Summary report on YoungProfsNet's first learning project to Review and evaluation of environmental impact assessment reports for petrol station projects in Kenya

1. Environmental and Social
YoungProfsNet
Development Practitioners
KenyaProjectSummaryReport20181001
Summary report on Review and evaluation of environmental
impact assessment reports for petrol station projects in Kenya
Introduction
In July 2015 we proposed to review and evaluate a set of 41 environmental impact assessment
reports for petrol station projects in Kenya. The Kenyan National Environment Management
Authority (NEMA) approved these impact assessment reports between July 2013 and June
2014.
The objective of the review was to provide learning to members of YoungProfsNet of
environmental and social development practitioners on (environmental) impact assessment
and on the (environmental) impact assessment practice in Kenya.
A team of 17 members of YoungProfsNet worked on this project between March 2016 and
September 2018. We summarise the results here.
Project team
The project team consisted of 17 members of YoungProfsNet with the following geographical
distribution:
Congo (DRC) 1 France 1 Kenya 7 Netherlands 2 Togo 1
Croatia 1 Italy 1 Malaysia 1 Pakistan 1 Uganda 1
The set of environmental impact assessment reports
In July 2015 we downloaded all environmental impact assessment reports that were available
on the website of NEMA. After sorting these by the different types of projects (e.g. housing,
infrastructure, agriculture etc.) it turned out that impact assessment reports for petrol station
projects were (by far) the largest set of comparable reports.
Petrol station projects are relatively simple and can be well understood by non-experts and this
made the impact reports on these projects an attractive subject for study. In addition, the 41
impact assessment reports had been prepared by 32 different impact assessment consultants
for 32 different project proponents, which suggested that the set of reports would give a useful
overview of impact assessment reports prepared in Kenya. It would also be possible to
compare impact assessment reports for different projects of a single proponent and different
reports made by the same impact assessment consultant.
Evaluation criteria
The project team agreed on a number (of sets) of evaluation criteria.
These consisted of five general criteria:
1. readability;
2. clarity;
3. comprehensiveness;
4. appropriate use of maps, tables, figures, graphs and other illustrations)
5. readability and clarity of the non-technical summary for the general public.

2. 2
In addition, we used five criteria on completeness and comprehensiveness:
1. separate assessment of construction and operation;
2. assessment of normal and abnormal (maintenance, emergency situations) operations;
3. assessment of emergency control and recovery;
4. assessment of cumulative and possible future impacts of project extension;
5. assessment of abandonment and restoration.
We applied four criteria on conformity with ISO14000:
1. availability of a regulatory register;
2. availability of an aspects register;
3. availability of an impacts register;
4. compatibility of the environmental management plan(s) with ISO14000.
Also, we used the review criteria listed in the UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002).
These cover the description of the project, the local environment and the baseline conditions;
the identification, analysis and assessment of impacts; the alternatives and mitigation measures;
and communication. Of these 37 were used, as a number of the criteria listed turned out not to
be relevant or useful for the impact assessment reports reviewed.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya) require
information on 15 items and these formed the fifth set of evaluation criteria.
Finally, we used the South African Gauteng Province’s environmental impact assessment
guideline for the construction and upgrade of filling stations and associated tank installations
(2001) as guidance with regard to the completeness and comprehensiveness of the impact
assessment reports. These address 13 items of interest, but we did not use them as formal
evaluation criteria.
Review of impact assessment reports
Because of the changing composition of the project team, it was not possible to have a fixed
number of reviews of each of the individual reports.
The number of reviews varied from 1 to 6 as follows:
No. of reviews 1 2 3 4 5 6
No. of reports 4 20 13 2 1 1
During the reviews of the impact assessment report a rating was given for each of the 66
criteria, as follows:
Rating Description
3 Satisfactory or good
2 Needs to be improved
1 Unsatisfactory
0 Not applicable; not available for review; not relevant
Average ratings for the different reviews were obtained by dividing the sum of the scores given
for the different criteria and rounding these down to the nearest integer value.
Rating results – general criteria
score 1 2 3 mean
general criteria
readability 0 38 3 2
clarity 3 38 0 2
comprehensiveness 11 29 1 2

3. 3
use of maps, tables, figures etc. 38 3 0 1
readability of non-technical summary 19 22 0 2
overall score 17 24 0 2
Rating results – completeness and comprehensiveness
score 1 2 3 mean
completeness and comprehensiveness
construction and operation separately 8 23 10 2
normal and abnormal operations 33 8 0 1
emergency control and recovery assessed 31 10 0 1
possible project extension assessed 39 1 1 1
abandonment and restoration assessed 3 30 8 2
overall score 29 12 0 1
Rating results – ISO14000 conformity
score 1 2 3 mean
ISO14000 conformity
regulations register 24 17 0 1
aspects register 36 5 0 1
impacts register 19 22 0 2
management plan ISO14000 compatible 37 4 0 1
overall score 36 5 0 1
Rating results – UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2001)
score 1 2 3 mean
UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual
overall score (for 37 criteria) 26 15 0 1
Rating results – The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003
score 1 2 3 mean
Environmental Regulations Kenya
project location 0 21 20 2
regulatory and baseline information 1 26 14 2
objectives of the project 0 22 19 2
technology, procedures and processes 4 25 12 2
materials to be used for the project 6 34 1 2
products, by-products and wastes 4 36 1 2
description of affected environment 2 34 5 2
environmental, social and cultural effects 7 33 1 2
alternative technologies and processes 37 3 0 1
alternative sites or designs for project 35 6 0 1
environmental management plan 1 40 0 2
action plan for accidents, hazards etc. 27 14 0 1
health hazards and security for staff 11 30 0 2
gaps in knowledge; uncertainties 34 7 0 1
economic and social analysis of project 28 13 0 1
overall score (for 15 criteria) 11 30 0 2

4. 4
Comparison of impact assessment reports – projects by a single proponent/consultant
There are a limited number of project proponents, which commissioned impact assessments for
more than one project. Similarly, a limited number of impact assessment consultants worked
on multiple projects, sometimes for different project proponents.
There is extensive copying and pasting of text between a number of these reports. This is partly
a demonstration of the lack of business ethics and of quality control by the impact assessment
consultants and the project proponents. However, it also shows that the review, appraisal and
approval process of NEMA is failing.
Conclusion
The project found that the quality of the (environmental) impact assessment, as evaluated
against the five sets of evaluation criteria, was poor. None of the reports complied with the
requirements of the Kenyan Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003.
The project also showed that there is extensive copying of text between impact assessment
reports.
NEMA approves poor quality, non-compliant (environmental) impact assessments of projects
and does issue environmental impact assessment licenses to project proponents regardless.
Maarten Smies
1 October 2018