Trends in consultation and public participation within environmental impact assessment in Kenya

Abstract

The objective of this study was to document trends in public participation within environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Kenya, using a Consultation and Public Participation Index (CPPI) developed for the analysis of EIA Study Reports submitted to the Environment Authority between 2002 and 2010. Results indicated that public participation remained relatively low, with the highest score of 1.65 in 2010, out of a possible score of 5. Scores for individual dimensions within the index fluctuated during the study period, with participation methods and type of participants scoring the highest, following increased emphasis by the Environment Authority on the conducting and reporting of public participation. This was followed by venue, notification and language used, in that order, which were often not reported, and, when reported, choices per dimension were limited. This is the first time this index has been used, yet it serves as a good starting point to evaluate public participation within EIA.

Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment and Its Substantive Contribution to Environmental Risk Management: Insights From Eia Practitioners and Other Stakeholders in Kenya’s Renewable Energy Sub-Sector

“…The practice is not context oriented as cultural, social, economic and political dimensions are mostly ignored nor is it credible and rigorous as facilitators are interested parties and hence not neutral. Similar findings have been document in previous studies including Okello et al [21] who concluded that public participation in Kenya's EIA process "is poor, particularly during the scoping, report review and follow-up stages" [8], who states that public participation within EIA process in Kenya is relatively low [32], who states that public participation in Kenya's EIA process is inadequate [33], who states that project "developers do not usually favour public participation, because they do not see the positive side of this process as a result, they are likely to hide information, or not clearly state data that may be controversial". Public participation in environmental decision making is both shaped by and, in many cases, constrained by the ways in which environmental issues, problems, and solutions are defined or framed through the strategic communication practices of the participants [34].…”

“…Secondly, a questionnaire survey among EIA Practitioners and other EIA stakeholders in Kenya's renewable energy sector. The international best practice operating principles of public participation adopted are according to André, et al [15] while the Kenya public participation practice was as in Mwenda et al [8], Mwenda and Kibutu [17], Kibutu and Mwenda [20]. Questionnaire respondents were sampled from licenced EIA practitioners in Kenya in the years 2018 while that for other stakeholders was sampled from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) Environmental Officers, the Ministry of Energy and civil society.…”

Meta-analysis of EIA public hearings in the state of Gujarat, India: its role versus the goal of environmental management

“…A review of international literature suggests abundant scope for improving effectiveness of PH and hence the EIA process (general: Hartley & Wood 2005; general in Kenya: Okello et al 2009 andMwenda et al 2012;in China: Du et al 2010;in Pakistan: Nizami et al 2011;in Western Uganda: Kahangirwe 2011; dike relocation case in the Netherlands: Cuppen et al 2012;in Canada: Sinclair et al 2012;in Nigeria: Silas 2013; gas pipeline and tank farm: Lawal et al 2013). Few studies on PH in Indian EIA have shown that the issues raised are limited to safety issues, new road construction and jobs, with little consideration to environmental impact (Sinclair & Diduck 2000).…”

Towards a home-grown approach to strategic environmental assessment: adapting practice and participation in Kenya

“…Environmental aspects are now embedded in the highest law of the land, including a right to a clean, healthy environment, devolution of resource development to local levels of government, and mandatory environmental assessment, auditing and monitoring (Mwenda et al 2012). These constitutional changes are too new for evaluating SEA practice yet, but a decade of legislative and institutional reforms in the water, forest and wildlife sectors may provide a context for considering transparency, accountability and governance in SEA practice, especially if these contribute to more…”