Page 105 - DMGT302_FUNDAMENTALS_OF_PROJECT_MANAGEMENT

Fundamentals of Project Management

Notes Mitigation: In this phase the study team formally analyses mitigation. A wide range of measures
are proposed to prevent, reduce, remedy or compensate for each of the adverse impacts evaluated
as significant. Possible mitigation measures include:
1. Changing project sites, routes, processes, raw materials, operating methods, disposal
methods, disposal routes or locations, timing or engineering designs.

2. Introducing pollution controls, waste treatment monitoring, phased implementation,
landscaping, personal training, special social services or public education.
3. Offering (as compensation) restoration of damaged resources, money to affected persons,
concessions on other issues, or off site programmes to enhance some other aspects of the
environment or quality of life for the community.

All mitigation measures cost something and this cost must be quantified too. These various
measures are then compared, trade-offs between alternative measures are weighed, and the EIA
study team proposes one or more action plans, usually combining a number of measures. The
action plan may include technical control measures, an integrated management scheme (for a
major project) monitoring, contingency plans, operating practices, project scheduling, or even
joint management (with affected groups). The study team should explicitly analyze the
implications of adopting different alternatives, to help make the choices clearer for the decision
makers.
One of the biggest concerns with the environmental clearance process is related to the quality of
EIA report that are being carried out. The reports are generally incomplete and provided with
false data. EIA reports ignore several aspects while carrying out assessments and significant
information is found to omitted. Many EIA report are based on single season data and are not
adequate to determine whether environmental clearance should be granted. All this makes the
entire exercise contrary to its very intent. As things stand today, it is the responsibility of the
project proponent to commission the preparation of the EIA for its project. The EIA is actually
funded by an agency or individual whose primary interest is to procure clearance for the project
proposed. There is little chance that the final assessment presented is un biased, even if the
consultant may provide an unbiased assessment that is critical of the proposed project.
Some times it is found that a consultancy which is working in the project area has no specialization
in the concerned subject. For example for the preparation of EIA report of the proposed oil
exploration in coast of Orissa by the reliance group has been given to the life science Dept of
Berhampur university which has no expertise on the study of turtles and its life cycle. The EIA
document in itself is so bulky and technical, which makes it very difficult to decipher so as to aid
in the decision making process. There are so many cases of fraudulent EIA studies where erroneous
data has been used, same facts used for two totally different places etc. This is due to the lack of
a centralized baseline data bank, where such data can be cross-checked. There is no accreditation
of EIA consultants, therefore any such consultant with a track record of fraudulent cases cannot
be held liable for discrepancies. It is hard to imagine any consultant after being paid lakh of
rupees, preparing a report for the project proponents, indicating that the project is not viable. In
nearly every case, the consultants try to interpret and tailor the information looking for ways
and means to provide their clients with a report that gives them their moneys worth.

Self Assessment

Fill in the blanks:

10. An ....................... concentrate on problems, conflicts and natural resource constraints which
might affect the viability of a project.

100 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY