The first month of ecological hazard mapping for our terminal expansion was handled with clear documentation. The team identified three previously unrecorded nesting sites for the grey-headed kingfisher, which directly affected our buffer zone design. The final report aligned with NESREA’s 2023 EIA amendment requirements, saving us a potential compliance delay. I appreciated the weekly progress logs—they made internal review straightforward. The only friction was the initial data handover, which took longer than expected due to our own file formats.

Communication during the setup phase was precise. Before fieldwork began, we received a detailed scope document listing each hazard zone category, the sampling grid, and the expected deliverable dates. When we requested an additional groundwater recharge assessment for the eastern pit, the team adjusted the schedule within two days without inflating the original cost. The final ecological hazard map included a clear legend and cross-references to the Environmental Management Plan sections. This level of coordination is rare in our experience with environmental consultants in the region.

We returned for a second engagement after the initial biodiversity offsetting work on the solar farm. This time, the team conducted a follow-up survey of the Acacia woodland restoration site and provided a quantitative net gain calculation using the DEFRA metric adapted for Sahel conditions. The report included photographic evidence of seedling survival rates and a comparison with the baseline data from 2021. The only shortcoming was the delay in the dry-season monitoring report, which arrived two weeks past the agreed deadline. Still, the analytical depth justified the wait.