The Environmental Impact Evaluation of CSDP Projects in Gombe State

5.0 Environmental Sustainability

5.1 Introduction

In order to assess the environmental sustainability ofthe projects, it is necessary to determine and rate theof the associated and potential impact of the individualmicro projects on the various environmental componentsof the benefiting communities. To achieve thisobjective, due cognizance was made to the FMENVguidelines for infrastructural development, the trainingand experience of the members of the multidisciplinaryteam carrying out the assessment, relevant literatureand the view of the stakeholders gathered during thesite visits and consultation was taken intoconsideration. The assessment covered impacts on thebiophysical environment as well as human health andsafety.

5.1.2 Objective

The objective of the environmental sustainability studyis to appraise the degree of environmental consciousnesscreated by the CSDP projects as well as determine theirperceived and actual impact on the environmentalcharacteristic of the benefitting communities.

5.1.3 Scope / Limitation

Determination of actual project impact on theenvironment is limited to the drainage and culvertconstruction which is the micro-project that is

of 28

considered to have a high environmental risk. However,the community perception of the environmental impact ofother micro-projects such as construction of VIPlatrines, health facilities, feeder roads, ruralelectrifications and water projects were equallyanalyzed.

However, assessing the degree of compliance of the CPMCsto Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) for the Micro-Projects cannot be achieve due to the inability of theconsultant to access the Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of theprojects as carried out at the inception of the program.

5.2 Perceived Effects of Projects on Environment

The respondent perception may be right or wrongdepending on their level of awareness on environmentalprotection measures. Based on the data analysed; theperception of the communities on the five (5) sectorsfrom which the micro projects (Namely: Water, Health,Transport, Electricity, and Environment) were taken, itcould be deduced that generally the communities have apositive perception on the five sectors mentioned above.The figure below shows the respondents perceived effectsof the projects on environment.

of 28

W Hea Trans... Electri... Environ...0102030405060708090

100

POSITIVE

NEGATIVE

NEUTRAL

RESPONDENTS PERCEIVED EFFECT OF PROJECTS ON ENVIRONMENT

Fig 1. Showing the Respondents Perceived Effects on Environment.

It can be seen from the figure above that about 86 % of

the respondents have positive perception about micro-

project effects on the environment. Whereas about 5% of

respondents have a negative perception and about 9% are

undecided on the project effects.

In terms of project awareness in the benefitting

communities, despite the advocacy campaign using various

media and fora, about half (49.8%) of those interviewed

are not aware of the significant roles played by state

MDAs in terms of financing, supervision and monitoring

of the projects. Similarly, more than half (56%) of the

respondents from the various communities are aware of an

of 28

existence in terms of grants from local government

councils to support programs and projects that would

enhance the quality of the environment. 44% claimed that

they are not aware of any form of assistance from the

local government authorities in order to support the

execution of projects that may impact positively on

their environment like trees planting. This shows that

the communities see more of Local government

intervention than those of the state MDAs in the process

of executing the CSDP projects. This is depicted in

figure 2 below.

010203040506070

AWARE

UNAWARE

BENEFICIARIES AWARENESS ON FORMS OF ASSISTANCE FOR LG ON ENVIRONMENT

Fig 2. Showing the Respondent’s Awareness on Forms of assistance fromL.G.A.

of 28

Money Personnel Training/Enlightenment

Supervision0102030405060

AWARE

UNAWARE

Fig 3. Showing the Respondent’s Awareness on Forms ofassistance from State MDA.

5.3 Determination of Actual Impact

An impact, as defined by ISO 14001:2004 is:

“Any changed to the environment, whether adverse orbeneficial, wholly or partially resulting from anorganisation’s environmental aspects (activities,products or services)”

In its broadest sense, impact assessment is the processof identifying the anticipated or actual impacts of aproject activity on those social, economic andenvironmental components of the project area. Suchassessments are carried out by identifying the projectsactivities or actions that are likely to or may cause

of 28

environmental impacts and the environmental componentsand elements in each medium that may be impacted bythose actions or activities.

5.3.1 Description of the Methodology

The first step in assessing the environmentalsustainability of the micro projects is to developchecklists of the project activities and identify theirenvironmental impact. This is followed by developing achecklist of environmental components or aspects thatcould be affected by those impacts. This is supported bythe identification of receptors and resources, whichallows for an understanding of the impact pathway and anassessment of the sensitivity to change. The definitionsused in the impact assessment are given below:

An activity is a distinct process or task undertakenby an organization for which a responsibility can beassigned. Activities also include facilities orpieces of infrastructure that are possessed by anorganization.

An environmental aspect is an element of anorganization activities and services which caninteract with the environment. The interaction of anaspect with the environment may result in an impact.

Environmental impacts are the consequences of theseaspects on environmental resources or receptors ofparticular value or sensitivity, for example,disturbance due to noise and health effects due to

of 28

poorer air quality. Receptors can comprise but notlimited to, people or human-made systems, such aslocal residents, communities and socialinfrastructure, as well as components of thebiophysical environment such as aquifers, flora andfauna. In the case where the impact is on humanhealth or well being, this will be clearly stated.

Receptors comprise, but not limited to people orman-made structures.

Resources include components of the biophysicalenvironment

Frequency of activity refers to how often theproposed activity will take place.

Frequency of impact refers to the frequency withwhich a stressor (aspect) will impact on thereceptor

Severity refers to the degree of change to thereceptor status in terms of the reversibility of theimpact; sensitivity of receptor to stressor;duration of impact (increasing or decreasing withtime); controversy potential and precedent setting;threat to environmental and health standards.

Spatial scope refers to the geographical scale ofthe impact.

Duration refers to the length of time over which thestressor will cause change in the resource orreceptor.

of 28

The significance of the impact is then assessed byrating each variable numerically according to definedcriteria as outlined in below in Table 5.1. The purposeof the rating is to develop a clear understanding ofinfluences and processes associated with each impact.The severity, the spatial scope and duration of theimpact together comprise the consequence of the impactand when summed can give a maximum value of 15. Thefrequency of the activity and the frequency of theimpact together comprise the likelihood of the impactoccurring and can obtain a maximum value of 10. Thevalues for likelihood and consequence of the impact arethen read off a significance matrix as shown in Table5.2 and 5.3.

Table 5.1: Criteria for Assessing Significance ofImpactsSEVERITY OF IMPACT RATING

Small / slightly harmful 1

Significant / slightlybeneficial

2

Great / harmful 3

Disastrous / extremelyharmful

4

Non-harmful / beneficial 5

SPATIAL SCOPE OF IMPACT RATING of 28

Activity specific 1

Site specific 2

Local Area (within 5 km ofsite)

3

Regional 4

National 5

DURATION OF IMPACT RATING

One day to one month 1

One month to one year 2

One year to ten years 3

Life of operation 4

Post closure / permanent 5

FREQUENCY OFACTIVITY/DURATION

RATING

Annually or less / low 1

6 monthly / temporary 2

Monthly / infrequent 3

Weekly /life of operation/ 4 of 28

regularly likely

Daily /permanent / high 5

FREQUENCY OF IMPACT RATING

Almost never / almostimpossible

1

Very seldom / highlyunlikely

2

Infrequent / unlikely /seldom

3

Often / regularly /likely / possible

4

Daily / highly likely /definitely

5

5.3.2 Impact Assessment

As highlighted in section 5.3 above, the first step inthe identification of impact is the development ofchecklists of project activities that may likely havesignificant impact on the environmental components ofthe project area. Table 5.2 below provides a checklistof the micro projects with potential environmentalimpacts.

of 28

Table 5.2: Checklists of Project ActivitiesS/N

Micro-Project

EnvironmentalAspect

Associated and PotentialImpact

1 DrainageConstruction

Landacquisition

Displacement of existingland uses, loss ofexisting structures andbuildings in order togive way for thedrainage network.

Clearing ofvegetationaround theacquired landarea.

Ecosystem fragmentationand loss invegetation/wildlifeabundance in the area.

Civil worksassociatedwith theconstructionsof thedrainage.

Engagement of locals indifferent areas ofconstruction activitiesand supplies withattendant economicempowerment.Personnel injury/deathfrom work placeincidents / accidents(falling from height,cuts, etc) duringconstruction activities.Hazards to residentsfrom air and noisepollution from vehicleoperation, digging of

of 28

trenches, concretemixing, form work etc. Respiratory tractinfections (to onsiteworkers) due toinhalation of dust andtoxic fumes duringconstruction activities.Soil and watercontamination in thearea resulting fromspillage of stored fuelor during refueling ofconstruction equipment.

S/N

Project Phase/Activity

EnvironmentalAspect

Associated andPotential Impact

PostConstructionImpact

The drainagesconstructed in thetwo communities hadarrested the menaceof flooding to a

of 28

minimum. Prior to theexecution of themicro project in thearea, flooding hasbeing devastatingfarm lands resultingin poor harvest yearin year out.The projects hadhelped in tacklingerosion dueuncontrolled surfacerun off in thecommunities.Water in the form ofgroundwater, surfacewater and rain is themain contributor tothe wear and damageof low-volume ruralroads; hence, thedrainages constructedby the side of roadshad help inpreventing thewashing away of roadsurface thusenhancing the lifespan of the affectedroads.The presence of theside drains had

of 28

helped in collectingthe flow water anddischarging same tothe nearest streams.

of 28

S/N

ASSOCIATED IMPACT CONSEQUENCE

TOTAL

LIKELIHOOD

TOTAL

SEVERITY OFIMPACT

SPATIALSCOPE OFIMPACT

DURATION OFIMPACT

FREQUENCYOF ACTIVITY

FREQUENCYOF IMPACT

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

5

1 Displacement ofexisting landuses, loss ofexistingstructures andbuildings inorder to give wayfor the drainagenetwork.

7 8

2 Ecosystemfragmentation andloss invegetation/wildlife abundance inthe area.

6 4

3 Engagement oflocals in

10

5

of 28

different areasof constructionactivities andsupplies withattendanteconomicempowerment.

4 Personnelinjury/death fromwork placeincidents /accidents(falling fromheight, cuts,etc) duringconstructionactivities.

4 4

5 Hazards to residentsfrom air and noisepollution fromvehicle operation,digging of trenches,concrete mixing,

5 4

of 28

form work etc.

S/N

ASSOCIATED IMPACT CONSEQUENCE

TOTA

L

LIKELIHOOD

TOTA

L

SEVERITY OFIMPACT


DURATIONOF IMPACT

FREQUENCYOFACTIVITY

FREQUENCYOF IMPACT

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

5

6 Respiratory tractinfections (toonsite workers)due to inhalationof dust and toxicfumes duringconstructionactivities.

3 5

7 Soil and watercontamination inthe arearesulting fromspillage ofstored fuel or

4 5

of 28

during refuelingof constructionequipment.

8 The drainagesconstructed inthe twocommunities hadarrested themenace offlooding to aminimum. Prior tothe execution ofthe micro projectin the area,flooding hasbeing devastatingfarm landsresulting in poorharvest year inyear out.

12

10

9 The projects hadhelped in tacklingerosion due

12

9

of 28

uncontrolled surfacerun off in thecommunities.

S/N

ASSOCIATED ANDPOTENTIAL IMPACT

CONSEQUENCE

TOTA

L

LIKELIHOOD

TOT

AL

SEVERITY OFIMPACT


DURATIONOF IMPACT

FREQUENCYOFACTIVITY

FREQUENCYOF IMPACT

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

5

10

Water in the formof groundwater,surface water andrain is the maincontributor tothe wear anddamage of low-volume ruralroads; hence, thedrainagesconstructed bythe side of roadshad help inpreventing thewashing away of

12

9

of 28

road surface thusenhancing thelife span of theaffected roads.

11

The presence ofthe side drainshad help incollecting theflow water anddischarging sameto the neareststreams.

12

9

of 28

Table 5.4: Significance Rating MatrixCONSEQUENCE (Severity + Spatial Scope + Duration)

LIKE

LIHO

OD(Frequency

of activi

ty +

Frequ

ency

of Im

pact

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 152 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 303 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 454 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 605 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 756 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 907 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 10

58 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 10

4112

120

9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108

117

126

135

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

110

120

130

140

150

Table 5.5: Positive / Negative Significance RatingColourCode

SignificanceRating

Value

Very High 126 -150High 101 -125Medium – High 76 – 100Low – Medium 51 – 75Low 26 – 50Very Low 1 -25

of 28

Table 5.6: Project Impact Characterization / RatingS/N

Associated andPotential Impact

ImpactCharacterisation

OverallImpact

Rating

Impactsignificance

Rating

1 Displacement ofexisting land uses,loss of existingstructures andbuildings in orderto give way for thedrainage network.

Adverse, longterm

56 Low-Medium

2 Ecosystemfragmentation andloss invegetation/wildlifeabundance in thearea.

Adverse, longterm

24 Very low

3 Engagement of locals Beneficial 50 Low

of 28

in different areasof constructionactivities andsupplies withattendant economicempowerment.

but shortterm

4 Personnelinjury/death fromwork place incidents/ accidents (fallingfrom height, cuts,etc) duringconstructionactivities.

Adverse,short term

16 Very low

5 Hazards to residentsfrom air and noisepollution fromvehicle operation,digging of trenches,concrete mixing,form work etc.

Adverse,short term

20 Very low

6 Respiratory tractinfections (toonsite workers) dueto inhalation ofdust and toxic fumesduring construction

Adverse,short term

15 Very low

of 28

activities.

S/N

Associated and PotentialImpact

ImpactCharacterisation

OverallImpact

Rating

Impactsignificance

Rating

7 Soil and watercontamination in thearea resulting fromspillage of stored fuelor during refueling ofconstruction equipment.

Adverse, shortterm

20 Very low

8 The drainagesconstructed in the twocommunities had arrestedthe menace of floodingto a minimum. Prior tothe execution of themicro project in thearea, flooding has beingdevastating farm landsresulting in poorharvest year in yearout.

Beneficial,long term.

120 High

9 The projects had helpedin tackling erosion dueto uncontrolled surfacerun off in the

Beneficial,long term

108 High

of 28

communities.

10 Water in the form ofgroundwater, surfacewater and rain is themain contributor to thewear and damage of low-volume rural roads;hence, the drainagesconstructed by the sideof roads had help inpreventing the washingaway of road surfacethus enhancing the lifespan of the affectedroads.


108 High

11 The presence of the sidedrains had help incollecting the flowwater and dischargingsame to the neareststreams.


108 High

A total of eleven (11) impacts (beneficial/adverse) wereidentified on the various environmental aspect of themicro project. The environmental impact of the microprojects starts from the initial take off of theproject through the construction phase and continue

of 28

throughout the lifespan of the project. Six (6) out ofthe eleven impact identified are characterized asadverse, while five are considered to be beneficial tothe communities. However, four out of the six adverseimpact are short term whose impacts is only limited tothe construction phase of the project, while the othertwo that are long term have their spatial scope limitedto the construction site. These two factors areresponsible for the low rating of the adverse impactwhich stands at just 23%. On the other hand, four outof the five beneficial impacts are long term with agreater spatial scope. This accounts for the higherscore of the beneficial impact which is arrived at 77%.The impact characterization and rating of the micro-project is depicted pictorially in the Pie Chart below.

23%

77%Adverse ImpactBeneficial Impact

Figure 1: Impact Characterization Rating

of 28

5.4 Conclusion:

The development of the micro – project under study(which is the construction of drainages and culverts)no doubt comes with its associated environmentalimpacts. These impacts can be positive, negative orboth. Some of these impacts can easily be perceived bythe people of the community while others require adetailed study by an environmental specialist to beidentified. The result of the measurement of theperceived and actual impacts shows a clear correlationbetween the two. As earlier stated, the communityperception of the beneficial impacts of the projectsstands at 86% while the actual beneficial impacts asmeasured by the consultant was arrived at 77%. Thesefavorable figures can be attributed to the way andmanner the projects were executed by the CPMCs andlevel of environmental awareness in the benefittingcommunities which stands above 50%. Therefore it can beconveniently concluded that the projects hadsignificantly impacted positively on the variousenvironmental components of those communities.

5.5 Recommendations:

From the foregoing, it is hereby recommended asfollows:

i) There is need to step up advocacy and awarenesscampaigns on the role of state MDAs in planning,

of 28

financing, execution and monitoring ofenvironmental related micro-projects.

ii) There is need for CSPDP to add anenvironmentalist from their line ministry whowould be responsible for assessing theenvironmental impacts of projects submitted forfunding by communities with a view to ensuringtheir environmental sustainability. The officermay equally advise for re-design andmodifications of intended projects so as minimizeit negative impacts as well as to comply with theoverall Environmental Management Plan ascontained in the project Environmental ImpactAssessment.

iii)The CDAs should be encouraged to embark on micro-projects that directly enhance the quality of thephysical environment. Such projects may includeorchard development, trees planting in order toarrest the scourge of desertification,construction of VIP latrines in public placeslike markets, schools and worship centers so asto minimize the cases of open defecation and itsattendance consequences.

iv) The FPSU office should avail the state agencieswith copies of the program’s EIA report asapproved by the Federal Ministry of Environmentin order to help CSDA impose compliance with theEnvironmental Management Plan EMP by the CPMC.

of 28

The Environmental Impact Evaluation of CSDP Projects in Gombe State

Documents

Transcript of The Environmental Impact Evaluation of CSDP Projects in Gombe State