Distillieries - Environmental Clearance

Operational Aspects of an EIAImportant Compensation ElementsSpecial considerations apply to mitigation of proposals that displace or disrupt people.Certain types of projects, such as reservoirs and irrigation schemes and public works, areknown to cause involuntary resettlement. This is a contentious issue because it involvesfar more than re-housing people; in addition, income sources and access to commonproperty resources are likely to be lost. Almost certainly, a resettlement plan will berequired to ensure that no one is worse off than before, which may not be possible forindigenous people whose culture and lifestyle is tied to a locality. This plan must includethe means for those displaced to reconstruct their economies and communities and shouldinclude an EIA of the receiving areas. Particular attention should be given to indigenous,minority and vulnerable groups who are at higher risk from resettlement.In-kind CompensationWhen significant or net residual loss or damage to the environment is likely, in kindcompensation is appropriate. As noted earlier, environmental rehabilitation, restorationor replacement have become standard practices for many proponents. Now, increasingemphasis is given to a broader range of compensation measures to offset impacts andassure the sustainability of development proposals. These include impact compensation‘trading’, such as offsetting CO 2 emissions by planting forests to sequester carbon.4.7.3 Typical mitigation measuresChoice of location for the developmental activity plays an important role in preventingadverse impacts on surrounding environment. Detailed guidelines on siting of industriesare provided in Section 4.2. However, if the developmental activity still produces anymore adverse impacts, mitigation measures should be taken.Previous sub-sections of the Section 4.7 could be precisely summarized into following:Impacts from a developmental project could have many dimensions. As most of thedirect impacts are caused by the releases from developmental projects, often controlat source is the best opportunity to either eliminate or mitigate the impacts, in casethese are cost-effective. In other words, the best way to mitigate the impacts is toprevent them from occurring. Choice of raw materials/technologies/processes whichproduce least impact would be one of the options to achieve it.After exploring cost-effective feasible alternatives to control impacts at source,various interventions to minimize the adverse impacts may be considered. Theseinterventions, primarily aim at reducing the residual impacts on the VECs of thereceiving environment to the acceptable concentrations. Degree of control at source and external interventions differs from situation-to -situation and is largely governed by techno-economic feasibility. While theregulatory bodies stress for further source control (due to high reliability), the projectproponents bargain for other interventions which may be relatively cost-effective thanfurther control at source (in any case project authority is required to meet theindustry-specific standards by adopting the best practicable technologies. However,if the location demands further control at source, then the proponents are required toadopt further advanced control technologies i.e. towards best available controltechnologies). After having discussions with the project proponent, EAC/SEACreaches to an agreed level of source control+other interventions (together called asmitigation measures in the given context) that achieve the targeted protection levelsTGM for Distillery Industry August 20104-38