Comments on EDC's Annual Environmental Report - April 4, 2004

Fraser Reilly-King Coordinator – NGO Working Group on EDC Halifax Initiative
104 – 153 Chapel Street
Ottawa, ON  K1N 1H5

 

March 23, 2004

 

Dear Mr. Reilly-King,

 

As part of our effort to effectively engage and communicate with stakeholders, I would appreciate receiving your feedback on the first annual report of EDC’s Chief Environmental Advisor that was issued in 2003.

 

Enclosed you will find a questionnaire, a copy of last year’s report, and a self-addressed envelope for return mail. If you have additional comments that require more space, we welcome any attachments you wish to add. We ask that you return the survey to EDC by April 9, 2004, so that we can review your comments as we prepare this year’s report.

 

Thank you in advance for your participation

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Art Fitzgerald

Chief Environmental Advisor


Survey: EDC’s Chief Environmental Advisor Annual Report for 2002

Instructions

Please circle the answer that best represents your opinion. Please provide additional explanatory comments when you feel this is necessary. If there is insufficient space on the questionnaire, please attach additional paper with your comments. Please return the questionnaire to EDC in the enclosed self-addressed envelope by April 9, 2004.

 

1) The length of the Report is

a) just right

b) too long

c) too short

 

Please explain:

The report is a good length for what it is. However, we would hope to see the report expand as the scope of what is being reported on expands. OPIC’s Annual Environmental Report, for example, now in its fourth year, is 17 pages.

 

2) The writing style is easy to read

a) Yes

b) No

 

Please explain:

The information is clear and concise and the charts are well used.

 

 

3) The layout and design of the report makes it easy to find the information I need

a) Yes

b) No

 

Please explain:

 

 

4) EDC’s objectives and procedures for the environmental review of projects are clearly stated with sufficient detail

a) Yes

b) No

c) Don’t know

 

Please explain:

It was interesting to learn in the report about the existence of an Environmental Review Advisory Committee. However, such glimpses into the processes and procedures at EDC are still too far and few between. It would therefore be extremely useful to include in the next Report a system chart and full description of the environmental review processes from first submission to final decision. The IFC includes such a system chart, as well as a full description of procedures, on its web site at http://ifcln1.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/ESRP#cycle

 

 

5) The amount of detail provided about environmental reviews of projects is

a) just right

b) too much

c) too little

 

Please explain:

Not quite “just right”, but a “good start”. It would also be useful to include a breakdown of the deals not pursued – reason why (lack of EIA, poor EIA, overly risky), type of project, and location. We realize that for reasons of commercial confidentiality, EDC will not disclose the names of companies and projects it has turned down, but you might be interested to know that in its new 2003 Annual Environmental Report, OPIC intends to do just this.

 

In D2 reporting on-line, projects should also be more clearly identified as A, B and C.

 

 

6) The report contains all the information I need

a) Yes

b) No

 

Please explain what information you would like added:

In addition to the issues raised elsewhere in this questionnaire, it would also be useful to list the number of Environmental staff, their names and areas of focus.

 

 

7) The addition of an Executive Summary would make the report more useful to me

a) Yes

b) No

 

Please explain:

A one page summary of four pages would be redundant. A one page summary of seventeen pages (the length of OPIC’s last Environmental Report) would be reasonable.

 

 

8) The amount of detail provided about outreach and communications is

a) just right

b) too much

c) too little

 

Please explain:

In addition to reporting on what events occurred, it might also be useful to include what the outcomes were of the meetings – recommendations and suggestions made, and how EDC  has responded.

 

 

Additional comments are welcome (attach additional paper if needed).

Please find attached a copy of a letter mailed to Ian Gillespie two weeks ago re disclosure. Point 2) should be of particular interest to you as it articulates a number of features that OPIC currently includes in its Environmental Annual Report.