No long term or cumulative adverse environmental and social impacts of sub-projects are envisaged.
However, the combination of multiple impacts from existing projects, the proposed project, and/or anticipated future subprojects may result in significant negative and/or positive environmental and social impacts that would not be expected in case of a standalone project.
The cumulative impacts of the project may potentially affect other areas coterminous to the project area but the mitigation measure for this risk is that in depth technical and spatial analysis will be conducted to model the impact of the proposed subprojects once sufficient details are known and thus limit the risks. In addition, the proposed screening of subprojects with the site specific ESIAs/ESMPs for the various potential subprojects would give priority to assessing cumulative impacts stemming from each proposed undertakings or subproject activities.
5.6 Assessment of a No Project and Go Ahead Project Alternatives
The Analysis of Alternatives is an analytical comparison of multiple alternatives and has long been a part of environmental assessment practice. The purpose of the analysis of the alternatives is to determine which alternative best meets the threshold criteria of sustainable development. The following alternative actions were considered in relation to the proposed project-
Analysis of alternatives is done to establish the preferred or most environmentally sound, financially feasible and benign option for achieving project objectives. This requires a systematic comparison of proposed investment design in terms of site, technology, processes etc in terms of their impacts and feasibility of their mitigation, capital, recurrent costs, suitability under local conditions and institutional, training and monitoring requirements. For each alternative, the environmental cost should be quantified to the extent possible and economic values attached where feasible, and the basic for selected alternative stated. The analysis of alternative should include a NO ACTION alternative.
The following alternative actions were considered for the study areas –
The “No Action” alternative assumes that there will be no alteration to the existing areas. This would imply that the SCPZ AND ABIR investment proposed area/location would be left in their present states with a real potential for worsening. Specifically, if the area is left unimproved, environmental degradation as a result of the ongoing agricultural practices by the locals would continue and in turn will continue to lead to an ever increasing destruction of the habitat without proper or sustainable management leading to soil erosion, deforestation, etc.. In other words, damage and loss rates may increase even in the remaining forest reserve as there will not be proper and systematic management, monitoring and guidance from the appropriate authorities which had characterise the area over the years. Furthermore, poverty level amongst the local population will remain high and the objective of the ATA of the Federal Government for the country will suffer a setback.
A no-action or no project alternative is certainly not recommended.
A “Go Ahead Project Alternative,” though more expensive in terms of cost in every respect at the start, is seen to be the most feasible than do nothing alternative. Go ahead alternative is expected to reduce operational costs for cassava processors by up to 30% and create 7,500 new jobs and contribute overall up to US$ 0.5b to Nigeria’s economy. The development of Alape ABIR / SCPZ will strengthen national food security, improve regional economic growth and generally improve livelihoods in the rural farming communities in the SCPZ/ABIR through increased household incomes arising from opportunities for secured markets, improved productivity, reduced post-harvest losses and increased employment of the locals. In addition, the negative impacts on the environmental resources due to the unsustainable manner in which the local farmers devastate the forest resources to eke out a living in the area will be reduced if not eliminated as there will be enhanced knowledge on how these environmental resources could better be mined or used through knowledge to be created by the project. This in turn will reduce the overall level of poverty noticed in the communities.
The two scenarios considered herewith are summarized in Table 5.4. The inference from this consideration is that even though the go ahead option is more extensive, it is a the preferred or most environmentally sound, financially feasible and benign option for achieving project objectives and ensuring economic growth and sustainable development both at the micro and macro scale.
Thus the advantages of the “go ahead” alternative makes it a better option than the “No-Action” alternative.
Table 5.4Analysis of the alternative
|
Criteria
|
No Project Alternative
|
Go Ahead Project Alternative
|
Overall Protection of the environment and social well being
|
The field visits revealed the level of poverty in the communities, the unsustainable manner in which environmental resources are being devastated to the extent that taking a "no action” alternative will not benefit members of the study areas or their environment and even the national economy as the government moves away from petroleum to non-petroleum-focused economy
|
Intervention would lead to strengthening agriculture in a more professionalized and highly organized manner which provides room for best practice soil conservation and sustainable management of natural resources. It will further generate income, which in turn increases the living standard of the locals and overall improvement of the national economy even in the absence of petroleum product
|
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
|
No action alternative does not meet the long-term effectiveness and permanence criteria of the national and local economy including the agenda to improve the overall management of environmental resources for sustainable development
|
Go ahead option will further improve the local and national economy with sustainable development agenda in mind through careful planning based on informed decision making by all parties including the locals of the project environment
|
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant Appropriate Requirements
|
Does not require compliance with applicable or relevant appropriate requirements even at local levels
|
All undertakings will go through an established system of screening to ensure the necessary standard and permit requirements even at the local levels are met.
|
Short-term Effectiveness
|
No action alternative will not add any input under this criteria
|
The go ahead alternative will be completed in a long-term period based on the projections. However the benefits when completed outweighs a “no action” alternative because of the systematic manner of development
|
|
CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
6.0 Introduction
The Objective of the ESMF is to provide a framework for preventing and mitigating the negative impacts associated with project implementation. In this CHAPTER, this is discussed.
6.1 Approaches to Developing Mitigation Measure
Options to address the various environmental and social issues identified have been worked out based on review of good practices and requirement of compliance with the legal provisions as well as consultations with the relevant stakeholders. The principle that guides the approach to mitigation measure development is outlined in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Approach to Mitigation Measure Development
S
|
Mitigation Measure
|
Practice
|
1
|
Seek Alternatives to avoid particular impacts.
|
Consider alternatives to a proposed project activity.
Examine alternative ways to achieve the objectives to maximize benefits and minimize undesirable impacts.
|
2
|
Arrange Compensation where particular impacts are unavoidable.
|
Restore damaged resources, such as, water source, irrigation system, forest.
Proper rehabilitation scheme, such as, skills training, new employment.
Adequate compensation payments to affected persons for damage or loss of property, livelihood and provision of rehabilitation measures.
|
3
|
Take Corrective Measures to reduce unavoidable effects.
|
Consider corrective measures to reduce adverse impacts to acceptable standards, such as, remove spoil material during construction, replace or relocate community water source, assist in school expansion to handle influx of laborers' children, and others.
|
4
|
Implement Preventive Measures to avoid some impacts altogether.
|
Pre-preparation for minimizing adverse impacts, such as, implement health education program, initiate public awareness programs.
|
Source: Reference Manual for Environmental and Social Aspects of Integrated Road Development, 2003, DoR.
|
Yüklə 11.44 Mb.