You are on page 1of 97

A REVIEW OF AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
LOGGING CONCESSION
RONG-AN INCORPORATED
Group Members
Morvin Budhan 1016521
Herolall Doodnauth 1016857
Ramesh Mackhan 1016694
Budeshwar Persaud 1016125
Surendra Persaud 1011409
Recardo Phillips 1016123
Vijhendra Ramdatt 1016610
Varun Ramkawal 1015610
Bayeeshmal Ramsundar 1015737
Devin Seepaul 1016283
Lallman Boodram 1008736
AIM
 To review the Environmental Impact Assessment of Rong An
Incorporated.
OUTLINE

1. Introduction

2. Checklist Details

3. Review

4. Conclusion

5. References

6. Questions
1.0 INTRODUCTION
 Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) on November 4, 2011 granted
Rong An Inc. a State Forestry Exploratory Permit (SFEP).

 Area of 57,929.60 hectares of forest resources in the upper right bank


Berbice River.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
 The ultimate goal is a Timber Sales Agreement (TSA) that will formally
allow the company to harvest timber from the concession area.

 A prerequisite for the acquisition of the Timber Sales Agreement (TSA)


is an Environmental Permit.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
 In February, 2017 RAI submitted the Environmental-Social Impact
Assessment (ESIA) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
POLICY, INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Guyana’s constitution of 1980 sets the foundation for environmental


initiatives across natural resources sector by prescribing the
following: ‘In the interests of the present and future generations, the
State will protect and make rational use of its land, mineral and water
resources, as well as its fauna and flora, and will take all appropriate
measures to conserve and improve the environment’.

As part of this initiative, the Environmental Protection Act (hereinafter


referred to as the Act) was enacted in 1996 to give effect to the provisions
of the above prescribed Constitution.
POLICY, INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Overarching frameworks implemented to curb issues arising in the


natural resources sector;

• National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) 1994

• The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 2012-2020

• The National Land Use Plan, 2013

• The LCDS, 2013

• National Development Strategy, 2001-2010


POLICY, INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

• Environmental Protection Act, 1996

• Environmental Protection Regulations

• Environmental Protection (Authorization) Regulations 2000, 2005

• Environmental Protection (Hazardous Waste Management) Regulations,


2005

• Forestry Policy & Forestry Legislation

• Regulatory Agencies/Departments
2.0 CHECKLIST DETAILS

 Objective of a review of environmental studies is to give unbiased


assessment of impacts of a proposed development on the
environment.

 Non-professional reviews would be difficult and tedious.


2.0 CHECKLIST DETAILS

 Standardised documents are necessary to assist non-professionals in


assessment.

 Adoption of the Civil Society Acts for Environmentally Sound Socio-


Economic Development (CO-SEED).
2.0 CHECKLIST DETAILS

 CO-SEED uses Relevance and Adequacy to determine an ESIA’s


acceptability.

 Relevance – The checklist is generic to environmental studies,


therefore not all questions are relevant.
2.0 CHECKLIST DETAILS
 Adequacy – It is necessary for the reviewer to determine the level of
aadequacy of the relevant questions.

 The level of adequacy is assessed using: Excellent, Good, Adequate,


Weak, Very Poor, Absent.
2.0 CHECKLIST DETAILS
 Excellent (9 - 10) - Information provided is clear, comprehensive and
detailed, with no gaps or weaknesses.

 Good (7 - 8) - Information provided is comprehensive, has only very


minor weaknesses which are not of importance to the decision-making
process.
2.0 CHECKLIST DETAILS
 Adequate (5 - 6) - Information weaknesses, but the deficiencies do not
compromise the decision process; added environmental information
not needed.

 Weak (3 - 4) - Information provided has gaps and weaknesses which


will hinder the decision process and additional information is needed.
2.0 CHECKLIST DETAILS
 Very Poor (1 - 2) - Information provided has major gaps or weaknesses
which would prevent the decision process from moving ahead; major
work is required to rectify.

 Absent (0)- Information needed for decision-making is not included in


the report, and needs to be provided in its entirety.
2.0 CHECKLIST DETAILS
 There are six components of an ESIA that need to be evaluated:
 Project Description
 Baseline information
 Impact Assessment
 Alternatives
 Mitigation and Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
 Other Requirements.
3.0 REVIEW
Project Description
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
3.0 REVIEW
Alternatives
Discussed in the document were:

 ‘No logging’ not being an option

 Helicopter based extraction methods

 Deploying portable sawmills

 Transportation of logs via rivers

 25 years felling cycle


3.0 REVIEW
Alternatives

No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments


2. Is the baseline situation in the They did not describe the
No Project Situation described? impacts associated If the
Weak project was not permitted.
3.0 REVIEW
Alternatives

No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments


4. Are the main reasons for choice No environmental impacts
of the proposed project associated with each
explained, including any processes were provided.
environmental reasons for the Very poor
choice?
3.0 REVIEW
Alternatives

No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments


5. Are the main environmental No environmental effects
effects of the alternatives were stated neither
compared with those of the Absent compared
proposed project?
3.0 REVIEW
Alternatives
Summary and Score
Question Adequacy Score
1. Good 8
2. Weak 3
3. Excellent 10
4. Very Poor 1
5. Absent 0
Average 4.4 ≈ 44%
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Are the existing land uses ‒ Does not state land use of
of the land to be occupied surrounding area.
by the Project and the ‒ States that there is no habitation
surrounding area described within project area.
and are any people living ‒ States that there is no
1. Adequate
on or using the land commercial or agricultural
identified? activity within project area.
‒ State that there is no presence
of structures or other property
within area
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Are the topography, ‒ Geology of area not presented.
geology and soils of the ‒ Topography not referenced to
land to be occupied by the Georgetown Datum (G.D)
Project and the surrounding
2. area described? Weak
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Are any significant features ‒ Vaguely describes major
of the topography or topographic features.
geology of the area ‒ More information needed for
3. Weak
described and are the unnamed tributaries of Berbice
conditions and use of soils River in project area.
described? ‒ Soil quality information absent.
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Are the fauna and flora and ‒ Flora and Fauna of an area
habitats of the land to be similar to project area
occupied by the Project and presented.
4. Adequate ‒ Does not illustrate flora or
the surrounding area
fauna on maps.
described and illustrated on
appropriate maps?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Are species populations ‒ Need to provide more details
and characteristics of on the specific types of animal
habitats that may be populations affected.
5. affected by the Project Weak
described and are any
designated or protected
species or areas defined?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Is the water environment of ‒ Does not state information on
the area described? surface or subsurface water
resources or ecosystems.
6. Weak
‒ Does not state runoff or
drainage conditions within
project area.
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Are the hydrology, water ‒ Need to gather hydrological
quality and use of any water data for streams, creek and
7. resources that may be Weak channels.
‒ Tests for heavy metals are
affected by the Project
necessary.
described?
Are local climatic and ‒ Meterological conditions are
meteorological conditions inadequately described.
8. Weak ‒ Microclimate is loosely defined
and existing air quality in
but generalized.
the area described?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
The existing noise climate ‒ On par with local guidelines.
described? ‒ Below Guyana National Bureau
9. Adequate
of Standards (GNBS) criteria of
100 Decibels.
Are any material assets in ‒ Structures/buildings are not
the area that maybe present in project area.
10. Adequate
affected by the Project
described?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Are any locations or ‒ No features of this sort is
features of archaeological, presented in document.
historic, architectural or ‒ Did not state if features are
present or not.
11. other community or cultural Absent
‒ Conflicting statements in
importance in the area that document.
may be bisected by the
project described?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Is the landscape or ‒ No information relating to this is
townscape of the area that presented.
12. Absent
may be affected by the
Project described?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Are demographic, social ‒ No thorough study was done to
13. and socio-economic Very Poor determine these conditions.
conditions described?
Are any future changes in ‒ Need to state information on
any aspects of the future baseline information
environment, that may (how the environment would
14. Weak
have been impacted in the
occur in the absence of the
future had the project not
project, described? occurred).
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Has the study area been ‒ Needs more information for
defined widely enough to surrounding areas.
15. include all the areas likely Adequate
to be significantly affected
by the Project?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Have all relevant national ‒ Guyana Forestry Commission
and local agencies been (GFC)
contacted to collect ‒ Guyana Geology & Mines
Commission (GGMC)
16. information on the baseline Good
‒ Hydrometrological Department
environment? ‒ Variety Woods Limited (VWL)
‒ Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Have sources of data and ‒ Information provided sufficiently
information on the existing referenced.
17. Good
environment been
adequately referenced?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Where surveys have been ‒ Difficulties were not stated.
undertaken as part of the ‒ Uncertainties not stated.
Environmental Studies to ‒ Socioeconomic study was
absent.
characterize the baseline
18. environment are the Weak
methods used, any
difficulties encountered and
any uncertainties in the
data described?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
Were the methods used ‒ Methods used for air, water, land
19. appropriate for the Adequate environments were appropriate.
purpose?
Are any important gaps in ‒ Many gaps present but loosely
the data on the existing defined. (Hydrology, fauna
environment identified and present)
20. Weak ‒ Means used to deal with gaps is
the means used to deal
lacking.
with these gaps during the
assessment explained?
3.0 REVIEW
Baseline Information
Summary and Score
Question Adequacy Score Total Score
16,17 Good 8 16
2,5,6,7,8,10,14,18,20 Weak 3 27
1,4,9,15,19 Adequate 6 30
13 Very Poor 1 1
11, 12 Absent 0 0
Average 3.9 ≈ 39%
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Scoping of Effects

No Review Question Adequacy Comments


4.1 Is the process by Good - The only aspect of environmental
which the scope of the studies highlighted was the Scoping
Environmental Studies meetings held.
was defined
described?
4.2 Is it evident that a Absent - No description was presented on the
systematic approach process used in the conduct of the
to scoping was scoping meeting.
adopted?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Scoping of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.3 Is it evident that full Weak - Consultations were deemed
consultation was unproductive.
carried out during
scoping?
4.4 Are the comments Adequate - Questions/concerns/ comment were
and views of documented and presented in the
consultees presented Annexes
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.5 Are direct, primary Weak - Effects not quantified
effects on land - Benefits to be derived depend on capacity
uses, people and of logging community to tap into
property described opportunities offered directly. A lot of
and where variables to be considered.
appropriate
quantified?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.6 Are direct, Adequate - Effects not quantified
primary effects on - Scarification of soil surface
geological
features and - Erosion
characteristics of - Subsoil exposure
soils described - Compaction of soil
and where
appropriate - Vibration from heavy machinery
quantified?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.7 Are direct, primary Adequate - Effects not quantified
effects on fauna - Modification of habitats (removal of food
and flora and sources and cover)
habitats described
and where - Noise and vibration will result in
appropriate displacement of animals
quantified? - depletion in number/variety of some
species
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.8 Are direct, primary Adequate - Effects not quantified
effects on the - Accelerated erosion leading to excessive
hydrology and sediments in waterways
water quality of - decreased infiltration rates of surface runoff
water features
- modifications in water temperature, turbidity,
described and pH
where appropriate
quantified? - Water contamination
- Processing and other waste pollutes surface
and ground water.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.10 Are direct, primary Weak - Effects not quantified
effects on air quality - Dust and smoke (especially along roads),
and climatic
conditions described - minor changes in microclimate,
and where - No mention of impact of chemicals that
appropriate will be used for preservation of
quantified? wood/timber.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.11 Are direct, primary effects on Adequate - Effects not quantified
the acoustic environment (especially for sawmill area)
(noise or vibration) described - Effects on ambient noise
and where appropriate
quantified?
4.14 Are direct, primary effects on Weak - Can possibly destroy
locations or features of cultural archaeological features.
importance described?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.16 Are direct, primary Adequate - 60% of population benefits from logging
effects on - Skills transfer and enhancement
demography, social
and socio-economic - training opportunities to lead to job creation
condition in the area - higher or new incomes and cash flows
described and where - Improvement of infrastructure
appropriate
Quantified - Increased need for social services due to
increased mass of people in the area
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.17 Are secondary Adequate - Effects not quantified
effects on any of the - Noise and vibration as well as alteration of air quality
above aspects of the chases animals.
environment caused
by primary effects on - Clear patches used for farming(abandoned) provide
other aspects animals with new source of food.
described and where - Construction and regular maintenance of roads will
appropriate create direct environmental impacts.
quantified?
- Clearing large sites create drastic changes in the
micro-environment.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.19 Are permanent effects Weak - Permanent effects on the physical,
on the environment biological and socio-economic
caused by construction, environments specified but not all
operation or quantified during construction and
decommissioning of the operation of the project.
Project described? - Need to specify the effects on the
environment caused by
decommissioning.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.20 Are long term effects Adequate - Air quality is subject to the receipt of
on the environment vehicular emissions.
caused over the - The creation of forest gaps after will lead
lifetime of Project to changes in air quality (light,
operations or temperature and humidity) in the under-
caused by buildup of storey.
pollutants in the
environment
described?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.20 Are long term effects Adequate - Fumes emitted from engine exhausts under
on the environment normal tropical forest conditions seemingly
caused over the dissipates very quickly, and is hardly
lifetime of Project noticeable (to humans) after a few minutes.
operations or - Logging operations will occur in stages, at
caused by buildup of specific locations, and at specific times; and
pollutants in the therefore the vehicular emissions and the
environment dust will be localized and also negligible
described? relative to the total concession area.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.21 Are effects which could result Weak - Effects not quantified
from accidents, abnormal - Need to specify the effects of
events or exposure of the major Fires and Oil Spills.
Project to natural or man-
made disasters described and - Road accidents are a possibility.
where appropriate quantified? - Flooding of area of operation is
a possibility.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.23 Are indirect effects Good - Increase in insanitary conditions
on the environment - Loose or eroded soil from road
caused by construction is washed down into
consequential waterways, affecting water temperature,
development water turbidity, water pH, and oxygen
described? levels.
- Water ponding may result which
promotes the breeding of mosquitoes.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.25 Are the geographic extent, Excellent - An Operations rating Matrix is
duration, frequency, used.
reversibility and probability of
occurrence of each effect
identified as appropriate?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.26 Are primary and Adequate - Effects not quantified
secondary - Contaminated water increases the risk of
effects on human gastrointestinal diseases, typhoid, malaria
health and and dengue fever.
welfare
described and - Improper domestic waste disposal increases
where the risk of diseases causing rodents, etc.
appropriate - Air pollution from vehicular emissions, dust,
quantified? etc. can cause respiratory issues.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.27 Are impacts on issues Weak - Changes to micro climate discussed.
such as biodiversity, - Effects on biodiversity addressed but
global climate change not quantified.
and sustainable
development discussed - Impact of cleared forest acreage on
where appropriate? Global climate changes not addressed.
- Sustainable development briefly
addressed.
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.28 Is the significance or Weak - There is a lack of quantification
importance of each predicted of the likely effects as well as a
effect discussed in terms of its comparison against any legal
compliance with legal regulation.
requirement and the number,
importance and sensitivity of
people, resources or other
receptors affected?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.29 Where effects are evaluated Weak - The noise requirement manual
against legal standards or was not updated (EPA
requirements are appropriate Regulation for Noise
local, national or international Management for the year 2000
standards used and relevant was used)
guidance followed?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.32 Are methods used to predict Absent - Need to indicate the methods
effects described and are the used to identify the impacts
reasons for their choice, any
difficulties encountered and
uncertainties in the results
discussed?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects
No Review Question Adequacy Comments
4.33 Were there any uncertainty Absent - The worst-case scenario was
about the precise details of the not identified.
Project and its impact on the
environment are worst case
predictions described?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Prediction of Effects

No Review Question Adequacy Comments


4.35 Is the basis for evaluating Absent - Need to indicate the parameters
the significance or for classifying risk
importance of impacts
clearly described?
3.0 REVIEW
Impact Assessment
Summary and Score
Question Adequacy Score
4.1, 4.23 Good 8
4.3, 4.5, 4.10, 4.14, 4.19, 4.27, 4.28, 4.29, 4.32 Weak 4
4.25 Excellent 9
4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.11, 4.16, 4.17, 4.20, 4.21, 4.26 Adequate 6
4.2, 4.33, 4.35 Absent 0
Average 4.8 ≈ 48%
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.1 Where there are significant Excellent The potential for mitigation for
adverse effects on any aspect of every aspect was discussed.
the environment is the potential E.g. Physical Environment,
for mitigation of these effects Biological/Ecological
discussed? Environment, Socio Economic
Environment & Safety, Waste
Management. This was
outlined in 8.2 and discussed
in Table 17 (a) & (b).
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.2 Are any measures which the Weak Needs more clarity on the
developer proposes to mitigating effects. E.g. Table
implement to mitigate effects 17 (a) Wildlife Modification; the
clearly described and their effect type of fauna being affected
on the magnitude and was stated, however, no
significance of impacts clearly quantity or estimate of fauna
explained? being affected was mentioned.
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.3 If the effect of mitigation Weak Needs description of the
measures on the magnitude and magnitude and significances of
significance of impacts is the mitigation measures
uncertain is this explained?
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.4 Is it clear whether the Developer Adequate Not clear, however it seems to
has made a binding commitment be suggestions.
to implement the proposed
mitigation or that the mitigation
measures are just suggestions or
recommendations?
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.5 Are the Developer’s reasons for Adequate The reason for choosing a
choosing the proposed mitigation specific proposed mitigation
explained? method was not justified.
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.6 Are responsibilities for Excellent The annual budget for effecting
implementation of mitigation mitigation measures outlined
including funding clearly defined? the cost along with schedule in
Table 26.
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.7 Where mitigation of significant Excellent Table 17 (a), Air Quality: it was
adverse effects is not practicable stated that dust and smoke
or the developer has chosen not does not represent a major
to propose any mitigation are the impact.
reasons for this clearly
explained?
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.8 Is it evident that the EIA Team Weak Alternatives were stated for the
and the Developer have project methods, however,
considered the full range of methods to compensate for the
possible approaches to mitigation impacts of these alternatives
including measures to reduce or
avoid impacts by alternative were not defined.
strategies?
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.9 Are arrangements proposed to Good Alternatives were stated for the
monitor and manage residual project methods, however,
impacts? methods to compensate for the
impacts of these alternatives
were not defined.
5.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
5.10 Are any negative effects of the Weak Negative effects of the
proposed mitigation described? mitigation measures were not
justify.
3.0 REVIEW
Description of Mitigation
Summary and Score
Question Adequacy Score Total
5.1, 5.6, 5.7 Excellent 9 27
5.9 Good 8 8
5.4, 5.5 Adequate 6 12
5.2, 5.3, 5.8,5.10 Weak 4 16
Average 6.3 ≈ 63%
3.0 REVIEW
Non-technical Summary
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
6.1 Does the Environmental ‒ Summary of information is
information include a Non- sufficient.
Technical Summary? Good
3.0 REVIEW
Non-technical Summary
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
6.2 Does the Summary provide -Summary of information is clear
a concise but and concise.
comprehensive description
of the Project, its
Good
environment, the effects of
the Project on the
environment and the
proposed mitigation?
3.0 REVIEW
Non-technical Summary
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
6.3 Does the Summary Summary highlights uncertainties
highlight any significant about competing mining activities
uncertainties about the and forestry activities.
- Does not state uncertainties on
Project and its
Adequate environmental effects.
environmental effects?
3.0 REVIEW
Non-technical Summary
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
6.4 Does the Summary explain - Development consent process
the development consent fairly outlined.
process for the Project and - The purpose of the EIA needs to
be more clearly defined.
the role of EIA in this Adequate
process?
3.0 REVIEW
Non-technical Summary
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
6.5 Does the Summary provide ‒ Adequately described the
an overview of the assessment approach.
approach to the
assessment? Good
3.0 REVIEW
Non-technical Summary
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
6.6 Is the Summary written in ‒ Adequately uses non-technical
non-technical language, language and information.
avoiding technical terms,
detailed data and scientific Excellent
discussion?
3.0 REVIEW
Non-technical Summary
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
6.7 Would it be comprehensible ‒ Sufficient for non-technical
to a lay member of the person to fully understand.
public? Excellent
3.0 REVIEW
Non-technical Summary
Summary and Score
Question Adequacy Score Total
6.1,6.2,6.5 Good 8 24
6.3,6.4 Adequate 5 10
6.6,6.7 Excellent 10 20
Average 7.7 ≈ 77%
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.1 Is the document(s) logically - Needs to be more defined and
organized and clearly organized.
structured so that the Poor
reader can locate
information easily?
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.2 Is there a table of contents
at the beginning of the
document(s) Excellent
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.3 Is there a clear description - A clearer and more defined
of the process which has process is needed.
been followed? Weak
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.4 Is the presentation - Redundancies overwhelm
comprehensive but concise, document.
avoiding irrelevant data and - Many irrelevant information is
Weak
information? present.
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.5 Does the presentation make - Data are adequately presented in
effective use of tables, tables, figures, maps, etc.
figures, maps, photographs
Good
and other graphics?
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.6 Does the presentation make - Data are adequately presented
effective use of annexes or on annexes or appendices.
appendices to present
detailed data not essential Adequate
to understanding the main
text?
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.7 Are all analyses and - Need to quantify more impacts
conclusions adequately and baseline data.
supported with data and Weak
evidence?
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.8 Are all sources of data - The code of practices specified
properly referenced? Weak needed to be properly referenced
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.9 Is consistent terminology - Terminology used is consistent.
used throughout the
document(s)? Adequate
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments
8.10 Does it read as a single - Sufficiently referenced and easily
document with cross navigated.
referencing between
sections used to help the Good
reader navigate through
the document(s)?
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation

No Review Question Adequacy Notes/Comments


8.11 Is the presentation - Fairly presented and shows no
demonstrably fair and as impartiality.
far as possible impartial Adequate
and objective?
3.0 REVIEW
Quality of Presentation
Summary and Score
Question Adequacy Score Total
8.1 Poor 2 2
8.2 Excellent 10 10
8.3, 8.4, 8.7, 8.8 Weak 3 12
8.6, 8.9, 8.11 Adequate 6 18
8.5, 8.10 Good 8 16
Average 5.2 ≈ 52%

You might also like