly from environment science background or they have never studied environment. Their professional destiny has made them to undertake environmental work because there is money. (their identifying characteristics is that they think Environmental Science is a multidisciplinary subject/field and not interdisciplinary). The companies which hire them on temporary assignments will pay the lowest honorarium or payments for any damn shit these people will provide at the lowest cost. There are also many good experts and professional in our field which do excellent work but they are not paid well and this force them to do provide "kam chaloa" data and work. Many of my friends simply don't bother what work they do and what data they provide. For them some additional income is the essential criteria. These people are doing crime on our environment by provide any shit of data for some petty money.
Proponent(OEM): These people think that EIA is an unnecessary hurdle and wastage of time. When everything is manageable why not this? Like any other govt formalities.
Just probe the disproportionate assests amassed by project proponents, consultants, EAC members and MoEF officers during 1996-2011. It may be somewhere near XG spectrum quantity! All at the cost of environment!!
According to me all the project management and environment monitoring work mentioned in the EIA reports must be verified at ground and at every stages of work. So that the role of project proponent and the consultant is more than just getting the EC letter.
Comments
I do not understand the stand of MoEF on monopolizing the accreditation by QCI. If the improvement is required, it is an immediate requirement and working at the pace NABET / QCI it may require them years. When there are so many agencies of better repute are in the market, how can the business be monopolized by QCI?
Dear All, many thanks for the valuable feeds. Will get back as soon as 31/3 is over.
Jeeva
1> As soon as the client approaches MOEF with a new Project.
2> Initial Evaluation with basic guidelines to be done.
3> If its through advertise for the third party consultant to commencing EIA.
4> Technical and Financial Proposal evaluation of consultants to be done by MOEF.
5> Project sanction to the most eligible consultant to be decided MOEF.
6> Consultant reports directly to MOEF but not the Client.
7> Evaluation of the EIA by some random non-MOEF experts (like professors, Engineers or consultants in India or abroad). Its some thing like a PhD or publication review done by unknown expert.
8> If the procedure and report are done according to the guidelines of MOEF
9> Bills / Invoices should be issued by MOEF irrespective of the +ve or -ve outcome of the EIA report, and suggest the client for alternatives or rejection of project.
Only to show the +ve Environment Impact some consultants bias towards clients. If they dont have fear for their fee/consultation they may never try to give a manipulated EIA Report. And due to the random unknown evaluation of report will not allow the scams at higher level.
I donno whether it works or not but I felt it as a suitable option. Correct me if im wrong .
Be honest to yourself and your profession - things will change!
My work experience on EIA has some interesting observation.
Agency(Supplier): Most of the time the agency/company which undertakes EIA work are only profit making shops and are actually owned by chaddas chawlas marwadis baniyas sindhi and other traditionally buisnessmen proprietor. These people are backbone of our countries trade and commerce and are smart businessmen. Their only motive is to make money and maximize profit. I think they are doing fine job. In some other instances the company is owned or managed by engineering firms and consultants who have some or other remote connection with "Environment". They all strive for maximizing profits with minimum spending and lowest quality. As there is no quality determining parameter for their product (EIA report). The only customer is MoEF.
Professionals/Experts(Worker): Many of the times these people are not directly from environment science background or they have never studied environment. Their professional destiny has made them to undertake environmental work because there is money. (their identifying characteristics is that they think Environmental Science is a multidisciplinary subject/field and not interdisciplinary). The companies which hire them on temporary assignments will pay the lowest honorarium or payments for any damn shit these people will provide at the lowest cost. There are also many good experts and professional in our field which do excellent work but they are not paid well and this force them to do provide "kam chaloa" data and work. Many of my friends simply don't bother what work they do and what data they provide. For them some additional income is the essential criteria. These people are doing crime on our environment by provide any shit of data for some petty money.
Proponent(OEM): These people think that EIA is an unnecessary hurdle and wastage of time. When everything is manageable why not this? Like any other govt formalities.
Govt(Buyer/Customer): ????
Public: Spectator.
These are my personal views.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next