Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EVALUATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT OF THE SOUTHERN BYPASS ROAD IN NAIROBI, KENYA
BY
DAVID NJAGI NGONGE
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master
of Arts in Environmental Law of the University of Nairobi
November, 2015
ii
DECLARATION
This Thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other
University.
……………....……............................... ................................................
David Njagi Ngonge Date
This Thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as University Supervisors.
……………....….......………… …… ...............................................
Dr. Jones F. Agwata Date
Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy
University of Nairobi
……………....……....................... ................................................
Dr. Collins Odote Date
Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy
University of Nairobi
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work first to my father Njeru Ngonge who has constantly encouraged me to
undertake this course to my wife and children for their patience and understanding during
my absence and busy schedule during my course and fieldwork.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I extend my most sincere thanks to National Environment and Management Authority
(NEMA), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and Centre for Advanced Studies in Environmental
Law and Policy (CASELAP) for their kind assistance and support without which this study
would not have been successful. I would like to convey my deepest gratitude to my
supervisors Dr. Jones Agwata and Dr. Collins Odote who encouraged me and read the
various drafts of the thesis at every stage and offered valuable suggestions to complete the
project.
I am grateful to my entire family for their prayers, support and encouragements to the end of
the course. I am also grateful to Eddie, Ronnie and Joseph for assisting me to collect the data
from the respondents. Above all, I am grateful to the Almighty God for opening a way for me
to successfully complete my work.
v
ABSTRACT
Public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is meant to reduce conflict
through early identification of contentious issues and provide an opportunity for the public to
influence project design in a positive manner. The temporary stoppage of the construction of
one section of the Southern Bypass Road Project (SBRP) in Nairobi South West which was
to pass through the Nairobi National Park by the National Environmental Tribunal (NET)
even after an EIA license was issued by the Regulatory Authority poses some critical
questions on the utility of public participation in the EIA process. This study assessed the
utility of public participation in EIA in project designs and implementation using the SBRP
as a case study. The effect of public participation on the EIA process, its impact on the design
and implementation of the project and other aspects that influenced the effectiveness of
public participation in the EIA process of the SBRP in Nairobi were examined. Purposive
sampling was used to select participants from the neighborhoods of the project site in
addition to the Lead Agencies who participated in EIA project study of the SBRP. The study
used interviews, questionnaires, reports and consultations with various Lead Agencies as
instruments to collect data. The data collected was analyzed using percentages and
frequencies. The results indicate that the public was involved in the EIA process by way of
focus group discussions and consultative and public meetings among others. The results
indicated that there was a low level of awareness about the SBRP and that the public were
consulted late after the project had been handed over to the contractor meaning they were not
involved at the planning and design stages of the road. Although public participation
influenced the EIA process by contributing to the decisions made on the project, it did not
influence the design of the road project. The participation influenced the implementation of
the road project as evident in the litigation case that halted construction of one section of the
road project as various ecological concerns were raised by some Lead Agencies such as the
Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and East Africa Wildlife Society (EAWS). The Study
concluded that the public participation of the road project and the EIA came too late in the
project cycle hence it could not influence the design of the road. The study recommends that
the Government of Kenya be at the forefront of obeying the set laws in all her projects. The
factors identified as barriers to effective public participation, should be moderated to
guarantee an effective public participation process. Further research should be done on why
governments projects are undertaken without following the laid down laws, polices and
regulations and on how to improve the utility of public participation in EIA process in Kenya.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION................................................................................................................. ii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS /ACRONYMS .................................................................. xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background to the Study .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 9
1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Objectives of the Study .............................................................................................. 11
1.5 Justification and Significance of the Study ................................................................. 12
1.6 Limitations and Scope of the Study ........................................................................... 12
1.7 Definition of Concepts and Terms ............................................................................. 13
1.7.1 Public Participation ............................................................................................. 13
1.7.2 Environmental Impact Assessment...................................................................... 17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................. 21
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 21
2.2The Environmental Impact Assessment Process.......................................................... 21
2.2.1 Public Participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment ............................ 23
2.2.2 Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa ................... 25
vii
2.2.3 Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in Kenya ................... 29
2.3 Factors influencing the level of public participation in the EIA .................................. 30
2.4 Mechanisms of promoting public participation in EIA process .................................. 31
2.5 Effect of public participation on the outcome of the EIA process ............................... 32
2.6 Effects of public participation on project design and implementation ......................... 35
2.7 Gaps Identified in Previous Studies ........................................................................... 36
2.8 The Theoretical Framework of the Study ................................................................... 36
2.9 Conceptual Framework of the Study .......................................................................... 38
CHAPTER THREE: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................. 40
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 40
3.2 Study Site .................................................................................................................. 41
3.3Study Design .............................................................................................................. 41
3.4 Sample Size ............................................................................................................... 43
3.5 Data Needs, Types and Sources ................................................................................. 43
3.6 Data Collection and Analysis Techniques .................................................................. 44
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................... 46
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 46
4.2 Results and Discussions ............................................................................................. 46
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 73
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 73
5.2 Summary of the Study Findings ................................................................................. 73
5.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 76
viii
5.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 77
5.4.1 Policy Recommendations .................................................................................... 77
5.4.2 Recommendations for Further studies ................................................................. 78
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 79
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 88
APPENDIX I: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 88
APPENDIX 2:QUESTIONNAIRES FOR THE RESPONDENTS ................................. 89
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4: 1.Distribution of respondents by age ...................................................................... 47
Table 4: 2. Distribution of respondents by highest academic qualifications .......................... 47
Table 4: 3. Place of residence of the respondents ................................................................. 48
Table 4: 4. Distance between the respondents’ residence and the road project ..................... 48
Table 4: 5. Distribution of the respondents by occupation.................................................... 49
Table 4:6. How respondents got information about the Road’s EIA ..................................... 50
Table 4:7. Manner of participation in Environmental Impact Assessment ............................ 51
Table 4:8. Stage of participation in the EIA ......................................................................... 51
Table 4:9. Public was consulted early during the project planning and design ...................... 52
Table 4:10. Respondent’s opinions on the need and purpose of the project .......................... 53
Table 4: 11. Adequate information on the negative and positive impacts was provided ........ 54
Table 4: 12. Sufficiency of data and maps provided............................................................. 55
Table 4: 13. Sufficient time for assessment of project implications ...................................... 55
Table 4: 14. Public expression of views, values and fears of the project............................... 56
Table 4: 15. Responses on public involved in decision-making process ............................... 57
Table 4: 16. Responses on public involvement in dialogue and mutual agreement ............... 58
Table 4: 17. Provision of opportunities to participate in the process ..................................... 58
Table 4: 18. Responses on opportunity for stakeholders’ participation ................................. 59
Table 4: 19. Responses on control of the process of participation ........................................ 60
Table 4: 20. Convenience of meetings times ........................................................................ 61
Table 4: 21. Accessibility of meeting venues ....................................................................... 62
Table 4: 22. The language used was understood by the participants ..................................... 62
Table 4: 23. Importance of public participation in the project .............................................. 63
Table 4: 24. Respondent’s satisfaction with considerations of significant impacts ............... 64
x
Table 4: 25. Respondent’s satisfaction with proposed mitigation measures .......................... 65
Table 4: 26. Respondent’s satisfaction with identification of the project’s alternatives ........ 66
Table 4: 27. Respondent’s satisfaction with frequency of contact ........................................ 67
Table 4: 28. Satisfaction with ideas generated by the information feedback process ............ 67
Table 4: 29. Levels of satisfaction with changes in route alignment ..................................... 68
Table 4: 30. Levels of satisfaction with approval of the project ........................................... 69
Table 4: 31. Rating of satisfaction with the whole public participation process .................... 70
Table 4: 32. Suggestions for improving public participation ................................................ 70
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. 1: The Arnstein’s ladder showing the different levels of public participation…….17
Figure 3.1: Conceptual Framework showing the key factors influencing the effectiveness of
public participation in the EIA Process in Kenya. ................................................................ 39
Figure3.2:Map of the study area .......................................................................................... 41
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS /ACRONYMS
CASELAP Centre for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy
CSUD Center for Sustainable Urban Development
EA Environmental Audit
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
EIAAR Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit regulation
EMCA Environmental Management and Coordination Act
EMF Environmental Management Frameworks
EMPs Environmental Management Programmes
EMS Environmental Management Systems
ERA Environmental Risk Assessment
IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment
KARA Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations
KeNHA Kenya National Highway Authority
KFS Kenya Forest Service
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
NEMA National Environmental Management Authority
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NET National Environmental Tribunal
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
SBRP Southern Bypass Road Project
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessments
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Public participation is an important and integral part of the Environment Impact
Assessment (EIA) process. It is a requirement and a very crucial step for the collection of
data and especially the baseline information for proposed projects. In addition, it helps bring
about the contentious issues and gives a chance to those who may be affected by a proposed
project to air their views. It also allows addressing of significant issues at the initial stages of
the project.
Public participation finds deep roots in the ideals of democratic theory. Democratic
decisions typically reflect the preferences of the majority and place minority rights and
interests at risk. In addition, democracy incorporates the political philosophy of liberalism,
which emphasizes ideals of equality and autonomy. Democracy balances the interests of the
majority and minorities by eliminating egocentricities and monocratic decisions and ensures
the rights of minority groups are protected despite their interests being lost to the wishes of
the majority.
The first ideal asserts a fundamental equality of persons. Within political
arrangements, equality entails each person having an equal right and opportunity to
participate in political life and equal treatment under the law (Rawls, 2013). Equally, on
environmental rights, the Constitution of Kenya 2010 Article 42 states that every person has a
right to a clean and healthy environment (GoK, 2010). This right includes protecting the
environment for the benefit of present and future generations through legislative and other
measures particularly those contemplated in Article 69 as well as have obligations relating to
the environment as fulfilled under Article 70 (GoK, 2010).
2
In this view, participation ensures that the involved stakeholders come up with the
best decision on how to protect natural resources and ensure the sustainability of the
environment. Moreover, Article 42, 69, and 70 in the Kenyan Constitution guarantee
equality, such that citizens can compel the government to take actions to protect the
environment. In addition, people or communities can demand involvement in a proposed
project to guarantee equal opportunity (GoK, 2010).
Autonomy requires that people should have the opportunity to define and pursue their
vision in life. Together, equality and autonomy require that people be granted the opportunity
to participate in decisions that affect them personally as well as in those that concern the
public good. These participatory ideals of liberalism are part of the intrinsic value of public
participation. Under autonomy and equality, participation is not valued for the ends it
achieves, but because of the fundamental belief that each individual deserves and benefits
from the opportunity to take part in collective decisions.
Individuals benefit from participation by having their ideas implemented, getting
involved, and ensuring their rights are respected. Liberalism views individuals as ends in
themselves and therefore it values each person's right to participate regardless of whether
decisions are directly improved by such participation. The instrumental value of public
participation is largely based on the socio-political benefits, such as restoring public trust,
improving the quality of life of the citizens, improving the quality of policy decisions, and
enhancing democracy derived from involving the public in the decision making process.
Public participation also gets backing from Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, which states,
“Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned
citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have
3
appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public
authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their
communities and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States
shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making
information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative
proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided” (UNEP, 2000).
By incorporating diverse perspectives, for example, participation may raise points that
would otherwise be overlooked and thereby generate better decisions in environmental
management. Other benefits of public participation include sustainable development, which
can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders. Further, through public
participation, environmental issues can be adopted for better environmental management and
valued by all the stakeholders (Brody, 2003). It is important that each party represents the
interest of the environment in the public debate, as without such a party the environment will
not be put on the agenda. Although conflicts are unavoidable, they are made explicit during
public participation debate, thus making conflict handling more efficient. Public participation
hence facilitates conflict management.
Public participation assists in project understanding and reduction of public
opposition of the project. In view of this, the public, being the end user of a system, is the
only stakeholder that can measure and valuate the possible impacts of a project on the
environment. If the public is involved in the full decision making process, their concerns may
be met early on in the planning process when changes may be easier to make, rather than late
in the process when even small changes may cost both time and money (Abaza et al,&
UNEP, 2004). Public participation is very crucial to EIA because it facilitates the collection
4
of inputs of all the involved stakeholders on the possible environmental impacts of the
implementation of proposed projects.
EIA is an analytical process that systematically examines the possible environmental
impacts of the implementation of proposed projects, which influence the environment (Tin et
al, 2014). It is an interactive assessment and decision-making process, rather than a specific
technique. The EIA attempts to determine the impacts of proposed projects or activities on
the environment which helps identify opportunities for the interested parties to decide
whether the adverse impacts are acceptable or can be mitigated using suitable strategies.
Public involvement is one of the key steps of an EIA process and the success of this process
depends on how well the public participates in the process. Factors such as public awareness
and attitude are therefore essential for an effective EIA process (Wathern, 2013).
Public involvement is a cornerstone of the EIA process and nearly all EIA systems
make provision for some public involvement. The involvement included in EIA process
includes public consultation and public participation; however, the latter is a more interactive
and intensive process of stakeholder engagement. Most EIA processes are undertaken
through consultation rather than participation (Wathern, 2013). Public consultation is a
regulatory process by which the public's input on matters affecting them is sought, while
public participation is a democratic process of engaging people in thinking, deciding,
planning, and playing an active part in the development and operation of services that affect
their lives (Wathern, 2013).
At the minimum, public involvement must provide an opportunity for those directly
affected by a proposal to express their views regarding the proposal and its environmental
and social impacts. In this way, participation may reduce conflict and avert the backlash that
can result when people feel excluded which may facilitate more efficient and cost-effective
5
EIA participatory processes, along with improved public support for process outcomes
(André et al, 2006).
The purpose of involving the public is to inform the stakeholders about the proposal
and its likely impacts, canvass their inputs, views and concerns, and take account of the
information and views of the public in the EIA process and in the decision making process
(NEMA, 2003).The key objective of public involvement in the EIA process is to obtain local
and traditional knowledge that may be useful for decision-making, facilitate consideration of
alternatives, mitigation measures and trade-offs. It also ensures that important impacts are not
overlooked, benefits are maximized and conflicts are reduced through early identification of
contentious issues. It provides an opportunity for the public to influence project design in a
positive manner, improve transparency and accountability of decision-making and increase
public confidence in the EIA process (Wathern, 2013).
Public participation in decision-making is an essential part of the EIA process and is a
widely applicable tool for environmental decision making worldwide (Wathern, 2013).
Without adequate and meaningful public participation, the EIA process lacks the necessary
social component that makes it a truly effective sustainable environmental management and
development tool. This is because public participation bridges the gap of solely relying on
theoretical, technocratic, and governmental exclusivity of decision-making. Further, public
participation allows governments to implement policies, endorse laws applicable to
communities, and consider their needs (André et al, 2006).
Public participation at different levels raises accountability and reliability of
decisions, lessens risks of possible conflicts and inconsistencies and facilitates
implementation (Gugushvili, 2005).Open and participatory environmental decision-making
6
allow an informed citizenry to contribute to the efforts of a transparent and accountable
government in producing higher quality decisions concerning the environment (GoK, 2010).
The rights of access to information and public participation in decision-making in
environmental matters are enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 under Articles 35(1)
that states,
“every citizen has the right of access to information held by the state and the
information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any
right or fundamental freedom”(GoK, 2010). Additionally, Article 69 (1) (d) states
that, “the State shall encourage public participation in the management, protection
and conservation of the environment” (GoK, 2010).
Commitments to the application and institutionalization of the EIA process are also
enshrined in various global declarations of the international sustainable development agenda,
such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, the Johannesburg
Plan of Action, and the Environmental Initiative of New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD) (United Nations, 2002). Whilst the EIA is recognized globally as a
key support tool for sustainable development, balancing local socio-economic, political and
ecological priorities, especially in developing countries such as Kenya, aspects of its
implementation remains a challenge (Okidi et al, 2008). Weak policies and poor
implementation of the existing laws have resulted in some of the challenges affecting the
implementation of the EIA.
In Kenya, the philosophy and practice of EIA has been incorporated into the
legislative framework, such as in Section 58 (1) of the Environmental Management and
Coordination Act, 1999 and Section 3(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit
7
Regulations (EIAAR) of 2003 (GoK, 1999). The Kenyan Constitution (2010) Article 69 (1) d
states, “the State shall encourage public participation in the management, protection, and
conservation.” Equally, subsection (f) states, “the States shall establish systems of EIA,
environmental audit and monitoring of the environment” (GoK, 2010).
Environmental Impact Assessment is a formal decision-making process, planning and
management tool (Okidi et al, 2008). It has several objectives, which relate to the
identification of potential problems in the decision process, the provision for the balancing of
costs and benefits, the reduction of unacceptable impacts and the provision of inter-
disciplinary inputs to environmental decisions. By using EIA, both environmental and
economic benefits can be achieved, such as reduced cost and time for project implementation
and design, avoided treatment/clean-up cost, and impacts of laws and regulations. The EIA
process further gives individuals and communities a voice in issues that may bear directly on
their health, welfare and entitlement to a clean and healthy environment (Okidi et al, 2008).
Public concerns regarding continuous environmental degradation because of industrial
development projects prompted the emergence of EIA in the U.S in 1969 under the U.S
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since its creation, its effectiveness in both
theory and practice has been questioned (Cashmore et al, 2004). Much of the debate about
the effectiveness of EIA revolves around the factors that explain why EIA systems are
effective, the criteria that can be used to evaluate EIA system effectiveness, and how EIA
process can be improved (Glasson et al, 2005).
Effectiveness refers to whether something works as intended and meets the purpose(s)
for which it is designed (Sadler et al, 1996).The EIA is an effective environmental
assessment tool if it achieves three key purposes. First, it acts as an aid to decision-making;
this is because participation helps generate ideas on the environmental sustainability of a
8
proposed project and promotes project understanding and reduction of public opposition.
Second, it aids the proponent in achieving sustainable development, and third, it is a means to
good environmental management over the life of a project (Glasson et al, 2005). Good
environmental management and sustainable development can only be achieved through
participation because participation assists in project understanding and reduction of public
opposition and helps quantify economic benefits of a proposed project in the short-term and
long-term.
Although EIA has led to improvements in the environmental management of
development activities, its development practices have also been accompanied by a
significant amount of literature that identifies numerous weaknesses. For instance,
insufficient public participation results in unsustainability of a proposed project, conflict and
rejection from some stakeholders. Further, little monitoring and auditing results in poorly
done project, unattained goals and project oversights, and inadequate consideration of
alternatives may result in the unsustainability of proposed projects (Glasson et al, 2005).
Literature also states that EIA is effective if it achieves its goals for environmental protection,
is cost effective and assesses impacts throughout the life of a project (Morrison-Saunders &
Early, 2008).
In the EIA process, three levels exist, wherein the public can actively participate.
They include screening and scoping early in the EIA process, after the EIA report is
submitted to NEMA for review and advice and after the environmental report has been
published. In the first level, as per the provision of EMCA, the EIA expert tries to get the
views of the people likely to be affected by the proposed project so that their views can be
incorporated in the project (GoK, 1999).
9
The EIA report must therefore include proposals for mitigating the negative impacts
as well as ways of enhancing the positive impacts of the proposed project. In the second
level, NEMA gives copies of the EIA reports to Lead Agencies for their comments on the
proposed project and the efficacy of the report (National Environment Management
Authority, 2003). The Lead Agencies then forward their comments to NEMA within thirty
days. In the third level, the public is requested to comment on the proposed project after the
summary of the proposed project is published in one of the widely read newspapers and the
Kenya Gazette (Kameri-Mbote, 2003).
The contribution of public input to the assessment report is not only meant to identify
or access impacts and alternatives, but also helps decision makers to arrive at appropriate
decisions with regard to environmental issues arising from development projects. Public
participation has been criticized by participants as ineffective, as costly and time consuming
by proponents, and as inefficient by governments (Petts, 2001). Such criticism should be
regarded as valid and so should the argument that public participation is an essential tool in
the process of making sound environmental decisions.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The Constitution of Kenya acknowledges the role of public participation in
democratic governance and sustainable environmental management. Article 69 (d) of the
Constitution, states that, “the State shall encourage public participation in the management,
protection and conservation of the environment”(GoK, 2010), Article 69 (d)clearly
demonstrates the people’s commitment to public participation, as well as its responsibility to
ensure that public participation serves the purposes for which it is intended.
10
Public participation in EIA provides an opportunity for those directly affected by a
proposal to express their views regarding the proposal and its environmental impacts. This is
expected to reduce conflict through early identification of contentious issues and provide an
opportunity for the public to influence project design in a positive manner. The provisional
stoppage of the construction on one section of the Southern Bypass Road Project (SBRP) in
Nairobi South West (Africa Network for Animal Welfare and others vs. Director General,
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and others, 2013) even after an EIA
license was issued by the NEMA, poses some critical questions.
One of the questions is the use of public participation in influencing the decision
making process during the EIA process. The restriction was because the road project would
encroach on the Nairobi National Park. Since the public participation was undertaken during
the EIA process of the road project, what then went wrong during the deliberation and
negotiation process? Were the inputs from the public incorporated in initiation and design of
the project? Did the public have adequate information and resources to participate efficiently
and effectively during the EIA process?
This study examined the factors influencing the effectiveness of public participation
in the EIA process of the SBRP with the aim of establishing how the provision of
information, public awareness and public attitudes towards the project influenced public
participation during the EIA process of the proposed project.
11
1.3 Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study.
i. To what extent did the public participate during the EIA process of the SBRP in
Nairobi County?
ii. What factors influenced the level of public participation during the EIA process of the
road project?
iii. How did public participation affect the outcome of the EIA process of the road
project?
iv. How did the participation by the public inform the design and implementation of the
road project?
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The broad objective of this study was to examine the key factors that influenced the
effectiveness of public participation in the EIA process of the SBRP. The specific objectives
of the study were to
i. Establish the extent to which the public participated during the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) of the Southern Bypass Road Project (SBRP) in Nairobi County;
ii. Determine factors that influenced the level of public participation in the EIA process
of the Southern Bypass Road Project.
iii. Assess the impact of public participation on the EIA process of the Road project; and
iv. Assess the impact of public participation on design and implementation of the road
project.
12
1.5 Justification and Significance of the Study
The temporary stoppage of the construction of the SBRP by NET even after the
Environmental Impact Assessment license was issued by NEMA justifies the study. This is
because the project will take longer than it was expected and the costs may escalate. It is
important to establish what went long in the EIA process of the project and whether issues
raised in the public participation aspects of the EIA were taken into consideration.
This study provides recent information on the aspect of public participation
component of the EIA process in proposed development projects in Kenya. The findings will
help in understanding the functioning of the EIA process besides establishing ways to
improve the EIA process. The study finding will establish the extent to which the public is
aware of the environmental rights as entrenched in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and use
the information to enhance awareness that will in turn improve public participation in the EIA
process. The findings of the study are also important in promoting knowledge sharing with a
view to enhancing effective participation of the public in the EIA process, which is a policy
tool in promoting sustainable development.
1.6 Limitations and Scope of the Study
Limitations are potential weaknesses in a study and are out of a control. If the
researcher is using a sample of convenience, as opposed to a random sample, then the results
of the study cannot be generally applied to a larger population but only suggested.
A study conducted over a certain interval of time is a snapshot dependent on
conditions occurring during that time. A researcher must explain how he or she intends to
deal with the known limitations to avoid coming up with biased outcome of the study. The
study had a comprehensive coverage limitation that could lack complete representation
13
relative to the size of the project site. The project has a case in court and some lead agencies
who were consulted during the EIA process may not feel free to give information. The other
limitation was that it was difficult to locate the particular persons who attended the public
participation and consultative meetings and the ones who filled the questionnaires during the
EIA process. Random sampling of the residents of the project area helped minimize this
limitation because it increased the probably of locating the particular persons who attended
the public participation and consultative meetings which were held in the neighborhood.
1.7 Definition of Concepts and Terms
1.7.1 Public Participation
Public participation in government activities is important because it promotes a sense
of ownership among the citizens (Omolo, Annette, 2011). Governments often face resistance
from the local people upon the introduction of new ideas. In an effort to increase the level of
trust among the people, these governments result in promoting public participation.
Omolo defines public participation as, “The process through which stakeholders’
input and share control over development initiatives, decisions, and resources which affect
them.” Moseti, conversely, defines public participation as “the process of seeking and
facilitating the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision”
(Moseti, 2010).
Another definition by Andre indicates that public participation is “the involvement of
individuals and groups that are positively or negatively affected by, or that are interested in,
a proposed project, program, plan, or policy that is subject to a decision-making process”
(André et al 2006). Based on these definitions, the study adopts the Andre et al definition
because it is comprehensive.
14
Based on the André et al (2006) definition, three elements are important in public
participation. First, the public has a right to be involved in the government decision-making
process. Second, public participation promotes democratic governance and provides a
channel through which the citizen’s decisions are taken into account. Third, public
participation promotes human centric principles in government activities and this is important
in the promotion of democracy.
The Sherry’s Arnstein Ladder best describes the meaning and elements of public
participation (Arnstein, 1969). The Ladder identifies different levels and forms of public
involvement in EIA. The first lowest level is manipulation, which is a one-way flow of
information from the proponent to the public. In the manipulation level, the power holders
manipulate the citizens by using them as rubberstamps. The power holders create advisory
committees and boards for the sole purpose of "enlightening" the citizens and engineering
their support.
Genuine citizen participation does not take place under the manipulation level.
Rather, the power holders create an illusion of "participation" through Citizen Advisory
Committees and targeting the minorities for manipulation. For instance, many power holders
encourage citizens to form "neighborhood councils" or " advisory groups”, which often lack
legitimate function or authority to influence decisions. The level of manipulation is non-
participative because the power holders educate, persuade, and advise the citizens, not the
reverse.
The tokenism level involves informing, consultation, and placation. Informing
citizens of their rights, duties, and choices can be the most significant first step toward
genuine citizen participation. Nonetheless, too often the importance is placed on a one-way
flow of information, from the officials to citizens. Regularly, citizens are not provided with a
15
channel for feedback and power for negotiation. Under these circumstances, mostly when
information is presented at a late phase in planning, citizens have little chance to influence
the project design for their benefit. The news media, leaflets, placards, and responses to
inquiries are commonest tools used for one-way communication. Often, under the informing
level, the power holders can use meeting to provide superficial facts, discouraging
interrogations, or give irrelevant answers.
The consultation level is a two-way flow of information between the proponent and
the public with opportunities for the public to express views about the proposal (Arnstein,
1969). The level entails inviting citizens' opinions. However, if consulting the citizens is not
combined with other methods of participation, this level of the Sherry Ladder remains a
pretense since it offers no guarantee that citizen concerns and ideas will be taken into
account.
Attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings are the most frequently
methods used for consulting people. Moreover, when power holders limit the participation of
citizens' solely to this level, participation remains a window-dress formality. The consultation
level is inadequate participation because people are mostly observed as numerical
abstractions, and participation is determined by how many come to the gatherings, took
leaflets home, or answered a feedback form. The consultation level solely ensures citizens
have participated in a public participation without giving any input/ opinion because an
attitude survey is an invalid indicator of community opinion when used without other forms
of participation from citizens.
Citizen power is true participation because the level involves interactive exchanges
between the proponent and the public encompassing shared analysis, agenda setting and the
development of understood and agreed positions on the proposal and its impacts. At the
16
partnership level of the ladder, power is redistributed through compromise between citizens
and power holders. The involved parties agree to share preparation and policymaking
responsibilities through structures, such as joint policy boards, planning committees and
mechanisms for resolving impasses. After the establishment of ground rules through some
form of give-and-take, they are not subject to unilateral change.
Negotiations between citizens and public officials can also result in citizens achieving
dominant decision-making authority over a particular plan or program. At this level, the
ladder has been scaled to the point where citizens hold the significant cards to assure
accountability of the program to them. To resolve differences, power holders need to start the
bargaining process rather than respond to pressure from the other end. For instance, with the
promulgation of the Kenyan Constitution in 2010, the demand for community controlled
developments are on the increase. People are currently demanding some authority or control,
which guarantees that participants or residents can govern a program or an institution, be in
full charge of policy and managerial aspects, and be able to negotiate the conditions under
which the external players may change them.
The last level on the Sherry’s Ladder is citizen control. It entails face-to-face
discussion between the proponent and key stakeholders to build consensus and reach a
mutually acceptable resolution of issues, such as on a package of impact mitigation and
compensation measures.
17
Citizen control
Delegated power
Participation
Consultation
Information provision
Manipulation
Increasing empowerment
Figure1.1: The Arnstein’s ladder showing the different levels of public participation
(Arnstein, 1969).
Public participation is a democratic principle; hence, it plays a critical role in
democracy. Citizens hold the right and a duty to participate in civil society. Public
participation involves being informed, holding and attending community meetings,
protesting, and petitioning government and non-governmental entities. Through these roles,
public participation promotes democracy. Democracy promotes equality; hence, public
participation ensures all stakeholder involved in a project are treated equally and without
discrimination and are given equal opportunities, such as to question the sustainability and
environmental impacts of a proposed project.
1.7.2 Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool used in the evaluation of the effect of a
certain activity on the environment. Muigua defines EIA as,
18
“A process which produces a written statement to be used to guide decision-making,
which provides decision-makers with information on the environmental consequences
of proposed activities, programmes, policies and their alternatives; requires decisions
to be influenced by that information and ensures participation of potentially affected
persons in the decision-making process”(Muigua, 2012).
Based on Muigua definition of EIA, the sole objective of the EIA process is to
provide guidelines for decision-making before a project is authorized to start. Nkambwe and
co-authors define EIA as “a tool used to determine the social, economic, and environmental
impacts of major developments to determine the necessary mitigatory measures”(Nkambwe,
et al, 2006).The definition acknowledges the EIA is important in determining the
environmental impact of a project or activity prior to its commencement. Moreover, the
quality and comprehensiveness of the EIA determines the success of project design and
implementation.
Further, the EIA definition adopted by the International Association for Impact
Assessment (IAIA) is, “the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the
biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major
decisions being taken and commitments made” (International Association for Impact
Assessment, 2015). The study adopted the IAIA definition because it is all-inclusive.
Environmental monitoring can be described as a programme of recurring, systematic
studies that reveals the state of the environment (Joint Research Centre, 2014).The specific
aspects of the environment to be studied are determined by environmental objectives and
environmental legislation. The purpose of environmental monitoring is to assess the progress
made to achieve given environmental objectives and to help detect new environmental issues.
19
Thus, environmental monitoring is a later process that ensures the gains made during the EIA
are maintained after a project comes into effect.
Consequently, Environmental Audit (EA) is the systematic documentation, periodic
and objective evaluation of activities and processes of an ongoing project. The goal of EA is
to establish if proponents are complying with environmental requirements and enforcing
legislation. The purpose of EA is to determine the extent to which the activities and programs
conform to the approved environmental management plan. A comprehensive EA ensures a
safe and healthy environment at all stages of project operations and decommissioning.
The EIA is one of the many tools used to realize sustainable development. Other tools
include Environmental Management Frameworks (EMF), Strategic Environmental
Assessments (SEA), Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA), and Environmental
Management Programmes (EMPs) and among others (Dalal-Clayton & Sadler, 2005).The
EIA is important in achieving sustainable development because it is a decision tool employed
to identify and evaluate the likely environmental concerns of a planned development actions
to facilitate knowledgeable decision-making and rigorous environmental management.
The EIA acts as an ideal anticipatory mechanism that establishes quantitative values
for parameters. These parameters indicate the quality of the environment before, during and
after the proposed development activity, thus allowing measures that ensure environmental
compatibility (Kumar, 2014). The EIA presents a clear and concise picture of all benefits
and costs associated with alternative courses of action and provide a mechanism for
merging the concerns for environment and economics in the process of decision-making.
The introduction chapter introduces the various aspects of EIA process. It also lists
and defines common terms in environmental management. Chapter two entails a review of
20
existing literature to give an in-depth understanding of environmental management from the
perspective of various authors and researchers. The literature review helped inform the
study by identifying the research gaps.
21
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Various studies and government documents are reviewed in this section to provide an
understanding of the effectiveness of public participation in EIA processes. The study
focused on public participation concerning the Southern Bypass Road Project in Nairobi,
Kenya. The majority of the scholarly articles reviewed encompassed research from Kenya,
the East African region and elsewhere. The literature review was analyzed at three levels
namely, global, regional and national. The review focused on the Environmental Impact
Assessment process, public participation, factors influencing the success of public
participation in EIA, solutions for improving public participation, public participation on the
outcome of the Environmental Impact Assessment process and public participation on project
design and implementation.
2.2The Environmental Impact Assessment Process
The EIA process encompasses key and broad phases, namely screening, scoping,
impact analysis, mitigation and impact management, report writing, report review and
decision making, project implementation and follows up. Public participation cuts across
each of the steps of the EIA process. The screening process helps determine whether a
proposed project falls within the remit of the regulations and whether the proposed project is
likely to have a significant consequence on the environment and therefore necessitate an
assessment. The Scoping phase of an EIA helps determine the scope of concerns to be
contemplated in the assessment and described in the environmental report(UNEP, 2002).
22
The third phase entails compiling an environmental report. The report is prepared
when an assessment is required. The applicant must gather the relevant information required
to assess the probable significant environmental effects of the proposed development and
present an Environmental Report to NEMA for review and decision making.
During the fourth stage, planning and consultation are made. The stage entails the
publication of the Environmental Report, public participation and the consultation of the legal
‘Consultation Bodies’. These participants must be given an opportunity to present their views
about the proposed project and the Environmental Report. The final phase in the EIA process
is decision making. During the phase, the Environmental Report, alongside any other
information, which is pertinent to the decision, must be considered in deciding whether to
give consent for the proposed development (Dougherty et al, 1995).
Further, the public must be informed of the decision and the key rational for the final
verdict. The EIA process is primarily undertaken to determine the feasibility and sustainably
of the proposed project. The EIA is an important tool of sustainable development. The 1971
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, made the concept
of sustainable development an international agenda.
Whereas development is meant to bring about positive change, it can lead to
disagreements among various stakeholders. In the last few decades, many nations promoted
economic growth, as the drive for increased human wellbeing and little sensitivity was given
to adverse social or environmental impacts. Therefore, the need to stop the adverse impacts
and to ensure long-term benefits led to the concept of sustainability. The concept has been
accepted as a vital feature of development if the objective of a developed and better world is
to be met for this and future generations.
23
The role of EIA is to predict adverse impacts, to find ways to minimize them, and to
enhance positive effects. The EIA affords an irreplaceable opportunity to demonstrate ways
in which the environment may be improved as part of the development process. Further, the
EIA also forecasts the conflicts and challenges between the proposed project and the
surrounding environment. It provides a chance for mitigation measures to be incorporated to
minimize problems. Furthermore, it enables monitoring programmes to be started to assess
the future impacts and provide data on which managers can make informed decisions to avoid
environmental damage (Lawrence, 2003).
The EIA also acts as a management tool for planners and decision makers and
complements other project studies on planning and economics. Environmental assessment is
now accepted as an essential part of development planning and management. The purpose of
any EIA should be to support sustainable development, such that the beneficial
environmental effects are expanded while the adverse effects are restructured or
circumvented to the greatest extent possible. The EIA process helps select, design projects
with long-term viability, and therefore improves cost effectiveness and the environment
(Lawrence, 2003). The EIA reports should not just be considered as part of the approval
process.
2.2.1 Public Participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment
The Environmental Impact Assessment tool or process is meaningless without public
participation because a proposed project affects the immediate public. In addition, the EIA
process encompasses many challenges. In a study by Gugushvili (2005), in Georgia USA, the
quality and level of public participation in EIA, was determined. This study was conducted
through the analysis of all EIA processes that had been undertaken in the region since 2007.
24
Based on the analysis of the study, Gugushvili (2005) identified several issues
affecting public participation in the EIA process. They included lack of comprehensive and
institutional factors in the conduct of EIA, weak environmental sector, low levels of
participation of the private sector, and low attendance of the public in EIA related meetings.
The quality of published information is low and does not promote public awareness of the
process. It was acknowledged that both federal and state governments in the United States
should work toward strengthening EIA procedures and increasing the level of public
awareness.
Harmer (2005) undertook a study on the effectiveness of EIA in the United Kingdom
and found a dearth of research on the effectiveness of EIA process exists in the United
Kingdom. In particular, majority of the available research do not focus on whether the EIA is
used to its full potential. The focus of the study was to determine whether follow-up
procedures were important in ensuring public participation in the EIA process. Further, the
information for the study was obtained from various environmental consultants in the region
through questionnaires and telephone interviews. The consultants provided their opinions on
the advantages and disadvantages of follow-up in the EIA process. One of the major findings
of the study was that the EIA procedures are not very effective in the region and a need exists
for extended follow-up.
One of the factors identified to influence the EIA process was lack of mandatory
public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (Harmer, 2005).According to the
study, incorporation of mandatory public participation would ensure that there is feedback
that would in-turn enhance the implementation process of the projects. However, the cost of
such follow-up process is predicted to be expensive and hence requiring a lot of support from
the government and the local agencies in the region.
25
According to Zhou (2012) public participation in EIA has been in existence for
twenty years in China. However, no data exist on the effectiveness of the process. The study
focused on determining the effectiveness of public participation in the EIA process in the
study areas. Two cases of public participation in the EIA process were examined in China
and recommendations obtained from environmental consultants through interviews.
The findings showed lack of effectiveness with regard to how the process was carried
out. Further, there was little public knowledge on the importance of participating in the EIA
exercise. One key gap identified in the study was the incompleteness of the law governing
public participation in the EIA process. Moreover, the environmental agencies do not seem
to pay much regard to the importance of public participation. The study recommended more
research to be done to determine whether the patterns in the current study mirror those in
other areas.
Tang et al, (2005) undertook a research in China and Taiwan on the effectiveness of
public participation in EIA. They analyzed the documents that constituted various EIA
procedures in the two nations and interviewed EIA consultants to obtain information on how
the EIA processes were executed. According to the study, political interference and lack of
transparency in the EIA process majorly influenced the effectiveness of public participation.
One factor identified by the study was the lack proper structures to inhibit the high level of
politics in the process. In this sense, the current EIA processes in China and Taiwan are as
good as the politicians and environmental agencies want.
2.2.2 Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa
Public participation entails the issuing of sufficient information to all stakeholders as
a means of ensuring that the project is transparent. Wood (2003) assessed the strength and
weaknesses of EIA in Egypt, South Africa, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, and Tanzania.
26
The study found that the success of public participation in EIA processes varies from country
to country.
The information on the trends of EIA was obtained through the literature review of
electronic documents and interviews. Government and environmental agency personnel from
these developing countries participated in these interviews. Based on the findings of the
research, the various strengths and weaknesses related to the effectiveness of legal
procedures, comprehensiveness of the decision-making process, cost and benefit analysis,
level of public awareness, political will, donor policy and corruption were noted.
In a study undertaken in Nigeria by Agaja (2013), it was observed that the Nigerian
population has weakened the EIA process because the people do not engage in public
participation. Further, the population lacks experience in public participation and the
government does very little to educate its people on EItu (Agaja, 2013). Other factors
identified to affect the level of public participation include frustrations among the local
people and poor funding of the EIA procedures by the concerned parties.
In a study carried out in South Africa by Aregbeshola (2009), it was noted that the
country is the most successful in Africa with regard to the effectiveness of public
participation in EIA. This is because both the public and private sector in the South Africa are
knowledgeable on the importance of public participation. Private-public partnerships have
helped develop the knowledge. The study focused on the Gautrain project in South Africa
and aimed at determining how the decision making process in EIA could be improved.
Several factors and limitations were identified in the study including lack of public
involvement in the planning and design of various projects, such as the Gauteng Freeway
Improvement Plan and the Johannesburg International Airport (JIA) Free zone in South
27
Africa (Aregbeshola, 2009). Other limitations included lack of sufficient information to
promote participation and lack of public involvement in decision-making. However, the
researchers acknowledged that the EIA process in South Africa has continued to improve
over time as the population becomes more aware.
Kakonge (2006) emphasizes that for effective environmental management, there is
need to avail “user-friendly” environmental information for the affected people. Broadly,
public participation in planning projects and programs does not happen often in most African
countries because of lack of environmental legislation. A case study on ongoing projects in
nine countries in Africa included South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Angola, Malawi,
Seychelles, Namibia, Nigeria and Mozambique gave several insights about public
participation. The challenges characterizing the nine projects were representative of the
challenges affecting public participation in EIA in Sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, Sub-
Saharan Africa was moving in the rights way with regard to undertaking successful EIA
processes (Kakonge, 2006).
The author identified several issues that need assessing to ensure success in the EIA
process. These include defective laws that govern the EIA, dearth of data on EIA, and weak
enforcement of the current laws by the government and environmental agencies. Several
recommendations to ensure the effectiveness of public participation in EIA process include
encouraging the public to participate in the EIA, ensuring adequate funding of such
processes, enhanced transparency, and zero corruption.
In another study undertaken in South Africa by Muromba (2008),it was noted that
EIA in the region is integrative and holistic, addressing social, economic, and environmental
or ecological issues concurrently. The construction of N17 toll road from Springs to Ermelo
is one of the projects undertaken by the national roads agency of South Africa. Numerous
28
stakeholders were involved in the decision making process prior to the construction of the
road. Some of the prominent stakeholders include governments, agricultural sector,
industries, businesses, environmental organizations, community leaders, labor unions, and
other local organizations. Extensive consultations were done whereby officials visited
landowners whose land was going to be route for the road (Muromba, 2008). The purpose of
these meetings was to identify the environmental impact that the road would cause.
Further, the consultations took into consideration the disturbances the construction
would have on fauna and flora located along the route. Additional factors such as visual and
noise aspects, sites of cultural importance, land capability, and socio-economic issues were
considered in the project (Muromba, 2008). The decision on the route of the road factored all
these implications as a means of ensuring that the road is eco-friendly. It is evident, therefore
that public participation served to unearth all issues involved in construction development
(Wood, 2014).
The development of roads and associated infrastructure tends to have an effect on
both the ecosystem and socio-economic environment of the immediate community. Road
development projects normally have an effect on all aspects of the environment. The Lagos-
Ikorodu road is a 13km stretch and a single carriage. It was constructed with the main
purpose of linking the Lagos Metropolis with Ikorodu Township. Its construction was bound
to cause numerous environmental impacts. The potential impacts likely to be caused by the
development of this highway required categorization to determine the severity of the project
(Muromba, 2008).
For instance, it was important to incorporate public participation for purposes of
highlighting potential problems such as biological aspects, pollution, land use issues,
disruption of sensitive ecosystems, and disturbance on socio-economic environment. Aerial
29
photographs were used to compare land uses between 1989 and 2007 to determine the impact
of the highway on land use. At times, the development of a road project can major on its
negative aspects to determine the road’s viability. For instance, the site of Lagos-Ikorodu lies
on a low area, but construction still took place (Soneye, 2010).
Motorists plying this route normally experience challenges every year when it rains
due to heavy flooding. In the event of a flood, water borne diseases are rampant in this
region; thus, creating a public health risk. The current state of the road indicates the dangers
of failing to involve the public during the EIA process (Fonji et al, 2014).Public participation
is not adequate at most of the key stages of the EIA process in Africa (Kosamu et al, 2013).
Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Nigeria, lack extensive research on public participation
in their EIA process (Soneye, 2010).
2.2.3 Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in Kenya
According to Kameri-Mbote (2003), public participation in EIA in Kenya has often
been “adversarial” because NGOs and sectoral representatives often lobby and petition the
government on environmental and sustainability issues. Local people, with the support of
NGOs, have stopped projects that were environmentally unfriendly. This report contains an
analysis of the EIA processes in Kenya and the role that the public plays in decision-making.
In an effort to analyze the aforementioned concept, the author analyzes both World
Bank and non-World Bank funded projects. Particularly, the author identified factors that
have inhibited the level of public participation namely; lack of legislative reform, weakened
civil society, and lack of effective implementing institutions for EIA. One major gap
identified is the scarcity of research on public participation of EIA in Kenya.
30
2.3 Factors influencing the level of public participation in the EIA
According to Walker (2012), one of the major determinants of citizen’s participation
in EIA is availability of information. Inadequate or insufficient access to information by the
citizens in Kenya leads to the lack of enforcement of the rules and regulations pertaining to
public participation. Low literacy levels contribute to lack of information among the people
and hinder their ability to receive information. Illiteracy affects the people’s ability to access
EIA reports as information is availed to the public through the local dailies and the Kenya
Gazette (Okello et al, 2009).
Moreover, some areas in the country are very remote and lack access to newspapers
and the Internet. Thus, information regarding EIA does not reach everyone in the population.
Lack of access to information and low literacy levels has previously affected the level of
public participation in the EIA processes in South Africa (Walker, 2012). According to the
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), in Kenya, it is important to promote
the participation of the local citizens in EIA (National Environment Management Authority,
2011).
However, the integration of the citizens in EIA seems to lack in practice because the
government does not avail adequate information about road projects to the public (Walker,
2012). The availability of information to the public is restricted since majority of the
population have no idea on what EIA entails. The majority of the people are therefore not
aware of the important role they are required to play in EIA procedures. Public frustrations
due to delays or complete lack of dissemination of EIA findings affect the level of citizens’
participation (Montes, 2008).
31
In a community-based EIA study in Kenya by Montes (2008), it was noted that the
EIA process lacks balance of power and the elite community members seem to participate
more in these activities compared to the non-elite. Moreover, there is under-representation of
women and the youth in the processes. This results in frustration and lack of participation in
other EIA processes.
Lack of competence and human power affects the public participation in the EIA
process due to the weaknesses of the government institutions and opposition from the local
people (Kameri-Mbote, 2003). According to Saidi (2010), both developed and developing
countries are characterized by challenges in the EIA processes. One major challenge is the
lack of experience among the personnel to implement EIA processes. The personnel are
unable to carry out such activities with the required standards and rigor. This has resulted in
the lack of confidence among the local people toward EIA. In this regard, Kameri-Mbote
(2003) acknowledges the need to re-assess the relationship between the government and the
population.
2.4 Mechanisms of promoting public participation in EIA process
According to Africa Centre for Open Governance (AFRICOG), the Kenyan
government can promote public participation in EIA by enhancing the distribution of
information to the local population (Africa Centre for Open Governance, 2012).Public
education is important in promoting awareness of the EIA processes. In an effort to increase
the level of public participation, the concerned governments should hold more meetings with
the public and provide incentives, such as putting the community in charge instead of
dictating everything (Africa Centre for Open Governance, 2012).
32
In addition, the government agencies should ensure that the vulnerable population
such as women and children are well presented during the public participation. The
government can ensure women and children (through their respective learning institutions)
participate in public participation by ensuring a certain proportion of the grassroots
committees members are women and children (Africa Centre for Open Governance, 2012).
According to Walker (2012), the citizens who are knowledgeable about the EIA
should make an effort of participating in such processes. They should demand that ‘public
participation be well defined in the Kenyan Constitution through lobbying. In an effort to
reach the illiterate population, the government agencies should consider the use of the
national language or enlist interpreters to translate the EIA proceedings to the illiterate
participants in their mother tongue. This would ensure that the poor and marginalized
members of the communities participate effectively in these processes (Okello & Douven,
2008).
Moreover, there should be translation of EIA proceedings in the local media channels
to local dialects. The introduction of interactive methods such as public visits during EIA
would promote public participation (Murombo, 2008). This intervention has been effective
in South Africa. Introduction of such an intervention in Kenya would promote understanding
and interest of the public on environmental management.
2.5 Effect of public participation on the outcome of the EIA process
The effect of public participation on EIA can only be assessed when the public
participation component is effective. An effective public participation process is one that
comprehensively educates the public and provides opportunity for dialogue between them
and the government (Dalton, 2005). The information availed to the public should include any
33
data that may influence the decision of the participants. Such information should also be
easily available to the public and it should promote their understanding on the EIA process
(McGlashan, & Williams, 2003).
Moreover, the information should have the capability to increase the level of
awareness and interest among the public with regard to EIA. Irandu and Kenya Alliance of
Resident Associations found out that the public takes part in public participation, but it is not
fully involved because the government solely takes part in the designing of the road, for
instance, during the Thika Highway Improvement Project (Irandu & Malii, 2013).
The effectiveness of public participation is determined by the availability and quality
of the information given to the participants by the government agencies regarding the EIA
(Marzuki, 2009). Furthermore, such information needs to be planned by the government and
the public should be continuously informed on the EIA processes. The public should know
that participating and contributing in EIA will consequently affect their lives in the future.
‘Meaningful participation’ as stated earlier, can only occur if the public is knowledgeable on
the importance of the EIA processes (Marzuki, 2009).
One major impact of public participation on EIA procedures is the affirmation of the
democratic principles to the people. This only occurs when the government allows the public
to give opinion in certain decision-making processes. Such actions promote participatory
democracy and allow the citizens to be empowered. Conversely, such actions enable the
marginalized to air their opinion and hence promote their sense of belonging (World Bank,
1996; Sinclair & Diduck, 2001, Walker, 2012).
The most vulnerable in society have very little influence on government decision yet
they are the ones mostly affected by such decisions (Kende-Robb & van Wicklen, 2008).
34
Therefore, public participation in EIA reverses this status quo and affords them a voice in the
formulation of policies (Jackson, 2001). In reference to environmental management, the
vulnerable population are classified as those that rely on the environment as their source of
livelihood such as farmers (Kende-Robb & van Wicklen, 2008).
Involvement of the public has been reported to promote the quality of decisions
regarding EIA (Laurian, 2004). It also increases the levels of awareness among the citizens
on environmental management (Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003).Participating in environmental
decision-making enhances social learning among the public and in turn leads to the
development of outcomes that are sustainable in the end. Furthermore, it ensures that these
outcomes also meet the needs of the citizens, as they understand their problems better
(Rauchmeyer& Risse, 2005).
The EIA process also promotes the legitimacy of the outcomes identified in the
process because those most likely to be affected by the environmental management activities
are given a chance to participate actively in decision-making. The incorporation of citizens
from different educational and social backgrounds ensures that the EIA process integrates
various different forms of knowledge. The process is hence afforded the opportunity to
integrate both traditional and modern forms of knowledge, which is important in the decision-
making component (Dietz & Stern, 2008; Rauchmeyer & Risse, 2005).
Moreover, the diversity of the public results in varying levels and perspectives
regarding the environmental project under scrutiny. The result of such deliberations is quality
and well-reflected decisions. Perhaps the incorporation of individuals from various
backgrounds to participate in Kenya will result in a more effective process that is different
from what has been there in the past. As aforementioned, public participation, in EIA and in
Kenya has not always addressed the interest of the public (Kameri-Mbote, 2003).
35
2.6 Effects of public participation on project design and implementation
Public participation in EIA tends to improve the design and implementation of
projects (Kende-Robb & van Wicklen, 2008). It also increases the social acceptability of a
project or program. Moreover, costs can accrue if the public is not involved in the EIA
process. An example is the mining operation in Northern Tanzania in which the government
failed to involve the public in EIA (Hughes, 1998).
As a result, conflicts arose in the region for a long time and this delayed the design
and implementation of the project. Moreover, the conflicts resulted in the government
accruing more costs to settle the conflict. The participation of the public on EIA reduces the
occurrence of conflicts and delays resulting from such conflicts (Kende-Robb & van
Wicklen, 2008). Moreover, it makes the government more accountable and transparent and
hence making the implementation phase of the project faster.
According to Jackson (2001), the level of public acceptance of any project or activity
determines how fast the project will be designed and implemented. In addition, involving the
public in EIA is likely to make the project more acceptable since it offers the stakeholders a
forum to develop close relationships (Jackson, 2001). Such relationships come in handy
during the project design and implementation phases, as there is likely to be minimal
opposition to the project. Moreover, the level of certainty on the final decision after EIA
ensures that the government kick-start the project activities within a short time (Heiland,
2007).
It is important to involve the interest of the public prior to the commencement of the
EIA (Kende-Robb & van Wicklen, 2008). This ensures that they participate in constructive
dialogue during the EIA process and hence become more accepting of the project during its
36
design and implementation. The comprehensiveness of the information provided by the
project opponents affects the attitudes and perception of the public toward the projects. It also
ensures that they have in-depth understanding of the project and hence hastening the EIA and
subsequent activities. The stakeholders should be involved in all levels of environmental
projects, EIA, planning, design, implementation, and evaluation as this ensures sustainability
of the projects (Heiland, 2005).
2.7 Gaps Identified in Previous Studies
Based on the literature reviewed above, several gaps have been identified with regard
to public participation in EIA. First, in most African countries including Kenya adequate
knowledge lacks about public participation. Second, there is a dearth of research on the extent
of public participation in EIA in Kenya. There is also scanty information on the factors that
hinder public participation in EIA in Kenya. The available research agrees on the need for
additional comprehensive studies on public participation, in EIA, especially in Kenya. Third,
although there are few studies that have been undertaken in Kenya, the researchers have not
provided conclusive solutions toward public participation in EIA.
Poor legislation regarding public participation in EIA exists; hence, additional
research would offer proper guidelines to the public and the project opponents on how to go
about these activities. Last, poor governance is major reason African governments fail to
provide comprehensive education to the public on the importance of participating in EIA.
2.8 The Theoretical Framework of the Study
The theoretical framework looks at various theories that govern public participation in
the EIA process. The conceptual framework on the other hand, looks at the analysis of
various variables that are important in determining the success of public participation in EIA.
37
Public participation, a defining concept of deliberative democracy theory, is experiencing a
renaissance among both scholars and policymakers (Abelson et al, 2006). Democratic theory
tells us that public participation is undertaken for different purposes and with different
underlying goals.
Tensions exist between views of participation as an essential element of successful
democracy and participation as a means for achieving something else, be it a specific
decision outcome, a desire for more informed, accountable or legitimate decision making, or
perhaps to delay or share the blame for a difficult decision (Abelson et al, 2006).
Although the details of democratic theory are contested, democracy embraces the idea
of popular sovereignty, or rule of the people as proposed by Douglas (Huston, 2006).
Because democratic decisions typically reflect the preferences of the majority and place
minority rights and interests at risk, democracy incorporates the political philosophy of
liberalism, which emphasizes ideals of equality and autonomy.
Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation
determine public policy, the laws, and the actions of their state together, requiring that all
citizens have an equal opportunity to express their opinion. According to all versions of
democratic theory, however they may differ on the extent to which fully democratic
institutions are thought to be practicable, "democracy" is about the authorship of collective
decisions (Green & Cornell, 2005). The Aarhus Convention establishes a number of rights of
the public (individuals and their associations) with regard to the environment. The three
pillars of the Convention include Access to environmental information, public participation in
environmental decision-making and access to justice (Green & Cornell, 2005).
38
2.9 Conceptual Framework of the Study
The conceptual framework is based on what is known concerning factors influencing
the effectiveness of public Participation of the EIA process. The independent variables in the
framework includes the extent to which the public participates in the EIA, such as number of
people who participated, number of institutions that participated, and distance of the
participants from the project site.
Second, the factors that determine the level of public participation in the EIA included
the education level, income levels, awareness of public participation requirements in
development projects, and mobilization of the public. Additionally, how public participation
affects the outcome of the EIA was influenced by factors, such as issues raised by the public
on the project, issues raised by the institutions affected, and issues raised by the regulator
(NEMA).
Last, the impact of public participation on the project design and implementation was
influenced by displacement, compensation to the public and trade off with institutions. The
dependent variable in the study was the Effective Public Participation in EIA Process was
further influenced by moderating variables like the proponents practice and the intervening
variable like the government policies.
39
Moderating variable
Independent variables
Dependent variable
Intervening variables
Figure3.1: Conceptual Framework showing the key factors influencing the effectiveness
of public participation in the EIA Process in Kenya (Source; Author, 2015).
The chapter on the study design and methodology outlines the theoretical breakdown
of the methods used in the study. Additionally, the chapter outlines the protocol for
conducting the study, which allowed the investigator to transform the theoretical framework
into an operational one. The methodology chapter outlined how the data was collected,
cleaned, analyzed, and represented to be meaningful.
Nature of project
Awareness levels
Utility of Public Participation in the
EIA Process
Proponent’s practice • Timing of the EIA process • Information provided • Venue of meetings • Language used
Existing laws, Policies &
Regulations
Distance to the project
Public Altitude
Occupation
Education Level
40
CHAPTER THREE
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the study site and the manner in which the research study was
designed and conducted to achieve the objectives of the study. Data collection methods and
identification of sources of data together with how the data was analyzed are presented in
various sections of the chapter.
The Nairobi SBRP in Kenya is a 28.6km dual carriageway road which involved the
construction of 12km slip roads and 8.5km of service roads. The road is designed to the Class
A-International Trunk Road Standard. The Nairobi Southern Bypass Road joins from
Mombasa Road near the Ole Sereni Hotel and runs along the Nairobi National Park boundary
across Langata Road into Kikuyu Township to connect the Nairobi-Nakuru highway at
Rironi, Limuru. The Kenya government through the Kenya National Highways Authority
(KeNHA) awarded the construction of the road to China Road and Bridge Corporation. The
road project began in early 2012 however in mid-2012, several interested parties including
NGOs and lobby groups, such as the Friends of the Nairobi National Park (FoNNP) and
KWS, opposed the project on the grounds that it encroached on the Nairobi National Park.
The lobby groups petitioned the National Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Appeal
No.NET/91/2012) to stop the construction on the contested areas. The discussion surrounding
the Nairobi SBRP in the contested sections; between Ole Sereni Hotel on Mombasa road and
the Carnivore Hotel on Langata Road led to this study (Ndaiga, 2014).
41
3.2 Study Site
The study was based at the Southern Bypass Road Project (SPRP)in South West of
Nairobi within the Nairobi Road Network Master Plan. An EIA study report of the project,
which had a component of public participation, was conducted by Africa Waste and
Environment Management Centre a Firm of Experts registered with the NEMA of Kenya.
The study focused on reviewing the EIA study report of the SBRP and in particular the public
participation aspect of the report with the aim of examining the utility of public participation
in the EIA process. The Public Participation aspect in the EIA report of the road project was
well addressed.
Figure3.2: Map of the study area
The section of the SBRP stopped is indicated by the green arrow (Courtesy of Google
Maps 2015)
3.3Study Design
Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) define research design as the planned structure and
strategy of investigations concerned with obtaining answers to research questions. The study
research made use of both primary and secondary data. Primary data are those that are
42
collected for the first time and are always given in the form of raw materials and originals in
character. The data may need the application of statistical methods for the purpose of analysis
and interpretation while secondary data is existing data that has already been collected and
have gone through the statistical breakdown.
The primary data comprised of information collected from the people and institutions
affected by the road project. The study participants included fifty ordinary citizens from the
neighborhood of the road project where a public meeting was held during the EIA process. In
addition, data were collected from the Firm of Experts who conducted the EIA study for the
road project. Among the institutions interviewed were the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS),
Kenya Forest Service, Kenya National Highway Authority (KeNHA) and East Africa
Wildlife Society. Different questionnaires for the institutions and the study participants were
used.
Discussions were also held with the National Environment Management Authority,
National Environment Tribunal and the Public Complaints Committee and academics.
Relevant information was obtained from textbooks, scholarly articles, reports, and journals to
argument primary data. Of particular interest was the EIA Study report of the SBRP and the
National Environmental Tribunal (NET) Ruling on the Tribunal Appeal No.NET/91/2012.
The design suited the study, as it did not allow for manipulation of study variables. It
employed the use of questionnaires and content analysis of documents related to effectiveness
of EIA process as a tool to sustainable development. The people affected by the road project
were interviewed. The interview process focused on those that had been involved during the
EIA process. This was important to address the first and the second objectives of the study.
43
3.4 Sample Size
Purposive sampling allowed the researcher to get specific information with respect to
the study objectives. The study focused on the Lead Agencies who participated in the public
participation exercise of the EIA of the road project. Among them were Kenya Wildlife
Service, Kenya Forest Service, Kenya Roads Board, City Council of Nairobi, Water
Resources and Management Authority, Mines and Geology Department, Kenya National
Highway Authority (KeNHA) and East Africa Wildlife Society. The study also interviewed
fifty ordinary citizens from the Kibera area where one of the public meetings was held during
the EIA process. The sample size was determined through establishing contacts with the
persons that had taken part in the public participation.
3.5 Data Needs, Types and Sources
The study used both primary and secondary data. Primary data was collected using
questionnaires and personal interviews to supplement information obtained through the
secondary data sources. Open-ended and close-ended questions were designed for the study.
The open-ended questionnaires were used among the experts because they facilitate expert
opinion. Close-ended questionnaires allow the researcher to get explicit answers from the
participants and data from these questionnaires is easily quantifiable. However, the closed
ended questionnaires can lead to the collection of incorrect data if the questions do not reflect
on the study objectives.
Open-ended questionnaires give respondents a chance to think rationally and avoid
giving pre-conceived answers. This allowed supplementary probing to avoid limiting the
respondent’s answers. The research instruments were administered but respondents who
could write filled the questionnaires. The respondents were taken through the process of how
44
to answer the questions and were given ample time to fill and return the questionnaires. One
of the advantages of the questionnaires is that they are more acceptable to respondents since
the questions are similar (Royse, 2011).Secondary data was collected from literature review
and information gathered from the NEMA offices and other lead agencies, including Kenya
National Highways Authority, Kenya Wildlife Service and other Non-Governmental
Organizations.
3.6 Data Collection and Analysis Techniques
Data were collected validating the questionnaire through a field-testing. The data
collected entailed the demographic characteristics of the participants, such as age, gender,
level of education, and employment status of the participants. In addition, data about the level
of public participation was collected from the participants involved in the EIA process, who
involved persons adjacent to the SBRP. Further data were collected from Environmental
Impact Assessment Experts and Institutions.
After the data had been collected a cross-examination was done to ascertain the
accuracy, competences and identify those items wrongly responded to in the questionnaire.
Descriptive statistics such as percentages and frequencies were used computed to provide
answer to some of research questions. Quantitative data was entered into the computer for
analysis using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 17. This
processed the frequencies and percentages, which were used to discuss the findings. Tables,
pie charts and bar graphs are used to present the data. Qualitative data was analyzed
according to the themes in the objectives of the study.
45
The chapter on study design and methodology provided the techniques used to collect
and manipulate data. Chapter four presented the results and discussed the results and how
they answered the research questions.
46
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The chapter presents the results obtained during data analysis and a discussion of the
same. The discussion will entail explaining the results, and linking and comparing the results
with past researches.
4.2 Results and Discussions
Demographic
The demographic data on gender showed low participation of females in the research
at 6% compared to males at 94.0%. Low participation of women in development matters is
due to lack of empowerment, poverty, low education levels, and illiteracy. The low economic
status of the people residing in the study areas explains the low participation of women.
According to a study done in 2012 women participate less in economic development because
of less empowerment, low access to information, poverty, and illiteracy (Duflo, 2012).
The data on the respondent’s age is presented in Table 4.1.The results show that the
age of most of the respondents in the study were between 26 and 35 years. The youthful
nature of the respondents may be an indication of social demographic of the study area and
accessibility to information. The high level of public participation among young people might
have been because they had higher level of education, they were more accessible, had higher
level of awareness, and understood the importance of the EIA process. Accordingly, in the
future, efforts should be considered to ensure equal representation in terms of age groups.
47
Table 4:1. Distribution of respondents by age
Age Group Frequency of
response
Percentage of
response
18-25 8 16.0
26-35 28 56.0
36-45 5 10.0
46-55 6 12.0
Above 65 3 6.0
Total 50 100.0
Regarding the level of education of the respondents, the results are shown in Table
4.2. From the results is clear that the level of education influences the level of public
participation because education increases the level of awareness. People with secondary and
diploma level of education may have participated in the EIA process because of a higher
level of awareness. The low level of participation among respondents with degrees is because
the study area is a poor neighborhood.
Table 4:2. Distribution of respondents by highest academic qualifications
Level of Education Frequency of
response
Percentage of
response (%)
Primary 11 22.0
Secondary 14 28.0
Post-Secondary Certificate 2 4.0
Diploma 14 28.0
Degree 9 18.0
Total 50 100.0
48
Regarding place of residence of the respondents, the responses are shown in Table
4.3. The results indicate that 76.0% of respondents who took part in the study lived in Kibera.
Accordingly, the majority of the sample size came from Kibera. The project affected Kibera
residents more than the other residents along the road project because of their proximity to
the project
Table 4:3. Place of residence of the respondents
Place of residence Frequency of
response
Percentage of
response
Rongai 6 12.0
Kibera 38 76.0
Langata 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
The distance between the respondents’ residence and the road project varied as shown
in Table 4.4. The results show that a large number of the people who lived within the
proximity to the road project (0-100M) took part in public participation. In addition, the
results of the study imply that participation of the residents was crucial in establishing the
impact the road had on the environment and residences.
Table 4:4. Distance between the respondents’ residence and the road project
Distance in Meters Frequency of response Percentage of response
0 -50 9 18.0
51-100 18 36.0
101-150 9 18.0
151-200 8 16.0
>200 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
49
In terms of the employment status of the respondents, the responses are shown in
table 4.5. The high level of participation of business and informally employed persons in the
study may be an indication that these residences wanted to know the benefits of the road
project to the community. These findings affirm what has been found in other studies, which
found that the socioeconomic concerns of the residents about the project influence the level
of public participation (Wetang’ula, 2010). During the EIA process on the Eburru geothermal
power project, in Naivasha, Kenya, the study noted that the residents of Eburru were
concerned about the benefits of the project to the area.
It was further noted that employment opportunities, provision of basic amenities, local
business development, and other socioeconomic concerns influenced the level of public
participation (Wetang’ula, 2010). The data implies that different categories of respondents
were involved in the study and hence different responses on how the road project affected
them. A varied distribution of the respondents by occupation ensures that concerns about the
project that affect all sectors of the economy in the project area are raised and considered as
per each sector; therefore guaranteeing inclusivity.
Table 4: 5. Distribution of the respondents by occupation
Nature of Employment Frequency Percentage
Formal employment 3 6.0
Informal employment 20 40.0
Business 22 44.0
Student 5 10.0
Total 50 100.0
50
On how the respondents got information about Road’s Environmental Impact
Assessment, the responses are shown in Table 4.6. The results indicate that 17.0% people
were informed of the road project EIA through public notices and that the majority of the
respondents were aware of the Road Project. It is worth noting that during the Eburru
Geothermal Project EIA public participation, the stakeholders were informed through formal
letters, meetings, and workshops (Wetang’ula, 2010). Therefore, a combination of several
methods of informing the public should be embraced.
Table 4:6. How respondents got information about the Road’s EIA
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
None 11 22.0
Newspaper 12 24.0
Public notice 17 34.0
Community/Religious gatherings 6 12.0
All of the above 4 8.0
Total 50 100.0
On the manner of participation in the EIA the responses are shown in Table 4.7.
Results show most respondents participated in the EIA through consultative and public
participation meetings. This agrees with the findings by Wetang’ula (2010) who noted that
the initiators of the project used stakeholder’s consultative meetings and public consultation
meetings. Shareholders consultative and public participation meetings are therefore ideal for
public participation involving environmental matters as they give the concern and the
affected people a chance to air their views.
51
Table 4:7. Manner of participation in Environmental Impact Assessment
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Non response 20 40.0
Focus group discussions 9 18.0
Consultative and public participation
meetings
14 28.0
Telephone 7 14.0
Total 50 100.0
Regarding the stage of participation in the EIA, the responses are shown in Table
4.8.From the table it is evident that 6% of the respondents participated at the screening stage,
the same number at impact assessment and evaluation stages of the EIA process. The
majority of the residents in the road project area participated in the EIA process after
publication of the EIA project report in the Newspapers. These results indicate a failure of the
EIA process since the communities and stakeholders should take part early in the EIA process
before the start of a project.
Table 4:8. Stage of participation in the EIA
Stage of participation Frequency Percentage
Non Participants 14 28.0
Screening 3 6.0
Scoping 8 16.0
Baseline study 11 22.0
Impacts Assessment and Evaluation 3 6.0
After publication of the EIA report in the
Newspapers
11 22.0
Total 50 100.0
52
In a study by Marara et al, (2011), it was noted that East African nations are facing
challenges implementing the EIA process, because the issues raised during public
participation are often ignored, as the legislations governing the EIA and the process are
undeveloped. In addition, the administrative and procedural frameworks currently in place
are weak as they lack the autonomy of the competent authority. In view of this, stakeholders
need to be involved early in the public participation to avoid the conflicts that arise when
their inputs are ignored such as litigations.
On whether the public was consulted early during the project planning and design, the
responses are shown in Table 4.9. From the results it is evident that while the stakeholders
had information on the project via several medium of communication, it is evident that low
level of consultation during the planning and design phase happened. The results show that
64.0% of the participants strongly disagreed that the public were consulted early during the
project planning and design. The low level of consultation may be indicative of how public
participation is often overlooked, the weakness of the legislations governing the EIA process,
and the existence of weak administrative and procedural frameworks in Kenya (Marara et al,
2011).
Table 4:9. Public was consulted early during the project planning and design
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 6 12.0
Agree 3 6.0
Unsure 9 18.0
Disagree 13 26.0
Strongly Disagree 19 38.0
Total 50 100.0
53
On whether the needs and purpose of the project were clearly stated when the EIA
process started, the response are shown in Table 4.10. The results show that majority of the
respondents (58.0%) agreed that the need and purpose of the project were clearly stated when
the EIA process started. However, in a study done in 2009, participants pointed that even
when the needs and purpose of a project are explained when an EIA process starts, the public
are either not given an adequate chance to participate, play a passive role, or are unaware of
what is happening (Marara et al., 2011). The need and purpose of the project should always
be clearly stated to ensure the public effectively deliberate during the public participation
meetings. Measures should therefore be put in place to ensure that the need and purpose of
the project are clearly stated when the EIA process starts. This helps the stakeholder raise
valid queries and give applicable feedback as per the parameters of the project.
Table 4:10. Respondent’s opinions on the need and purpose of the project
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 16 32.0
Agree 13 26.0
Unsure 9 18.0
Disagree 6 12.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
On whether adequate information on the negative and positive impacts was provided,
the responses are shown in Table 4.11. The results show that many respondents agreed that
adequate information was provided on the negative and positive impacts of the project. The
results indicate that the proponents of a development project should ensure adequate
information on the negative and positive impacts of the project is provided. The information
54
is important as it helps the stakeholders evaluate the projects and decide on its viability. A
project’s benefits should outweigh its demerits to guarantee sustainability.
Table 4:11. Adequate information on the negative and positive impacts was provided
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 14 28.0
Agree 11 22.0
Unsure 16 32.0
Disagree 3 6.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
Regarding the sufficiency of data and maps provided to enable the participants to
comprehend and visualize the project, the responses are shown in Table 4.12. Result shows
that 40.0% of the respondents agree that data and maps provided were sufficient to enable
them to comprehend and visualize the project. The high percentage of respondents who were
unsure may be an indication of low level of awareness, illiteracy, lack of technical knowledge
to understand the maps, and language barrier. In their study, Okello, and others noted that
most maps used in public participation in Kenya are available in English and participants
reported inadequate explanation of the technical materials (Marara et al, 2011). When people
are involved and provided with essentials of a project, they can participate in such projects
based on facts. Proponents should take responsibility of ensuring that tools and technical
materials are well understood by stakeholders and where possible simplified to facilitate
participation for easy understanding which will lead to effective participation.
55
Table 4:12. Sufficiency of data and map sprovided
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 14 28.0
Agree 6 12.0
Unsure 21 42.0
Strongly Disagree 9 18.0
Total 50 100.0
On whether sufficient time was given to participants to assess the implications on the
project and submit their concerns, the responses are shown in Table 4.13. Results show that
only 40.0% of respondents agreed that sufficient time was given to participants to assess the
implication of the project and submit their concerns. The findings may be attributed to either
inadequate information provided to the public or information provided too late. In a study
carried out in Kenya and Tanzania, it was noted that information and notification to public
participation meetings were provided to participants too late to facilitate informed
participation (Spaling et al, 2011). Stakeholders should be given sufficient time to allow the
assessing of the implications of the project and submission of their concerns.
Table 4:13. Sufficient time for assessment of project implications was provided
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 10 20.0
Agree 10 20.0
Unsure 18 36.0
Disagree 6 12.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
56
On whether the public was allowed to express their views, values and fears of the
project, the responses are shown in Table 4.14. Results indicate that 64.0% of the respondents
agreed that the public was allowed to express their views, values and fears of the project.
Expression of views, values and fears of the project enables participants of a project to get
involved in the implementation process. These finds agree with of the finding on the Thika
Highway Improvement Project (Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations & CSUD, 2012).
The study found that the public was given the opportunity to express their views and values
(Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations & CSUD, 2012). This indicates that the public in
Kenya is participating and what is still not clear is the utility of the participation
Table 4:14. Public expression of views, values and fears of the project
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 21 42.0
Agree 11 22.0
Unsure 12 24.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
.
In Table 4.15 the results show that 62.0% of the respondents were of the opinion that
the public was involved in decision-making process. With the implementation of the Kenyan
Constitution 2010, public participation in development projects has been made mandatory.
Accordingly, the government should put more efforts to ensure the maximum involvement of
stakeholders in the decision-making process during road projects. One approach that the
Kenyan government may use is giving stakeholders sufficient time to allow the assessing of
the implications of the project and submission of the stakeholders’ concerns.
57
Table 4:15. Responses on public involved in decision-making process
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 14 28.0
Agree 17 34.0
Unsure 13 26.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
On whether there was a process of dialogue and mutual agreements among the
participants, the responses are shown in Table 4.16. Results indicate that 70.0% of the
respondents agreed that a process of dialogue and mutual agreement among participants
existed; therefore, efforts should be put in place to promote the two aspects further. Dialogue
and mutual agreement framework are important because they serve as a starting point for
relationship building with stakeholders to solve the environmental issues. Additionally, they
result in deeper associations and understanding between the proponents and the stakeholders;
thus offering benefits and real value to the communities and other stakeholders (Alam et al
2015).
However, during implementation of the road project the proponent (the Government
of Kenya) ignored the mutual agreements resulting in the litigation, which stopped the
construction of some sections of the road. Accordingly, the process of dialogue and mutual
agreement should be enhanced to ensure maximum benefits to the proponents and
stakeholders.
58
Table 4:16. Responses on public involvement in dialogue and mutual agreements
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 20 40.0
Agree 15 30.0
Unsure 9 18.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
.
On whether there were adequate opportunities for everyone to participate in the
process, the responses are shown in Table 4.17. Results show that 64.0% of the respondents
agreed that opportunities existed for everyone to participate in the EIA process. In Kenya, the
policy development in the environmental field is seeing an increasing recognition of the value
of public participation in environmental decision-making (Kameri-Mbote, 20003). This
aspect could have contributed to increased opportunities for everyone to participate in the
EIA process. Accordingly, the proponents should ensure enough opportunities, such as
holding consultative meetings in different venues exist for everyone to participate in the EIA
process, as enough opportunities help realize the effectiveness of public participation.
Table 4:17. Provision of opportunities to participate in the process
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 19 38.0
Agree 13 26.0
Unsure 12 24.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
59
Regarding whether there were opportunities for various key stakeholders to
participate during public participation meetings, the responses are shown in Table 4.18. Data
shows that 70.0% of the respondents agreed that opportunities for various key stakeholders to
participate during public participation meetings existed. Additionally, the results concur with
those reported in table 4.17. According to the report published by KARA, during the THIP,
various stakeholders were given equal opportunities to participate in the EIA process.
However, not all stakeholders considered the opportunities equal because some stakeholders
were left out such us matatu operators. The proponents should ensure equal opportunity for
every stakeholder to participate during public participation meetings by making them more
accessible and allowing more time for participation.
Table 4:18. Responses on opportunity for stakeholders’ participation
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 18 36.0
Agree 17 34.0
Unsure 9 18.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
Regarding whether the process of participation was not controlled by one or more
stakeholder(s), the responses are shown in Table 4.19. The results revealed that 64.0% of the
respondents agreed that the process of participation was not controlled by one or more
stakeholders. The firm of expert that carried out the EIA process involved all the stakeholders
during the public participation as required. Various studies also reported similar results
during the THIP. The findings are an indication that the public is becoming more aware of
their constitutional rights and embracing public participation as enshrined in the Kenyan
60
environmental laws. An all-inclusive process of participation guarantees wide varieties of
views are gathered and concerns from all the stakeholders are raised, considered and
feedback provided. The effectiveness of public participation can only be realized through the
inclusion of all stakeholders’ views into a project.
Table 4:19. Responses on control of the process of participation
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 21 42.0
Agree 11 22.0
Unsure 12 24.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
On whether the times for the meetings were convenient, the responses are shown in
Table 4.20. Results show that 70.0% of the respondents agreed that the time of meetings
were convenient. This was unlike in the THIP, which the participants noted that the time
allocated for meetings were not convenient (Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations &
CSUD, 2012). These results may explain why 30.0% of the respondents were unsure or
disagreed on the convenience of times for the meetings. Consequently, the GoK should
announce for public meetings with enough time for adequate participation and make them
accessible to a wide range of public participants. There is need to give adequate time for
public participation meeting to enable the stake holders to fully understand all the aspects of
the project that would affect them either positively or negatively. The stakeholders will on the
other hand give their views without limitation hence enhancing adequate participation. For
instance, the litigation on a section of the SBRP was because the inputs of the stakeholders
about the road encroaching on the Nairobi National Park were ignored by the government.
61
Table 4:20. Convenience of meetings times
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 16 32.0
Agree 19 38.0
Unsure 9 18.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
On whether the meeting venues were accessible and convenient, the responses are
shown in Table 4.21. The results show that 58.0 % of the respondents agreed that the venues
of the meetings were accessible and convenient. This percentage of respondents who agreed
is relatively low an indication of the low level of awareness. Accessibility of the meeting
places has been cited as one of the factors that affect public participation. The results show
that the conveners of the public participation meetings chose venues of the meetings, which
were easily accessible and convenient to stakeholders. These findings are in agreement with
the report about public participation during the THIP that indicated that the public does not
go out of their way to seek to participate and understand government project (Kenya Alliance
of Resident Associations & CSUD, 2012, p. 20).
It is important to carry out an area surveys of the proposed project expanse before the
actual meeting to identify the most accessible and convenient venues for the proposed public
participation meetings. The surveys are important as they help identify the likely
demographics of the likely participants, the topography of the area, the level of attendance,
the most effective means that may be used to mobile people, and the likely challenges to be
encountered.
62
Table 4:21. Accessibility of meeting venues
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 16 32.0
Agree 13 26.0
Unsure 15 30.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
On whether the language used during the meetings was well understood by the
participants, the responses are shown in Table 4.22. Results show that 70.0% of the
respondents agreed that the language used during the meetings was well understood by the
participants. A study by Okello identified language barrier and lack of familiarity with EIA
guidelines, as hindrances to public involvement in EIA (Okello & Douven, 2008. Language
barrier influences the comprehending of some of the aspects of the EIA, such as maps,
technical data, and environmental concepts such as policies and laws. Language barriers can
be reduced by use of translators, simplification of technical data, and use of the local native
language. The results shows that language barrier which is one of the factor cited in literature
as affecting effective participation was overcome in this project’s EIA process.
Table 4:22. The language used was understood by the participants
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 18 36.0
Agree 17 34.0
Unsure 9 18.0
Strongly Disagree 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
63
On the importance of public participation in the SPRP EIA, the responses are shown
in Table 4.23. Results show that 88.0% of the respondents indicated that public participation
in the SBRP EIA process was important. The support of public participation in the SBRP is
relatively high because the respondents wanted to have their view incorporated in the project
in addition to understanding the project’s benefits and harms. The respondents expected that
the EIA process on the SBRP would give them a chance to air their views on the road project.
The results shows how the interviewed viewed the importance of public participation of the
SPRP; however it is its utility or lack of it which lend to the litigation because the
government assumed road projects are straight forward project with little or no resistance.
Table 4:23. Importance of public participation in the project
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Very Important 18 36.0
Important 26 52.0
Not Important 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
On whether the respondents were satisfied with the way impacts were considered, the
responses are shown in Table 4.24. Results show that 52.0% of respondents were satisfied
with the way the significant impacts were considered. The low level of satisfaction could be
contributed to the fact that construction of one section of the road had already been stopped
during the study hence putting doubt on how the significant impacts were considered.
Consideration of significant impacts of any project is one of the essences of public
participation. The manner in which significant impacts are considered is important as it
determines the utility of the public participation and sustainability of a project.
64
Table 4:24. Respondent’s satisfaction with considerations of significant impacts
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Very satisfied 10 20.0
Satisfied 16 32.0
Unsure 15 30.0
Dissatisfied 3 6.0
Very Dissatisfied 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
Regarding the satisfaction of the respondents on the way mitigation measures were
proposed and recommended, the responses are shown in Table 4.25. Results show that 52.0%
of the respondents were satisfied with the manner in which the mitigation measures were
proposed and recommended. However proposing and recommending mitigation measures is
quite different from mitigating as was noted in studies done by Irandu & Malii(2013) and
Waweru(2014). The studies noted that the road contractors did not adequately mitigate
against the adverse effects of the road construction, such as dust generated during the
construction of the road. The low level of satisfaction on how mitigation measures were
handled could be contributed to fact that the utility of public participation and EIA in general
in road projects in Kenya is still too low. Adequate mitigation of the adverse effects of the
road construction leads to less environmental impacts, such as dust disfiguring building,
respiratory ailments from dust, noise pollution and waste generation from construction
materials.
65
Table 4:25. Respondent’s satisfaction with proposed mitigation measures
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Very satisfied 11 22.0
Satisfied 15 30.0
Unsure 15 30.0
Dissatisfied 3 6.0
Very Dissatisfied 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
On the respondent’s satisfaction on the identification of project’s alternatives, the
responses in Table 4.26 show that 54.0% of the respondents were satisfied with the
identification of the project’s alternatives. The level of satisfaction was probably due to low
levels of awareness, inadequate information to facilitate participation, and that political and
economic considerations took precedence over environmental issues in the road project. The
low percentage i.e. 54.0% could be attributed to the fact that the road project was to pass
through the Nairobi National Park ignoring the environmental considerations. The utility of
public participation and EIA in general comes to play bearing in mind that the issue of
Nairobi National Park was raised by some Lead Agencies and some NGOs. Waweru, (2014)
noted that public participation and evaluation of alternatives are severely hindered because
political and economic considerations take precedence over environmental issues, especially
in large and complex projects. The identification of the project’s alternatives is important as it
gives the proponents options in the case the EIA process decides that the project is
unsustainable or unbeneficial.
66
Table 4:26. Respondent’s satisfaction with identification of the project’s alternatives
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Very satisfied 16 32.0
Satisfied 11 22.0
Unsure 17 34.0
Very Dissatisfied 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
Regarding the frequency of contacts between the interested and affected parties and
the project proponent, the responses is shown in Table 4.27. Results show that 48.0% of the
respondents indicated satisfaction. The low level of satisfaction observed in the study can be
explained by the fact that the EIA was done in the later stages of the road project, participants
were unaware of the follow up meeting after the commencement of the road project, and the
government provided inadequate information about the progress of the road project. In
addition, the result may confirm that the government as a proponent undertakes public
participation as a formality and often hurriedly. Most environmental assessments of projects
in Kenya involve large components of computer research thus discourage contact with
affected populations through focus group discussions and surveys (Kameri-Mbote, 2003).
The frequency of contact between the interested and affected parties and the project
proponent should be encourage to guarantee a thorough EIA process, whereby the
stakeholders concerns are addresses satisfactorily and in a timely manner.
67
Table 4:27. Respondent’s satisfaction with frequency of contact
Nature of Response Frequency of Response Percentage of Response
Very satisfied 15 30.0
Satisfied 9 18.0
Unsure 9 18.0
Dissatisfied 11 22.0
Very Dissatisfied 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
Regarding the extent to which ideas generated by the information feedback process
contributed to the decisions made on the project, the responses are shown in Table 4.28.
Results show that 54.0% of the respondents indicated satisfaction with the extent to which
ideas generated by the information feedback process contributed to the decisions made on the
project. The observed low percentage is probably because of the inadequate information
provided about the project, poverty levels that discouraged public participation. Political and
economic consideration took precedence. In Kenya, the public feel that they cannot make an
informed decision on the road and other development projects because the government
provides very little details about the projects. This study noted a dearth of information
regarding the SBRP.
Table 4:28. Satisfaction with ideas generated by the information feedback process
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Very satisfied 19 38.0
Satisfied 8 16.0
Unsure 14 28.0
Very Dissatisfied 9 18.0
Total 50 100.0
68
Data on whether the respondents were satisfied with the changes in route alignment
and other issues as a result of public participation, the responses as shown in Table 4.29.
Results show that 52.0% of the respondents were satisfied with the changes in route
alignment and other issues because of public participation exercise. Further, the 30.0% of the
respondents were unsure about the same issue. This could be contributed to the fact that the
issue of the road passing through the Nairobi National Park had not been resolved. These
results show how governments ignores results of public participation and the end results of
undertaking public participation and EIA in general late after the designs are already
approved. Often the public finds it hard to access the relevant information from the
government or project contractors about the projects. The level of accessibility of the relevant
information influences the level of awareness about projects specifics. These aspects might
have influenced the level of satisfaction.
Table 4:29. Levels of satisfaction with changes in route alignment
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Very satisfied 13 26.0
Satisfied 13 26.0
Unsure 15 30.0
Dissatisfied 3 6.0
Very Dissatisfied 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
Data on the satisfaction of the respondents on the approval of the SBRP are shown in
Table 4.30. The results indicate that 58.0% of respondents were satisfied with the approval of
the SBRP. This level of satisfaction could be attributed to the fact that roads are associated
69
with instant developments irrespective of any other effects it may have on the environment.
Those dissatisfied were probably the ones whose property/business was affected negatively
by the road project or they were more concern with the Nairobi National Park or the wildlife
in general.
Table 4:30. Levels of satisfaction with approval of the project
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Very satisfied 19 38.0
Satisfied 10 20.0
Unsure 15 30.0
Very Dissatisfied 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0
The respondents were asked their opinion on the overall rating of the whole public
participation process and their responses are summarized on Table 4:31. Resultsindicate that
44.0% of respondents rated the entire public participation process above good. A rating of
44.0% is low and is indicative of the weaknesses of the EIA Process. The notion by the
public that they cannot change government projects may also have contributed to the low
level of satisfaction. This notion is attributable to low awareness levels on the rights to public
participation. The results confirm the existing research, which suggest that public
participation during the EIA process is often overlooked. Various researchers found out that
participants in the EIA process, lack awareness of the process, lack adequate information to
influence decision, and are not involved in the crucial stages of projects, such as design and
planning stages of road projects.
70
Table 4:31. Rating of satisfaction with the whole public participation process
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
Very Poor 14 28.0
Poor 8 16.0
Fair 6 12.0
Good 3 6.0
Very Good 19 38.0
Total 50 100.0
On how to improve the public participation, the data is shown in Table 4.32. Results show
that 44.0% of the respondents had no idea on what can be done to improve the public
participation process. These results are indicative of the low level of awareness of the
environmental rights in addition to lack of/or low levels of understanding of the EIA process
in general and public participation aspect in particular. Thirty-two percent (32.0%) of the
respondents suggested the involvement of local religious leaders to improve the public
participation as religious leaders often interact with the locals and they can pass a lot of
information.
Table 4:32. Suggestions for improving public participation
Nature of Response Frequency Percentage
No Idea 22 44.0
By giving information 6 12.0
Involve the local religious leaders 16 32.0
By bringing in new stakeholders 3 6.0
By regarding everybody as important 3 6.0
Total 50 100.0
71
The study went further to establish how the Lead Agencies and other institutions
affected by the road project participated in the EIA of the road project. The Kenya Forest
Service (KFS) participated and urged the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) to
liaise with them before embarking on the project, to assess the trees that would be removed
along the proposed road for valuation and compensation in addition to applying for way leave
authorization from the director KFS.
The Kenya wildlife Service (KWS) participated and opposed the project on grounds
that the road would encroach into the Nairobi National Park.
They proposed the use of an underground tunnel at the point where the road curves into the
park to conform to the Civil Aviation Regulations that provision of a 300metres buffer zone
at the end of Wilson Airport. They further stated that the Nairobi National Park was gazetted
for wildlife and that no part shall be appropriated for other purpose without the approval of
the parliament. They objected to the encroachment of the park and recommended that
alternative alignments be sort.
East African Wildlife Society on behalf of Kenya Wildlife Conservation Forum echoed the
sediments of KWS. Kenya National Highways Authority participated and urged NEMA to
approve the road project excluding the section that was designed to pass through the National
Park, as there were negotiations between them and KWS over the 5km section, which was to
pass through the Nairobi National Park.
The then City Council of Nairobi also participated in the EIA process and stressed that the
mitigation measures outlined in the EIA report are adhered to and that the Environmental
Management Plan is implemented to the letter. They went further to stressed for
72
compensation of all the people affected by the project. On its part, NEMA received the EIA
study report of the proposed road project and dispatched copies to various lead agencies as
required by law. The authority prepared a notice to the public to submit comments on the EIA
study report and the proponent advertised the same in the Newspapers and the Kenya Gazette
as per the provisions of the EIA/EA Regulations 2003. The Authority issued an EIA license
for the road project after reviewing the EIA study reports and considering views of the
affected parties.
73
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations arising from
the findings of the study.
5.2 Summary of the Study Findings
The study evaluated the public participation of the SBRP in South West Nairobi,
Kenya. The study established the extent to which the public participated during the EIA of
the SBRP, factors influencing the level of public participation in the EIA process of the
SBRP. The study also assessed the impact of public participation on the EIA process of the
Road project and on design and implementation of the road project.
The study revealed that necessary information was provided on the negative and
positive impacts of the project, some of the issues raised by stakeholders were not
considered; thus affecting the utility of the public participation. Further, sufficient time was
given to participants to assess the implications of the project and submit their concerns.
Various stakeholders including the Kenya Wildlife Service proposed alternative
alignment of the road design to avoid the road passing through the Nairobi National Park.
However, since the road design had been completed before the EIA process begun, the KWS
inputs were ignored resulting in litigation and subsequent suspension of construction on a
section of the 28.6 Km Southern Bypass Road a further indication that the utility of the public
participation was not realized in the SBRP.
The study also revealed that although a process of dialogue and mutual agreement
among participants existed, adequate opportunities for everyone to participate in the process
74
were provided. Additionally, various key stakeholders had opportunities to participate during
public participation meetings. It is impossible to guarantee adequate opportunities for every
stakeholder to take part in public participation because of time and resource limitations. The
inputs provided during the public participation can only be useful if they influence the
decision-making process and if completed at the right stage, which was not the case in the
SBRP.
The process of participation was not controlled by one or more stakeholder and that
time and venues of meetings were convenient to the participants. Individuals/ stakeholders
were allowed to express their views, fears and values freely. The language used during the
meetings was well understood by the participants. It was also revealed that public viewed
participation in the SBRP EIA process as important. However, the significance of the
participation was not fully realized as some of the inputs of the stakeholders were
inapplicable.
The respondents were satisfied with the identification of the full range of impacts,the
way in which the significant impacts were considered and how the mitigation measures were
proposed and recommended. However, they were dissatisfied with the identification of the
project’s alternatives. Overall, they were satisfied with the approval of the project.
The public was involved in the EIA through Focus Group Discussions, consultative
meetings. A big fraction of respondents were of the opinion that and maps provided were
sufficient to enable them to comprehend and visualize the project. The information provided
to the respondents about the SBRP EIA was scarce. It was also established that the majority
of the respondents participated at various stages of the EIA process. Findings also revealed
that respondents participated after the publication of the EIA report in the newspapers.
75
The extent to which the public participated during the EIA of the SBRP was limited
as majority of the participants disagreed that they were adequately involved in the project
planning and design. The public was fairly allowed to express their view values and fears of
the project however, the public was not involved in decision-making process as the SBRP
had already been designed and the contract awarded before the EIA was undertaken.
The level of awareness, education level, income levels, awareness of public
participation requirements in development projects, and mobilization of the public were the
factors that influenced public participation during the SBRP. Other factors identified were the
various stages at which the public was involved, the information provided to the public, the
level of public consultations during project planning and design and the public attitude
towards the project; hence, their participation and ability to influence decision was limited.
Public participation influenced the EIA process of the SBRP because institutions
affected by the road project and various Lead Agencies aired their views on the project to the
NEMA. The contentious issues concerning the SBRP encroaching on the Nairobi National
Park resulted in the matter being litigated in the National Environment Tribunal.
The public participation of the SBRP did not influence the design and implementation
of the road project as the proponent of the road had already designed and awarded the
construction tender of road before the EIA was undertaken.
76
5.3 Conclusion
The public participation aspect and the entire EIA process of the SBRP came too late
in the project cycle hence it could not influence the design of the road. This is evident as the
construction contract had already been awarded to China Roads and Bridge Corporation who
together with KeNHA were undertaking the EIA of the road based on the design provided by
the client, the Government of Kenya; thus, contravening Section (63) of the EMCA (1999).
The awarding of the SBRP contract before the undertaking of an EIA of the SBRP
was a violation of Part VI, Section (63) of the Kenyan Environmental Management and Co-
ordination Act, 1999, which states that,
“The Authority may, after being satisfied as to the adequacy of an environmental
impact assessment study, evaluation or review report, issue an environmental impact
assessment license on such terms and conditions as may be appropriate and necessary
to facilitate sustainable development and sound environmental management”(GoK,
1999).
Violation of Section (63) of EMCA is an indication that the effectiveness/utility of the public
participation was not realized in the SBRP.
The Kenyan government, the proponent in the SBRP, was guilty of an offense by
contravening Section (64) subsection (2) of EMCA. The Kenyan government, as the
custodian of the Kenyan laws should desist from breaking the laws, to ensure the utility of the
EIA process general and public participation in particular is realized. The public participation
and the EIA of the SBRP was undertaken as a formality.
77
5.4 Recommendations
5.4.1 Policy Recommendations
The study recommends that Government of Kenya should adhere and enforce the
EMCA in all its projects to improve the utility of public participation, such as in the
designing of road projects. The utility of public participation during the EIA process can only
be realized if the public participation is done at the planning stage to ensure that it influences
the design and implementation of projects.
The Government (proponent) should not award the tenders for the construction of
roads or any projects before the EIA as per the provisions of Part VI, Section (58) and (63) of
the EMCA (1999). The observance of the EMCA would have ensured that the concerns
raised by the stakeholders were addresses before the project began.
The factors identified as barriers to effective public participation, i.e. the level of
awareness, education level, income levels, awareness of public participation requirements in
development projects, and mobilization of the public, various stages of participation and
public attitude towards the project should be addressed early in the planning stages of the
project. The level of public consultations during project planning and design should be
enhanced through mutual agreement and collaboration with various stakeholders while the
public attitude towards the government project should be enhanced through grassroots
sensitization programs.
In addition to EMCA, supplementary regulations should be put in place detailing the
methods of undertaking public participation, the timing, the information to be availed to the
public in order to improve the effectiveness /utility of public participation.
78
Major road projects are in the Second Schedule of EMCA and are subject to EIA
process, which must be undertaken early enough, and not as a formality. The government
should ensure that all her projects adhere to the set laws and policies to avoid setting a bad
precedent to the other developers.
5.4.2 Recommendations for Further Studies
Furthers studies should be undertaken to establish why the Government projects are
undertaken without following the set down laws, polices and regulations. Further studies
should be undertaken to evaluate the parpublic participation in the EIA process of the on-
going major road projects and recently constructed road to establish whether the results will
mirror the findings of this study. Studies should also be undertaken to establish the
implications of the trade offs which allowed the construction of the section of Southern
Bypass road through the Nairobi National Park. Additional research should be undertaken on
how to improve the utility public participation in EIA process for new projects.
79
REFERENCES
Abaza, H., Bisset, R., Sadler, B., & UNEP. Economics and Trade Branch. (2004).
Environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment: Towards
an integrated approach. Geneva: UNEP.
Abelson, J., Gauvin, F.-P., & Canadian Policy Research Networks. (2006). Assessing the
impacts of public participation: Concepts, evidence and policy implications. Ottawa,
Ontario: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Africa Centre for Open Governance. (2012). Public Participation under Kenya's New Public
Financial Management Law and Beyond. Nairobi, Kenya: AFRICOG.
Africa Network for Animal Welfare and others vs. Director General, National Environment
Management Authority (NEMA) and others, NET/91/2012 (The National
Environment Tribunal at Nairobi May 30, 2013).
Agaja, S. (2013). Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports: The
Nigerian Experience. 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for
Impact Assessment. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Calgary Stampede BMO Centre, 1-5.
Alam, S., Atapattu, S., Gonzalez, C. G., & Razzaque, J. (2015). International Environmental
Law and the Global South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
André, P., Enserink, B., Connor, D., &Croal, P. (2006).Public Participation International Best
Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 4. Fargo, USA: International
Association for Impact Assessment.
Aregbeshola, M. T. (2009). Public participation in environmental impact assessment: an
effective tool for sustainable development a South African perspective (Gautrain). M.
Sc. Thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
80
Brody, S. D. (2003). Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on the Quality of
Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 4, 407-419.
Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D. & Bond, A. (2004).The interminable
issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the
advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 22 (4), 295-310.
Dalal-Clayton, D. B., & Sadler, B. (2005).Strategic environmental assessment: A sourcebook
and reference guide to international experience. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Dalton, T. M. (2005) Beyond Biography: a framework for involving the public in planning of
U.S marine protected areas." Conservation Biology 19 (6), 1392-1402.
Dietz, T, & Stern, P. C. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and
decision-making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, p. 1.
Dougherty, T. C., Hall, A. W., & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
(1995). Environmental impact assessment of irrigation and drainage projects. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Duflo, E. (2012). Women's Empowerment and Economic Development. Journal of Economic
Literature, 50(4), 1051-79.
Fitzpatrick, P. & Sinclair, A. J. (2003). Learning through involvement in environmental
assessment hearing. Journal of environmental Management, 67 (12), 161-174.
Fonji, S. F, Larrivee, M., &Taff, G. N. (2014). Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for Regional
Mapping and Environmental Awareness. Journal of Geographic Information System,
6 (2), 135-149.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2005). Introduction to environmental impact
assessment. London: Routledge.
81
Green, P., & Cornell, D. (2005). Rethinking Democratic Theory: The American Case.
Journal of Social Philosophy, 36 (4), 517-535.
Gugushvili, T. (2005). Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making - Case Study
of Georgia. Yale: The Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
Harmer, Clare. (2005). Improving the Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in
the UK Dependent on the Use of Follow-up? Views of Environmental Consultants.
Norwich: University of East Anglia.
Heiland, S. (2005). Requirement and methods for public participation in SEA. In M. Schmidt,
E. M. João, & E. Albrecht, Implementing strategic environmental assessment. Berlin:
Springer, pp. 421-432.
Hughes, Ross (1998). Environmental impact assessment and stakeholder involvement.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development, pp. 21-26.
Huston, J. L. (2006). Stephen A. Douglas and the dilemmas of democratic equality. Lanham,
Md. [u.a.: Rowman & Littlefield, p. 138.
International Association for Impact Assessment. (2015). What Is Impact Assessment?
Retrieved from: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-
publications/What%20is%20IA_web.pdf
Irandu, E., & Malii, J. (2013). Nairobi-Thika Highway Improvement Project. An
Environmental Assessment. Nairobi: University of Nairobi and Center for Sustainable
Urban Development, pp. 1-14.
Jackson, L S. (2001). Contemporary Public Involvement: toward a strategic approach. Local
Environment 6 (1), 135-147.
Joint Research Centre (2014). Environmental monitoring. Retrieved from:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/environmental-monitoring
82
Kakonge, John O. (2006). Environmental Planning in Sub-Saharan Africa: Environmental
Impact Assessment at the Crossroads. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry &
Environmental Studies, pp. 1-42.
Kameri-Mbote, P. (2003). Strategic Planning and Implementation of Public Involvement in
Environmental Decision-Making as they relate to Environmental Impact Assessment
in Kenya. Geneva: International Environmental Law Research Centre, pp. 1-26.
Kende-Robb, C., & van Wicklen, W. A. (2008). Giving the most vulnerable a voice. In K.
Ahmed, & E. S. Triana, Strategic environmental assessment for policies: an
instrument for good governance (pp. 95-125). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations & CSUD. (2012). Thika Highway Improvement
Project. The Social/Community Component of the Analysis of the Thika Highway
Improvement Project. Nairobi: Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations & Center for
Sustainable Urban Development.
Kosamu, I. B. M., Mkandawire, A. A., Utembe, W. & Mapoma, H. W. T. (2013). Public
participation in Malawi’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. African
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 7 (5), 307-311.
Kumar, S. (2014). Sustainable Development and Environmental Impact Assessment.
Retrieved from: http://www.visionriviewpoint.com/article.asp?articleid=30.
Laurian, L. (2004). Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Findings from
Communities Facing Toxic Waste Cleanup. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 70(2), 53-65.
Lawrence, D. P. (2003). Environmental impact assessment: Practical solutions to recurrent
problems. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley-InterScience.
83
Marara, M., Okello, N., Kuhanwa, Z., Douven, W., Beevers, L., & Leentvaar, J. (2011). The
importance of context in delivering effective EIA: Case studies from East Africa.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3), 286-296.
Martin, T. (2007). Muting the Voice of the Local in the Age of the Global: How
Communication Practices Compromised Public Participation in India's Allain
Dunhangan Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Communication, 1(2),
171-193.
Marzuki, A. (2009). A review on public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in
Malaysia. Theoretical and Empirical Research in Urban Management 3 (12), 126-
136.
McGlashan, D. J., & Williams, E. (2003). Stakeholder Involvement in Coastal Decision-
making Processes. Local Environment, 8 (5), 85-94.
Montes, J. (2008). Community Environmental Assessment in Rural Kenya: Decision Making
for the Future. Winnipeg: Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, p. 11.
Morrison-Saunders, A., & Early, G. (2008). What is necessary to ensure natural justice in
environmental impact assessment decision-making? Journal of Environmental Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26 (1), 29-42.
Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003).Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies.
Muigua, K. (2012). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya:
Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at University of Nairobi.
Munyinda, N. S., & Habasonda, L. M. (2013). Public Participation in Zambia. The Case of
Natural Resources Management. Lusaka: Danish Institute for Human Rights.
84
Murombo T. (2008). Beyond Public Participation: The Disjuncture between South Africa's
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law and Sustainable Development.
Potchefstroom Electronic Law J. (PER), 3, 1-31.
National Environment Management Authority. (2003). The Environmental (Impact
Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003. Legal Notice No. 101. Nairobi, Kenya:
National Environment Management Authority.
National Environment Management Authority. (2011). National guidelines for strategic
environmental assessment in Kenya. Retrieved from: http://www.nema.go.ke
Ndaiga, H. (2014, April 8). Nairobi Southern Bypass runs into trouble again. Construction
Business Review, p. Online.
Nkambwe, M., Chenje, M., Ambala, C., & Ocholla, W. (2006). Training Manual on
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Reporting in Africa. Nairobi: UNEP, the
International Institute for Sustainable Development and Ecologistics International
Ltd.
Nkambwe, Musisi, Munyaradzi Chenje, Christopher Ambala, and Washington Ocholla.
Training Manual on Integrated Environmental Assessment and Reporting in Africa.
Africa: UNEP, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), and
Ecologistics International Ltd, 2006, 3-4.
Okello, N., & Douven, W. (2008). Breaking Kenyan Barriers to Public Involvement in
Environmental Impact Assessment. Perth, Australia: The Art and Science of Impact
Assessment 28th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact
Assessment.
Okello, N., Beevers, L., Douven, W., & Leentvaar, J. (2009). The doing and un-doing of
public participation during environmental impact assessments in Kenya. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(3), 217-226.
85
Okidi, C. O., Kameri-Mbote, P., & Akech, J. M. (2008). Environmental governance in
Kenya: Implementing the framework law. Nairobi: East African Educational
Publishers.
Petts, J. (2001). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes: Waste Management
Case-studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44, 2, 207-226.
Rauchmeyer, F. & Risse, N. (2005). A framework for the selection of participatory
approaches for SEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (3), 650-666.
Rawls, J. (2013). A theory of justice. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co Ltd.
Royse, D. D. (2011). Research methods in social work. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole-
Thomson Learning.
Sadler, B., Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, & International Association for
Impact Assessment. (1996). Environmental assessment in a changing world:
Evaluating practice to improve performance. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency.
Saidi, T. A. (2010). Environmental Impact Assessment as a Policy Tool for Integrating
Environmental Concerns in Development. AISA Policy Brief, 19 (10), 1-7.
Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2001).Public involvement in EA in Canada: a transformative
learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21 (2), 113-136.
Soneye, A. (2010). Environmental Impacts of Road Transport Development in Nigeria: An
Assessment of Lagos Ikorodu Highway Using GIS. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 2 (10), 24.
Spaling, H., Montes, J., & Sinclair, J. J. (2011). Best Practices for Promoting Participation
and Learning for Sustainability: Lessons from Community-Based Environmental
Assessment in Kenya and Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 13 (3), 343.
86
Tang, Shui-Yan, Ching-Ping Tang, & Wing-Hung Lo. (2005). Public Participation and
Environmental Impact Assessment in Mainland China and Taiwan: Political
Foundations of Environmental Management. The Journal of Development Studies, 41
(1), 1-32.
The Republic of Kenya. (1999). Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999.
The Republic of Kenya.
The Republic of Kenya. (2010). Constitution of Kenya. Nairobi: National Council for Law
Reporting.
UNEP. (2002). Scoping. In UNEP Environmental Impact Assessment (pp. 225-251). Nairobi,
Kenya: UNEP.
United Nations Environmental Program. (2000). Report of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development. Policy Report, Rio de Janeiro: United Nations
Environmental Program.
United Nations. (2002). World Summit on Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
http://www.un-documents.net/jburgpln.htm
Walker, H. (2012). Community Participation in Strategic Environmental Assessment: An
Exploration of Process and Learning Outcome in Kenya. Winnipeg, Manitoba:
University of Manitoba.
Wathern, P. (2013). Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice. Hoboken:
Taylor and Francis.
Waweru, C. N. (2014). Effects of dust on the wellbeing of people in learning institutions and
businesses along Wamagana-ihithe road in Nyeri County. Nairobi: University of
Nairobi.
87
Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2006). Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in
Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case
Studies. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 699-722.
Wetang’ula, G. N. (2010). Public Participation in Environmental and Socioeconomic
Considerations for Proposed 2.5 MW Pilot Eburru Geothermal Power Project, Kenya.
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, 25-29.
Wood, C. (2003). Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries: An Overview.
Conference on New Directions in Impact Assessment for Development: Methods and
Practice. Manchester, 1-28.
Wood, C. (2014). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. London:
Routledge.
World Bank. (1996). The World Bank Participation Sourcebook: Environmentally
Sustainable Development Publications. 1996.
Zhou, Z. (2012). Public Participation in EIA, China. Norwich: University of East Anglia.
88
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I:
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
I am David Njagi Ngonge, a student at Centre for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law &
Policy (CASELAP) University of Nairobi undertaking a Master’s Degree course in
Environmental Law.
I am currently “Evaluation of Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) Process in Kenya: A Case Study of the Southern Bypass Road in South West
Nairobi”.
As a part of the research work, it is essential to carry out a survey on how the public was
involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process. I hereby solicit your kind support
in this regard, as your opinion and the information you provide is very crucial to the study
findings, validity, conclusions and recommendations.
I assure you that the information provided will be used for the purpose of this study and will
be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Thank you for your kind support.
89
APPENDIX 2:
QUESTIONNAIRES FOR THE RESPONDENTS
PLEASE MARK THE APPROPRIATE BOXES PART A: Personal Information 1: Gender Male 1 Female 2 2: Age Bracket 18-25 1 26-35 2 36-45 3 46-55 4 56-65 5 Above 65 6 3: Highest academic qualifications Primary 1 Secondary 2 Post-Secondary Certificate 3 Diploma 4 Degree 5 Masters and above 6 Others (specify) 7 PART B: Public Participation in the EIA Process of Southern Bypass Road Project B1: Where do you live? _______________________________ B2: Approximately, how far is the Southern Bypass road project from your residence? 0 – 50 meters 1 51 – 100 meters 2 101 – 150 meters 3 151 – 200 meters 4 200 meters and beyond 5
90
B3: What is your occupation? Formal employment 1 Informal employment 2 Business 3 Student 4 Please give details ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ B4: Do you know about the Southern Bypass Road project?
1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( )
B5: If yes, how did you know about the project? Through:- Radio 1 Television 2 Newspapers 3 Community/religious gatherings 4 Posters 5 Others (please specify) 6 B6: Did you participate in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Southern Bypass road Project?
1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( ) B7: If yes, how did you participate? Through:- Questionnaire participation 1 Focus group discussions 2 Consultative and public participation meetings
3
Telephone 4 Others (please specify) 5 B8: How did you get information about the Road’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process? Through: Newspaper 1 Public notice 2 Questionnaire 3 Community/Religious gatherings 4 All of the above 5 Others (please specify) 6
91
B9: At what stage of the EIA process of the road’s project did you participate? Screening 1 Scoping 2 Baseline study 3 Impacts Assessment and Evaluation 4 After publication of the EIA report in the Newspapers
5
Other (please specify) 6 B10: Please indicate your level of agreement of the entire EIA process of the road project. 1= Strongly Agree (SA) 2= Agree (A) 3= Unsure (U) 4= Disagree (D) 5= Strongly Disagree (SD) (SA) (A) (U) (D) (SD) The public were consulted early during the project planning and design
1 2 3 4 5
The need and purpose of the project were clearly stated when the EIA process started
1 2 3 4 5
Adequate information was provided on negative and positive impacts of the project
1 2 3 4 5
The data and maps provided were sufficient to enable participants to comprehend and visualize the project
1 2 3 4 5
Sufficient time was given to participants to assess the implications of the project and submit their concerns
1 2 3 4 5
B11: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements Statement (SA) (A) (U) (D) (SD) The need and purpose of the project were clearly stated 1 2 3 4 5 Adequate information was provided on the negative aspects of the project
1 2 3 4 5
The public was involvement in project planning 1 2 3 4 5 Adequate information was provided on the positive of the project
1 2 3 4 5
The public was involved in project design 1 2 3 4 5 The public was allowed to express their view values and fears of the project
1 2 3 4 5
The public was involved in decision making process 1 2 3 4 5 There was a process of dialogue and mutual agreement among participants
1 2 3 4 5
There was adequate opportunities for everyone to participate in the process
1 2 3 3 3
1 2 3 4 5
92
B12: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements (SA) (A) (U) (D) (SD) There was opportunity for various key stakeholders to participate during public participation meetings
1 2 3 4 5
The process of participation was not controlled by one or more stakeholder (s)
1 2 3 4 5
The time of meetings was convenient 1 2 3 4 5 The venue of the meetings were accessible and convenient 1 2 3 4 5 Individuals were allowed to express their views, fears and values freely
1 2 3 4 5
The language used during the meetings was well understood by the participants
1 2 3 3 3
Interested and affected parties were frequently updated with the development of the project
1 2 3 4 5
B13: Please indicate the level of importance of public participation in the EIA process in the road Project. 1 = Very Important 2 = Important 3 = Not Important 4 = Not Very Important (VI) (I) (NI) (NVI) How would you scale the importance of public participation in the Southern Bypass Road Project EIA process?
1 2 3 4
B13: What were your expectations of the EIA process on the Southern Bypass Road project? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ B14: Were your expectations met?
1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( ) If Yes, state how and if No explain ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
93
B15: Using the scale below, please indicate your level of satisfaction regarding the process of identifying the project’s impact. 1= very satisfied (VS) 2= Satisfied (S) 3= unsure (U) 4= Dissatisfied (D) 5= Very Dissatisfied (VD) (VS) (S) (U) (D) (VD) The full range of impacts were sufficiently identified 1 2 3 4 5 Were you satisfied with the way in which the significant impacts were considered?
1 2 3 4 5
Are you satisfied with how the mitigation measures were proposed and recommended?
1 2 3 4 5
Please indicate your level of satisfaction regarding the of identification of the project’s alternatives as indicated (VS) (S) (U) (D) (VD) Identification of the project alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 B16: Were you given feedback on your project proposals and/or inputs?
1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( ) If yes, indicate how and if No, explain ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ B17: Please indicate your satisfaction with the feedback process of the road project EIA process. 1= Very Satisfied (VS) 2= Satisfied (S) 3= Unsure (U) 4= dissatisfied (D) 5= Very Dissatisfied (VD) (VS) (S) (U) (D) (VD) Are you satisfied with the frequency of contact between the interested and affected parties and the project proponent?
1 2 3 4 5
Are you satisfied with the extent to which ideas generated by the information feedback process contributed to the decisions made on the project?
1 2 3 4 5
How satisfied are you with the changes in route alignment and other issues as a result of public participation exercise?
1 2 3 4 5
Are you satisfied with the approval of the project? 1 2 3 4 5
94
B18:Were stakeholders’ views during public participation incorporated in the project design?
1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( ) B12: How and to what extend were stakeholders’ views incorporated in the project design? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ B19: Do you agree that public participation during the EIA process allows for expression and incorporation of key concerns and views on the project?
1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( ) If yes, state how and if No, explain ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ B20: In your opinion, did public participation during the EIA process of the road project increase the project cost?
1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( ) Please explain your answer ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ B21: Does public participation delay project implementation?
1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( ) Please explain your answer ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
95
B22: Overall, how appropriate, in your own opinion, was the whole public participation process? Please tick as appropriate 1= very poor 2= poor 3= fair 4= good 5= very good B23: How do you think the public participation process can be improved? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Thank you.
