EFB106 ASSESSMENT 3 REPORT

Please read these rules before you submit:

Submit only your FINAL version through the BlackBoard submission portal. Note your work will be subject to plagiarism detecting software

Only ONE attempt is allowed. Request to edit online submission will be not considered.

Word limits (strictly applied with no allowance): The main text: 2,000 words, markers will not read beyond 2000 words. References are not included in this word limit but should not be more than 2 pages (font Times New Roman, font size: 12).

Due: 23:59 on 23 October 2020 (Brisbane Time). Late submission without formal extension approval is not allowed and receive zero mark. Email submission is not accepted. This rule does not apply in case if you submit on the night of 23 October and the Blackboard submission portal is not working properly or you experience some technical difficulties with the website, you are then required to screenshot as evidence and email this screenshot together with your submission files to the unit coordinator (..g@qut.edu.au).

Please see the "Adani Mine Case Study" document (on BlackBoard, in Assessment Folder).

Question 1 (20 marks): Provide analysis of Fahrer (2015) using marking criteria (page 2)

Hints: Use the checklist listed in Snell 2009 (Chapter 6- textbook) as a guide while examining the above mentioned publications. Also in doing this, you are encouraged to follow each and every steps of the socio-economic CBA framework. In each step of the framework, you need to investigate both theoretical and practical issues. Please see following areas that you might consider focusing on.

-Assess if all environmental, economic, social impacts of the proposed projects (i.e. the mine, the rail and the port) have been quantified in both physical and monetary terms in Fahrer (2015);

-Provide qualitative assessment on the quality of estimates and quantifications conducted, reported or used in Fahrer (2015);

-Provide qualitative assessment on potential biases and inaccuracies in those estimates and quantifications conducted, reported and used in Fahrer (2015).

-Provide qualitative assessment on the choice of methods, assumptions and techniques used Fahrer (2015). For example, assess (1) the appropriateness of methodologies, (2) the appropriateness of assumptions made, (3) the sensitivity of estimates and quantifications with respect to the choice of discount rates, sensitive variables and assumptions.

Question 2 (10 marks): Suppose that you are requested to re-conduct the socio-economic cost and benefit analysis for the project, what would you do to improve the quality of the analysis? Few areas of focus: classification and quantification of impacts, monetary valuation of impacts, analysis of impacts, costs and benefits among stakeholders. Provide suggestions and justify your suggestions.