Here is the progress report of 1 December 2016 on the YoungProfsNet project to review and evaluate 40 impact assesment reports on petrol station projects in Kenya.
How to Gather Useful, Usable Customer Satisfaction FeedbackNaomi Karten
Do you know what your customers really think? Many organizations have woefully inadequate processes for gathering customer satisfaction feedback – processes that lead to distortion and misinterpretation rather than useful, usable information. In this presentation, I focus on key issues in planning, designing, gathering and using customer satisfaction feedback, and review some of the most blatant feedback-gathering flaws as well as some of the most subtle ones. I also describe the interesting approaches some organizations have used to gather feedback. This presentation includes numerous examples of what to do – and what not to do – to gather meaningful, actionable feedback.
CIO Standard Requirements
Source: https://store.theartofservice.com/cio-standard-requirements/
Sample Requirements:
The full extent of a given risk and its priority compared to other risks are not understood. Failure to address the most important risks first leads to dangerous exposures. Nearly all managers believe that their risks are the most important in the enterprise (or at least they say so) but whose risks really matter most?
Does your organization constantly monitor in real time your networks, systems and applications for unauthorized access or anomalous behavior such as viruses, malicious code insertion, or break-in attempts?
We have determined whether the goals, norms and rules of our organization are properly transmitting the value of the organizational culture to staff members and if there are areas for improvement
When deciding to outsource we know if the candidate services require extensive interactions between the service providers and the business's competitive and strategic resources and capabilities
Has the CIO ensured security training and awareness of all agency employees, including contractors and those employees with significant IT security responsibilities?
If services come in direct contact with the customers of customers, we have additional policies and guidelines required to handle user interactions and user information?
What impact has emerging technology (e.g., cloud computing, virtualization and mobile computing) had on your companys ITRM program over the past 12 months?
Do you have a good understanding of emerging technologies and business trends that are vital for the management of IT risks in a fast-changing environment?
Is the CIO or someone similar, responsible for strategic planning, implementation, and management of integrated systems identified by the IT infrastructure plan?
Our strategic approach to Service Design results in services that can be offered at a competitive market price, substantially reduced risk, or offers superior value?
How to Gather Useful, Usable Customer Satisfaction FeedbackNaomi Karten
Do you know what your customers really think? Many organizations have woefully inadequate processes for gathering customer satisfaction feedback – processes that lead to distortion and misinterpretation rather than useful, usable information. In this presentation, I focus on key issues in planning, designing, gathering and using customer satisfaction feedback, and review some of the most blatant feedback-gathering flaws as well as some of the most subtle ones. I also describe the interesting approaches some organizations have used to gather feedback. This presentation includes numerous examples of what to do – and what not to do – to gather meaningful, actionable feedback.
CIO Standard Requirements
Source: https://store.theartofservice.com/cio-standard-requirements/
Sample Requirements:
The full extent of a given risk and its priority compared to other risks are not understood. Failure to address the most important risks first leads to dangerous exposures. Nearly all managers believe that their risks are the most important in the enterprise (or at least they say so) but whose risks really matter most?
Does your organization constantly monitor in real time your networks, systems and applications for unauthorized access or anomalous behavior such as viruses, malicious code insertion, or break-in attempts?
We have determined whether the goals, norms and rules of our organization are properly transmitting the value of the organizational culture to staff members and if there are areas for improvement
When deciding to outsource we know if the candidate services require extensive interactions between the service providers and the business's competitive and strategic resources and capabilities
Has the CIO ensured security training and awareness of all agency employees, including contractors and those employees with significant IT security responsibilities?
If services come in direct contact with the customers of customers, we have additional policies and guidelines required to handle user interactions and user information?
What impact has emerging technology (e.g., cloud computing, virtualization and mobile computing) had on your companys ITRM program over the past 12 months?
Do you have a good understanding of emerging technologies and business trends that are vital for the management of IT risks in a fast-changing environment?
Is the CIO or someone similar, responsible for strategic planning, implementation, and management of integrated systems identified by the IT infrastructure plan?
Our strategic approach to Service Design results in services that can be offered at a competitive market price, substantially reduced risk, or offers superior value?
Case study The company director has requested that your HR deparMaximaSheffield592
Case study
The company director has requested that your HR department provides a report to senior management at their forthcoming annual meeting to show how evidence-based practice approaches can be used to inform sound decision-making on people practices and business-related matters. Your departmental manager has asked you to provide this report.
In addition, for the second part of the report, you have been asked to provide them with examples that demonstrate how people practitioners gain understanding and insight through interpretation of data. Report: Part one
You are required to prepare a report to senior managers at their forthcoming annual meeting. The report needs to:
· Provide evaluation of the concept of evidence-based practice and assess how evidencebased practice approaches can be used to provide insight to support sound decision-making and judgments for people practitioners across a range of people practices and organisational issues. (1.1)
· Provide evaluation of one appropriate analysis tool and one method that might be applied by organisations to recognise and diagnose current and future issues, challenges, and opportunities. (1.2)
· Explain the main principles of critical thinking and describe how these might apply to individual and work colleagues’ ideas to assist objective and rational debate. (1.3)
· Assess a range of different ethical theories and perspectives and explain how understanding of these can be used to inform and influence moral decision-making. (1.4)
· Explain a range of approaches that could be taken by people practitioners to identify possible solutions to a specific issue relating to people practice. (2.3)
· Appraise one approach an organisation can take to measure financial and non-financial performance. (3.1)
· Explain how a variety of people practices add value in an organisation and identify a range of methods that might be used to measure the impact of a range of people practices (3.4)
Report Part two: Data analysis and review
Section two of the report needs to showcase to senior managers how people professionals use and analyse data on people practices.
1. Below is the data of labour turnover across three departments over a five-year period.
Year
Administration
Total in department = 32
Drivers
Total in department = 141
Production
Total in department = 385
2016
4
21
39
2017
2
18
54
2018
8
32
82
2019
12
16
80
2020
9
32
112
The costs for recruiting an employee up until 2018 was £2065 however this rose to £3012 from this date onwards.
· Present the costings for each year across each of the three departments.
· Represent the turnover per year as a percentage of the total number of employees in each department.
2. Presented below are two sets of data that has been collected from two departments during exit interviews. Table 1 shows the feedback that has been elicited from employees in production and table 2 is from payroll.
· Review and analyse t ...
Assignment 2 New Supervisor Training on Performance Evaluations.docxbraycarissa250
Assignment 2: New Supervisor Training on Performance Evaluations
Due in Week 6 and worth 300 points
Now that the position has been created, you’ve taken the opportunity to create a PowerPoint presentation to train new supervisors on how to conduct performance evaluations.
Whether you use an annual evaluation, real-time feedback, or quarterly evaluations, it is important that new supervisors understand:
· the rationale for a performance evaluation in general,
· the rationale for the specific one in use,
· the instrument used, and
· the process for the evaluation.
The PowerPoint presentation should be a minimum of 10 slides with graphics and Notes Pages.
NOTE: One of the positions the new supervisors will be conducting performance evaluations on is the job in your description from Week 3. Find creative ways to incorporate your work from that assignment into this one.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
· You must include the Notes Pages. This is where you explain in detail the thoughts you want to convey in each slide, only in more depth.
· Visually appealing: graphics (required) should be appropriate for the environment and audience. Text should be visible from 18 feet away (generally considered 18 pt. font or larger).
Points: 300
Assignment 2: New Supervisor Training on Performance Evaluations
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 70% F
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. New supervisors understand the rationale for a performance evaluation in general
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely discussed the rationale for a performance evaluation in general, in such a way that new supervisors can understand.
Partially discussed the rationale for a performance evaluation in general, in such a way that new supervisors can understand.
Satisfactorily discussed the rationale for a performance evaluation in general, in such a way that new supervisors can understand.
Thoroughly discussed the rationale for a performance evaluation in general, in such a way that new supervisors can understand.
2. PowerPoint presentation discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or PowerPoint presentation incompletely discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand.
PowerPoint presentation partially discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand.
PowerPoint presentation satisfactorily discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand.
.
PowerPoint presentation thoroughly discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand.
3. PowerPoint presentation discusses the rationale for the specific performance evaluation in use
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely discusses the rationale for the specific performance evaluation in use.
PowerPoint presentation partially discusses the rationale for the specific performance evaluation in use.
PowerPoint presentation discusses the rationale fo ...
Did you know that most of your employees would take a new job if it was offered to them tomorrow?
We all say that employees are our most valuable resource and know that their engagement matters, but very few of us have a handle on what makes employees tick.
The appetite for “big” and real-time data is growing for organizations hungry for a competitive edge and the ability to anticipate long-term and short-term needs.
You need the same advantage for your survey results and employee engagement initiatives.
In this virtual session, David Bator of TemboStatus will walk you through the reasons to do a survey, the questions to avoid and critical next steps to take after your results are in.
Presented by: Brian Utesch, Annette Tassone, Jon Temple and Stephen Woodburn. Businesses strive to monetize the relationship between user sentiment and success outcomes including user adoption, user retention, and revenue. Customer satisfaction is embraced as a top predictor of success. There are of course many ways that satisfaction can be measured. We will review several methods of measuring user satisfaction, including simple Likert scale measures of overall satisfaction, the System Usability Scale (SUS), UMUX-Lite and the popular Net Promoter Scale (NPS). Not all of these measures are created equally or even measure the same sentiment. We’ll further compare the advantages and disadvantages of each measure, best practices around the use of each, and original research we’ve conducted that informs our recommended best practices.
Review the following case study and create an action plan fo.pdfankitsrivastava681882
Review the following case study and create an action plan for improving employee job
satisfaction scores within an HIM department.
**Write a 2 page, double-spaced paper on the three most common complaints (from an
employee's perspective) on employee job satisfaction surveys (ex. work/life balance, low
pay, etc) and suggestions for how to improve employee morale in these areas (from a
manager's perspective). Include at least 3 full (not abbreviated) APA formatted references
at the end with appropriate APA formatted in-text citations within the content of the paper.
Case Study
Objectives
Identify components of employee satisfaction requiring improvement based on parameters
outlined by a healthcare organization
Outline action steps for improving employee satisfaction that incorporate strategic planning and
change management initiatives
Identify the collaboration, negotiation, and conflict management skills required to deploy the
performance improvement plans
Instructions
Review the following case study and create an action plan for improving employee job satisfaction
scores within an HIM department.
Scenario
Mary Beth is the director of HIM at a large acute-care healthcare organization. Every three years
the healthcare organization undertakes a hospital-wide employee survey in which information is
collected from employees regarding job satisfaction and other components. The 2015 employee
survey assessed the following components:
Alignment of employee goals with healthcare organizations mission and visionincluding questions
reflecting employee awareness of the organizations mission and vision and how it impacts
individual jobs within the organization
Employee job satisfactionAssessment of the employees satisfaction with job tasks, peer group
relationships, and employeemanager relationships in regard to overall job performance
Work-life balanceEvaluation of the employees perception of the balance between work and home
life
Communication within the healthcare organizationevaluated communication at the organizational
level, departmental level, and work area level
The survey was deployed by an outside consulting agency that has experience with creating
reliable and valid healthcare employee surveys. The management team from the healthcare
organization was required to attend an initial training session regarding the goals of the survey and
the managers were provided nonbiased ways to encourage their employees to complete the
surveys. The surveys were web-based and employees received links within their email to
complete the surveys. Employees (both management and nonmanagement) were allowed to
complete the survey during work hours. The survey was deployed in a systematic manner. The
questions within the survey were broken down into the four categories outlined previously and the
options for each answer were scored on a five-point scale. The scale options were: 5 = Extremely
satisfied, 4 = Satisfied, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Dissatisfied, 1 = Extremely dissatis.
In this file, you can ref useful information about performance appraisal sample such as performance appraisal sample methods, performance appraisal sample tips, performance appraisal sample forms, performance appraisal sample phrases … If you need more assistant for performance appraisal sample, please leave your comment at the end of file.
Case study The company director has requested that your HR deparMaximaSheffield592
Case study
The company director has requested that your HR department provides a report to senior management at their forthcoming annual meeting to show how evidence-based practice approaches can be used to inform sound decision-making on people practices and business-related matters. Your departmental manager has asked you to provide this report.
In addition, for the second part of the report, you have been asked to provide them with examples that demonstrate how people practitioners gain understanding and insight through interpretation of data. Report: Part one
You are required to prepare a report to senior managers at their forthcoming annual meeting. The report needs to:
· Provide evaluation of the concept of evidence-based practice and assess how evidencebased practice approaches can be used to provide insight to support sound decision-making and judgments for people practitioners across a range of people practices and organisational issues. (1.1)
· Provide evaluation of one appropriate analysis tool and one method that might be applied by organisations to recognise and diagnose current and future issues, challenges, and opportunities. (1.2)
· Explain the main principles of critical thinking and describe how these might apply to individual and work colleagues’ ideas to assist objective and rational debate. (1.3)
· Assess a range of different ethical theories and perspectives and explain how understanding of these can be used to inform and influence moral decision-making. (1.4)
· Explain a range of approaches that could be taken by people practitioners to identify possible solutions to a specific issue relating to people practice. (2.3)
· Appraise one approach an organisation can take to measure financial and non-financial performance. (3.1)
· Explain how a variety of people practices add value in an organisation and identify a range of methods that might be used to measure the impact of a range of people practices (3.4)
Report Part two: Data analysis and review
Section two of the report needs to showcase to senior managers how people professionals use and analyse data on people practices.
1. Below is the data of labour turnover across three departments over a five-year period.
Year
Administration
Total in department = 32
Drivers
Total in department = 141
Production
Total in department = 385
2016
4
21
39
2017
2
18
54
2018
8
32
82
2019
12
16
80
2020
9
32
112
The costs for recruiting an employee up until 2018 was £2065 however this rose to £3012 from this date onwards.
· Present the costings for each year across each of the three departments.
· Represent the turnover per year as a percentage of the total number of employees in each department.
2. Presented below are two sets of data that has been collected from two departments during exit interviews. Table 1 shows the feedback that has been elicited from employees in production and table 2 is from payroll.
· Review and analyse t ...
Assignment 2 New Supervisor Training on Performance Evaluations.docxbraycarissa250
Assignment 2: New Supervisor Training on Performance Evaluations
Due in Week 6 and worth 300 points
Now that the position has been created, you’ve taken the opportunity to create a PowerPoint presentation to train new supervisors on how to conduct performance evaluations.
Whether you use an annual evaluation, real-time feedback, or quarterly evaluations, it is important that new supervisors understand:
· the rationale for a performance evaluation in general,
· the rationale for the specific one in use,
· the instrument used, and
· the process for the evaluation.
The PowerPoint presentation should be a minimum of 10 slides with graphics and Notes Pages.
NOTE: One of the positions the new supervisors will be conducting performance evaluations on is the job in your description from Week 3. Find creative ways to incorporate your work from that assignment into this one.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
· You must include the Notes Pages. This is where you explain in detail the thoughts you want to convey in each slide, only in more depth.
· Visually appealing: graphics (required) should be appropriate for the environment and audience. Text should be visible from 18 feet away (generally considered 18 pt. font or larger).
Points: 300
Assignment 2: New Supervisor Training on Performance Evaluations
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 70% F
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. New supervisors understand the rationale for a performance evaluation in general
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely discussed the rationale for a performance evaluation in general, in such a way that new supervisors can understand.
Partially discussed the rationale for a performance evaluation in general, in such a way that new supervisors can understand.
Satisfactorily discussed the rationale for a performance evaluation in general, in such a way that new supervisors can understand.
Thoroughly discussed the rationale for a performance evaluation in general, in such a way that new supervisors can understand.
2. PowerPoint presentation discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or PowerPoint presentation incompletely discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand.
PowerPoint presentation partially discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand.
PowerPoint presentation satisfactorily discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand.
.
PowerPoint presentation thoroughly discusses type of evaluation used so that new supervisors understand.
3. PowerPoint presentation discusses the rationale for the specific performance evaluation in use
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely discusses the rationale for the specific performance evaluation in use.
PowerPoint presentation partially discusses the rationale for the specific performance evaluation in use.
PowerPoint presentation discusses the rationale fo ...
Did you know that most of your employees would take a new job if it was offered to them tomorrow?
We all say that employees are our most valuable resource and know that their engagement matters, but very few of us have a handle on what makes employees tick.
The appetite for “big” and real-time data is growing for organizations hungry for a competitive edge and the ability to anticipate long-term and short-term needs.
You need the same advantage for your survey results and employee engagement initiatives.
In this virtual session, David Bator of TemboStatus will walk you through the reasons to do a survey, the questions to avoid and critical next steps to take after your results are in.
Presented by: Brian Utesch, Annette Tassone, Jon Temple and Stephen Woodburn. Businesses strive to monetize the relationship between user sentiment and success outcomes including user adoption, user retention, and revenue. Customer satisfaction is embraced as a top predictor of success. There are of course many ways that satisfaction can be measured. We will review several methods of measuring user satisfaction, including simple Likert scale measures of overall satisfaction, the System Usability Scale (SUS), UMUX-Lite and the popular Net Promoter Scale (NPS). Not all of these measures are created equally or even measure the same sentiment. We’ll further compare the advantages and disadvantages of each measure, best practices around the use of each, and original research we’ve conducted that informs our recommended best practices.
Review the following case study and create an action plan fo.pdfankitsrivastava681882
Review the following case study and create an action plan for improving employee job
satisfaction scores within an HIM department.
**Write a 2 page, double-spaced paper on the three most common complaints (from an
employee's perspective) on employee job satisfaction surveys (ex. work/life balance, low
pay, etc) and suggestions for how to improve employee morale in these areas (from a
manager's perspective). Include at least 3 full (not abbreviated) APA formatted references
at the end with appropriate APA formatted in-text citations within the content of the paper.
Case Study
Objectives
Identify components of employee satisfaction requiring improvement based on parameters
outlined by a healthcare organization
Outline action steps for improving employee satisfaction that incorporate strategic planning and
change management initiatives
Identify the collaboration, negotiation, and conflict management skills required to deploy the
performance improvement plans
Instructions
Review the following case study and create an action plan for improving employee job satisfaction
scores within an HIM department.
Scenario
Mary Beth is the director of HIM at a large acute-care healthcare organization. Every three years
the healthcare organization undertakes a hospital-wide employee survey in which information is
collected from employees regarding job satisfaction and other components. The 2015 employee
survey assessed the following components:
Alignment of employee goals with healthcare organizations mission and visionincluding questions
reflecting employee awareness of the organizations mission and vision and how it impacts
individual jobs within the organization
Employee job satisfactionAssessment of the employees satisfaction with job tasks, peer group
relationships, and employeemanager relationships in regard to overall job performance
Work-life balanceEvaluation of the employees perception of the balance between work and home
life
Communication within the healthcare organizationevaluated communication at the organizational
level, departmental level, and work area level
The survey was deployed by an outside consulting agency that has experience with creating
reliable and valid healthcare employee surveys. The management team from the healthcare
organization was required to attend an initial training session regarding the goals of the survey and
the managers were provided nonbiased ways to encourage their employees to complete the
surveys. The surveys were web-based and employees received links within their email to
complete the surveys. Employees (both management and nonmanagement) were allowed to
complete the survey during work hours. The survey was deployed in a systematic manner. The
questions within the survey were broken down into the four categories outlined previously and the
options for each answer were scored on a five-point scale. The scale options were: 5 = Extremely
satisfied, 4 = Satisfied, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Dissatisfied, 1 = Extremely dissatis.
In this file, you can ref useful information about performance appraisal sample such as performance appraisal sample methods, performance appraisal sample tips, performance appraisal sample forms, performance appraisal sample phrases … If you need more assistant for performance appraisal sample, please leave your comment at the end of file.
Summary report on YoungProfsNet's first learning project to Review and evaluation of environmental impact assessment reports for petrol station projects in Kenya
Review and Evaluation of EIA Reports - KenyaMaarten Smies
The report of a learning project to review and evaluate 41 EIA reports for petrol stations in Kenya. The quality of the reports is poor and the National Environment Management Authority should not have approved any of these reports.
Here are the meeting notes of the meeting of the directors of YoungProfsNet of environmental and social development practitoners on Friday 3 and 10 March 2017
YoungProfsNet is establishing a Programme Council. We are proposing 50-60 members, of whom more than half would be selected from members, who want to apply.
YoungProfsNet is establishing a Programme Council. We are proposing 50-60 members, of whom more than half would be selected from members, who want to apply.
Artificial Reefs by Kuddle Life Foundation - May 2024punit537210
Situated in Pondicherry, India, Kuddle Life Foundation is a charitable, non-profit and non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to improving the living standards of coastal communities and simultaneously placing a strong emphasis on the protection of marine ecosystems.
One of the key areas we work in is Artificial Reefs. This presentation captures our journey so far and our learnings. We hope you get as excited about marine conservation and artificial reefs as we are.
Please visit our website: https://kuddlelife.org
Our Instagram channel:
@kuddlelifefoundation
Our Linkedin Page:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/kuddlelifefoundation/
and write to us if you have any questions:
info@kuddlelife.org
WRI’s brand new “Food Service Playbook for Promoting Sustainable Food Choices” gives food service operators the very latest strategies for creating dining environments that empower consumers to choose sustainable, plant-rich dishes. This research builds off our first guide for food service, now with industry experience and insights from nearly 350 academic trials.
Willie Nelson Net Worth: A Journey Through Music, Movies, and Business Venturesgreendigital
Willie Nelson is a name that resonates within the world of music and entertainment. Known for his unique voice, and masterful guitar skills. and an extraordinary career spanning several decades. Nelson has become a legend in the country music scene. But, his influence extends far beyond the realm of music. with ventures in acting, writing, activism, and business. This comprehensive article delves into Willie Nelson net worth. exploring the various facets of his career that have contributed to his large fortune.
Follow us on: Pinterest
Introduction
Willie Nelson net worth is a testament to his enduring influence and success in many fields. Born on April 29, 1933, in Abbott, Texas. Nelson's journey from a humble beginning to becoming one of the most iconic figures in American music is nothing short of inspirational. His net worth, which estimated to be around $25 million as of 2024. reflects a career that is as diverse as it is prolific.
Early Life and Musical Beginnings
Humble Origins
Willie Hugh Nelson was born during the Great Depression. a time of significant economic hardship in the United States. Raised by his grandparents. Nelson found solace and inspiration in music from an early age. His grandmother taught him to play the guitar. setting the stage for what would become an illustrious career.
First Steps in Music
Nelson's initial foray into the music industry was fraught with challenges. He moved to Nashville, Tennessee, to pursue his dreams, but success did not come . Working as a songwriter, Nelson penned hits for other artists. which helped him gain a foothold in the competitive music scene. His songwriting skills contributed to his early earnings. laying the foundation for his net worth.
Rise to Stardom
Breakthrough Albums
The 1970s marked a turning point in Willie Nelson's career. His albums "Shotgun Willie" (1973), "Red Headed Stranger" (1975). and "Stardust" (1978) received critical acclaim and commercial success. These albums not only solidified his position in the country music genre. but also introduced his music to a broader audience. The success of these albums played a crucial role in boosting Willie Nelson net worth.
Iconic Songs
Willie Nelson net worth is also attributed to his extensive catalog of hit songs. Tracks like "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain," "On the Road Again," and "Always on My Mind" have become timeless classics. These songs have not only earned Nelson large royalties but have also ensured his continued relevance in the music industry.
Acting and Film Career
Hollywood Ventures
In addition to his music career, Willie Nelson has also made a mark in Hollywood. His distinctive personality and on-screen presence have landed him roles in several films and television shows. Notable appearances include roles in "The Electric Horseman" (1979), "Honeysuckle Rose" (1980), and "Barbarosa" (1982). These acting gigs have added a significant amount to Willie Nelson net worth.
Television Appearances
Nelson's char
Micro RNA genes and their likely influence in rice (Oryza sativa L.) dynamic ...Open Access Research Paper
Micro RNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs molecules having approximately 18-25 nucleotides, they are present in both plants and animals genomes. MiRNAs have diverse spatial expression patterns and regulate various developmental metabolisms, stress responses and other physiological processes. The dynamic gene expression playing major roles in phenotypic differences in organisms are believed to be controlled by miRNAs. Mutations in regions of regulatory factors, such as miRNA genes or transcription factors (TF) necessitated by dynamic environmental factors or pathogen infections, have tremendous effects on structure and expression of genes. The resultant novel gene products presents potential explanations for constant evolving desirable traits that have long been bred using conventional means, biotechnology or genetic engineering. Rice grain quality, yield, disease tolerance, climate-resilience and palatability properties are not exceptional to miRN Asmutations effects. There are new insights courtesy of high-throughput sequencing and improved proteomic techniques that organisms’ complexity and adaptations are highly contributed by miRNAs containing regulatory networks. This article aims to expound on how rice miRNAs could be driving evolution of traits and highlight the latest miRNA research progress. Moreover, the review accentuates miRNAs grey areas to be addressed and gives recommendations for further studies.
Natural farming @ Dr. Siddhartha S. Jena.pptxsidjena70
A brief about organic farming/ Natural farming/ Zero budget natural farming/ Subash Palekar Natural farming which keeps us and environment safe and healthy. Next gen Agricultural practices of chemical free farming.
Diabetes is a rapidly and serious health problem in Pakistan. This chronic condition is associated with serious long-term complications, including higher risk of heart disease and stroke. Aggressive treatment of hypertension and hyperlipideamia can result in a substantial reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes 1. Consequently pharmacist-led diabetes cardiovascular risk (DCVR) clinics have been established in both primary and secondary care sites in NHS Lothian during the past five years. An audit of the pharmaceutical care delivery at the clinics was conducted in order to evaluate practice and to standardize the pharmacists’ documentation of outcomes. Pharmaceutical care issues (PCI) and patient details were collected both prospectively and retrospectively from three DCVR clinics. The PCI`s were categorized according to a triangularised system consisting of multiple categories. These were ‘checks’, ‘changes’ (‘change in drug therapy process’ and ‘change in drug therapy’), ‘drug therapy problems’ and ‘quality assurance descriptors’ (‘timer perspective’ and ‘degree of change’). A verified medication assessment tool (MAT) for patients with chronic cardiovascular disease was applied to the patients from one of the clinics. The tool was used to quantify PCI`s and pharmacist actions that were centered on implementing or enforcing clinical guideline standards. A database was developed to be used as an assessment tool and to standardize the documentation of achievement of outcomes. Feedback on the audit of the pharmaceutical care delivery and the database was received from the DCVR clinic pharmacist at a focus group meeting.
1. Environmental and Social
YoungProfsNet
Development Practitioners
Progress report on the Kenya project to review and evaluate
Environmental Impact Assessment reports on filling station projects in Kenya
1 December 2016
Introduction
I thought that it would be useful to write a progress report on our Kenya project, as it is now six
weeks since we started our effort to complete this project. Last March we relaunched the
project with 29 members, since that time ten people joined as additional members. For the
completion of the project 50 more people offered to help with the project.
The following points will be discussed in this progress report:
• The number of team members who joined YoungProfsNet.slack.com to work on the project
• The number of team members who filled in and returned their score sheets
• A review of the combined score sheets.
First, I would like to thank the team members, who reviewed and evaluated the impact
assessment reports assigned to them and sent the score sheets to me. Hopefully, you have
learned about impact assessment by doing that. Please tell me what your experience has been.
However, as you will see below, we still have some way to go. There are two reasons for that:
1. The number of team members who have actually returned score sheets to me is relatively
small, namely only 19 and not all have returned the score sheets on all the reports assigned
to them
2. The score sheets returned are not always completely filled in, or there may be questions
about the ratings given for all the criteria on the checklist. This second point is in itself not a
problem, as it shows that the checklist and the instructions are perhaps not fully clear to the
team members. In addition, it indicates that a number of team members may have to learn a
little more to benefit from taking part in the project. Therefore, I hope that you will take my
review of your score sheets in the spirit of our learning project.
YoungProfsNet.slack.com
At this moment there are 70 people on the project-kenya channel, which means that more than
20 of you still have not joined Slack, following my invitation and reminders.
Returned score sheets
Only 19 team members have filled in and returned their score sheets to me. That means that I
still would like to receive score sheets from 70 team members, minus about five team members,
who told me that they cannot make time for the project after all.
I have combined the score sheets for all the impact assessment reports (if possible) and shall
upload these to the project-kenya channel.
Review of combined score sheets
Below I have reviewed all combined score sheets and made remarks where appropriate.
progressreportkenyaproject20161201public-161202223441.docprogressreportkenyaproject2
0161201public-161202223441.doc
2. Action:
I would like to ask you all to review your own score sheets in the light of my remarks and also
by comparing your ratings with those of other reviewers of the same report(s). You may also
discuss your ratings with them, e.g. on the project-kenya channel on Slack. You do not have to
come to the same ratings as the other reviewers, but you should discuss if the ratings for a
single criterion differ more than one point from each other. For example: if you have rated an
item 3 and another reviewer has rated the same item as 1 or 0.
My review has not been exhaustive, and by reading my remarks for different combined
scoresheets you may discover that I have overlooked one or more points in your scoresheets.
Please resubmit your scoresheets if you decide to change your ratings. Make sure that you do
not change the format of the scoresheets. I combine scoresheets using copy and paste and I
cannot do that easily if you take out columns or rows. Again, save your revised scoresheets by
adding your name to the file name and by adding V2 after your name.
Important:
Check list items will be rated as follows:
Rating Description
3 Satisfactory or good
2 Needs to be improved
1 Unsatisfactory
0 Not applicable; not available for review; not relevant
In my remarks below, I have often indicated that a rating of 1 would be appropriate if a criterion
is not met. That has included ratings, where the reviewer had rated a 0 because of the absence
of information or of e.g. appropriate maps. In retrospect, I find that a rating of 0 would then be
correct. However, I have not gone back to the different combined scoresheets to undo my
remarks. Sorry for that.
EIA_1005
No. of reviews: 1 (Ibrahim Game)
Reviews still outstanding: Dipporah Bwari, Valentine Masika, Najia Jafrin, Waqar Saleem,
Phoebe Manyonge, Patie Mponda
No remarks.
EIA_1006
No. of reviews: 1 (Lavinia Warnars)
Reviews still outstanding: Dipporah Bwari, Ana Castellanos, Ashock Rathoure, Dennis Wachira,
Ignatius, Fernanda Rivas Chavez, Nicholas Karani
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
EIA_1007
No. of reviews: 1 (Sarah Francis)
2
3. Reviews still outstanding: Okode Clifftone, Ignatius, Phathutshedzo Mugagadeli, Solomon
Mwampikita, George Lartey-Young, Gözde Aydin, Sylvia Kawera, Sarah Njenga
Remarks: Ratings for all criteria are 2 and mostly 3, which are doubtful to be correct. Even for
ISO14000 conformity the ratings given are 3. No serious review has been undertaken.
EIA_1010
No. of reviews: 1 (Sarah Francis)
Reviews still outstanding: Sylvia Kawera, Victor Mponzi, Lukas Mkwizu, Tendai Kasinganeti,
Wendo Hausner, Kevin Amunga, Santtu Palokangas, Alexjender Laudwig
Remarks: Ratings for all criteria are 2 and mostly 3, which are doubtful to be correct. Even for
ISO14000 conformity the ratings given are 3. No serious review has been undertaken.
EIA_1026
No. of reviews: 2 (Nicholas Karana, Ivana Dubravec)
Reviews still outstanding: Wendo Hausner, Kevin Amunga, Sarah Kasande, Cheyenne Mandass,
Dennis Wachira, John Oirere, Ana Castellanos
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
EIA_1027
No. of reviews: 3 (Nicholas Karani, Sidra Butt, Zander Liebenberg
Reviews still outstanding: John Oirere, Phillip Kihumuro, Mojtaba Parsaei, Ahmad Masood Khan,
May Kitiyo, Julia Pauls, Ibrahim Game (?)
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.3.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
3
4. The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#10: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
#1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1030
No. of reviews: 4 (Ibrahim Game, Lorna Nyaga, Sidra Butt, Zander Liebenberg)
Reviews still outstanding: May Kitiyo, Evelyne Mong’are, Nicholas Kiiza, Julia Pauls, Santtu
Palokangas, Lee Jukes, Fernanda Rivas Chavez, Tendai Kasinganeti,
Remarks:
General criteria
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.1.7: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The scores of the different reviews for the criteria 2.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.13, 2.1.4, 2.1.5 are not very
consistent
#2.3.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.1.: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
#3.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4.3.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4.4.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#15: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
#1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
4
5. #1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#6: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
If these criteria are not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
EIA_1031
No. of reviews: 1 (Lorna Nyaga)
Reviews still outstanding: Evelyne Mong’are, Mercy Mungai, Ruwa Matsika, Marcela Duque,
Dinah Nabaweesi, Cheryl Waga, Judi Krzyzanowski, Natalia Montoya
Remarks:
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#2.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#15: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
#1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#6: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
If there are no Regulatory, Aspects and Impact registers (as compared to a description of
regulations, aspects and impacts) the rating should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1033
No. of reviews: 1 (Sharon Nelima)
Reviews still outstanding: Mercy Munga, Anne Mogoi Birundu, Cheryl Waga, Betty Hope
Katayiki, Kwame Ashun, Koketso Buti, Seopedi Baitsile, Gaffar Ali
Remarks:
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
5
6. and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1037
No. of reviews: 5 (Sharon Nelima, Robert Ngala, Sofía Mata, Annalisa Gionni, Pauline Kiamba)
Reviews still outstanding: Koketso Buti, Angela Wagner, Joshua Kolondo, Ingrid Erazo Campo
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.7: If the number of workers has not been estimated in the report, the rating should be 1.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
If these criteria are not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1038
No. of reviews: 1 (Robert Ngala)
Reviews still outstanding: Sarah Njenga, Joshua Kolondo, Najia Jafrin, Waqar Saleem, Florence
Nyuki, Patie Mponda
Remarks:
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1039
No. of reviews: 2 (Sarah Njenga, Lavinia Warnars)
Reviews still outstanding: Brenda Nyogo, Florence Nyuki, Ana Castellanos, Ashock Rathoure,
Gladys Nyaga, Fernanda Rivas Chavez
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
6
7. The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
EIA_1045
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Brenda Njogo, Emadick Otiego, Phathutshedzo Mugagadeli, Gladys
Nyaga, Solomon Mwampikita, George Lartey-Young, Gözde Aydin, Aineah Poulman, Alexjender
Laudwig
EIA_1047
No. of reviews: 1 (Tabitha Ouso)
Reviews still outstanding: Emadick Otiego, Victor Mponzi, Aineah Poulman, Lukas Mkwisu,
Tendai Kasinganeti, Fernanda Rivas Chavez, Gloria Boafo, Santtu Palokangas, Alexjender
Laudwig
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.1.7: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#16: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1053
No. of reviews: 1 (Tabitha Ouso)
Reviews still outstanding: Edwin Owino, Sarah Kasande, Gloria Boafo, Ivana Dubravec,
Cheyenne Mandass, Joram Thabai, Ana Castellanos
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
7
8. #4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1054
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Edwin Owino, Grace Ronoh, Phillip Kihumuro, Joram Thabai,
Mojataba Parsaei, Ahmad Masood Khan, Dennis Wachira, Ednah Getare, Ibrahim Game, Sarah
Njenga
EIA_1056
No. of reviews: 1 (Ibrahim Game)
Reviews still outstanding: Grace Ronoh, Caroline Thiong’o, Nicholas Kiiza, Alice Kasyoka, Tendai
Kasinganeti, Gaffar Ali, Ednah Getare, Santtu Palokangas, Lee Jukes, Fernanda Rivas Chavez
No remarks.
EIA_1057
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Caroline Thiong’o, Dipporah Bwari, Alice Kasyoka, Ruwa Matsika,
Marcela Duque, Dinah Nawabeesi, Phoebe Manyonge, Judi Krzyzanowski, Natalia Montoya
No remarks.
EIA_1060
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Maureen Wanzala, Anne Mogoi Birundu, Okode Clifftone, Kellen
Mwirigi, Betty Hope Katayiki, Kwame Ashun, Ignatius, Seopedi Baitsile, Nicholas Karani
No remarks.
EIA_1067
No. of reviews: 3 (Sarah Francis, Sofía Mata, Annalisa Gionni)
Reviews still outstanding: Lydia Biri, Valentine Masika, Angela Wagner, Ingrid Erazo Campo,
Sarah Njenga
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.3: (Sarah Francis: your rating here is a 3, while under General criteria #4 your rating is 1;
to me that appears to be inconsistent.)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
EIA_1068
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Dipporah Bwari, Wendo Hausner, Phoebe Manyonge, Najia Jafrin,
Waqar Saleem, Fernanda Rivas Chavez, Kevin Amunga, Patie Mponda
No remarks.
EIA_1087
8
9. No. of reviews: 3 (Nicholas Karani, Lavinia Warnars, Pauline Kiamba)
Reviews still outstanding: Okode Clifftone, Ignatius, Ana Castellanos, Ashock Rathoure, Dennis
Wachira
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
#1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#6: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
#1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1091
No. of reviews: 2 (Sarah Francis, Sidra Butt)
Reviews still outstanding: May Kitiyo, Phathutshedzo Mugagadeli, Sylvia Kawera, Solomon
Mwampikita, George Lartey-Young, Gözde Aydin, Julia Pauls, Zander Liebenberg
Remarks:
General criteria
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent.
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent. (See also under General criteria #4)
#1.1.7: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent.
#2.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
9
10. #4.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent. (Sidra Butt consistently indicates that tables, maps and graphs are not included
(by a rating of 0); Sarah Francis rates these criteria consistently with a 3: this is inconsistent.)
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent.
ISO14000 conformity
#2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1091
No. of reviews: 1 (Lorna Nyaga)
Reviews still outstanding: Wendo Hausner, Evelyne Mong’are, Victor Mponzi, Kevin Amunga,
Lukas Mkwizu, Tendai Kasinganeti, Santtu Palokangas, Alexjender Laudwig
Remarks:
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#15: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
#1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1103
No. of reviews: 1 (Nicholas Karani)
Reviews still outstanding: Mercy Mungai, Sarah Kasande, John Oirere, Ivana Dubravec,
Cheyenne Mandass, Cheryl Waga, Ana Castellanos
Remarks:
General criteria
10
11. #6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1117
No. of reviews: 1 (Sharon Nelima)
Reviews still outstanding: May Kitiyo, Phillip Kihumuro, Julia Pauls, Mujtaba Parsaei, Ahmaf
Masood Khan, Koketso Buti, Ibrahim Game, Arnold Moyo
Remarks:
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1129
No. of reviews: 2 (Robert Ngala, Lorna Nyaga)
Reviews still outstanding: Evelyne Mong’are, Nicholas Kiiza, Santtu Palokangas, Lee Jukes,
Joshua Kolondo, Tendai Kensinganeti, Arnold Moyo
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1135
No. of reviews: 1 (Sarah Njenga)
Reviews still outstanding: Mercy Mungai, Cheryl Waga, Ruwa Matsika, Marcela Duque, Dinah
Nabaweesi, Florence Nyuki, Judi Krzyzanowski, Natalia Montoya
No remarks.
EIA_1136
No. of reviews: 3 (Sharon Nelima, Ibrahim Game, Sidra Butt)
Reviews still outstanding: Brenda Njogo, Anne Mogoi Birundu, Koketso Buti, Betty Hope
Katayiki, Kwame Ashun, Gladys Nyaga, Seopedi Baitsile, Zander Liebenberg
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
11
12. #3.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
Additional review criteria:
#6: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1151
No. of reviews: 4 (Robert Ngala, Sofía Mata, Annalisa Gionni, Pauline Kiamba)
Reviews still outstanding: Emadick Otiego, Joshua Kolondo, Angela Wagner, Aineah Poulman,
Ingrid Erazo Campo
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#2.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1152
No. of reviews: 2 (Sarah Njenga, Tabitha Ouso)
Reviews still outstanding: Florence Nyuki, Najia Jafrin, Waqar Saleem, Gloria Boafo, Patie
Mponda
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
12
13. and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1155
No. of reviews: 2 (Lavinia Warnars, Pauline Kiamba)
Reviews still outstanding: Brenda Njogo, Edwin Owino, Gladys Nyaga, Ana Castellanos, Ashock
Rathoure
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1158
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Emadick Otiego, Grace Ronoh, Phathutshedzo Mugagadeli, Aineah
Poulman, Solomon Mwampikita, George Lartey-Young, GözdeAydin
No remarks.
EIA_1159
No. of reviews: 1 (Tabitha Ouso)
Reviews still outstanding: Caroline Thiong'o, Victor Mponzi, Gloria Boafo, Lukas Mkwizu, Tendai
Kasinganeti, Alice Kasyoka, Santtu Palokangas, Alexjender Laudwig
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
13
14. While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1161
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Edwin Owino, Maureen Wanzala, Sarah Kasande, Joram Thabai, Ivana
Dubravec, Cheyenne Mandass, Kellen Mwirigi, Ana Castellanos
No remarks.
EIA_1173
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Grace Ronoh, Lydia Biri, Phillip Kihumuro, Valentine Masika, Mojtaba
Parsaei, Ahmad Masood Khan, Ibrahim Game, Arnold Moyo
No remarks.
EIA_1175
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Caroline Thiong’o, Dippora Bwari, Nicholas Kiiza, Alice Kasyoka,
Santtu Palokangas, Lee Jukes, Phoebe Manyonge, Tendai Kasinganeti, Gaffar Ali
No remarks.
EIA_Naivasha
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Lydia Biri, Sarah Francis, Anne Mogoi Birundu, Valentine Masika,
Betty Hope Katayiki, Kwame Ashun, Dinah Nabaweesi, Sylvia Kawera, Seopedi Baitsile, Nicholas
Karani
No remarks.
EIA_Wolfenberg
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Maureen Wazala, Okodo Clifftone, Kellen Mwirigi, Ruwa Matsika,
Marcela Duque,Dinah Nabaweesi, Ignatius, Judi Krzyzanowski, Natalia Montoya
No remarks.
The Hague, 1 December 2016
Maarten Smies
14